Stevens Ranch master‑plan amendment continued after questions about large‑lot industrial swap

The planning commission opened a quasi‑judicial hearing on June 8 for a text amendment to the Stevens Ranch master plan (PLEX 2025 0651) that would relocate the 50‑acre large‑lot industrial overlay from its existing location near 27th Street and Ferguson Road to a position along the master plan’s eastern boundary.

Karen Swinsson, senior planner, reviewed the master‑plan background: Stevens Ranch was adopted in 2021 and includes multiple residential phases, commercial phases and a designated 50‑acre large‑lot industrial site to satisfy a regional large‑lot industrial inventory and statewide planning Goal 9 policy. The applicant’s proposal would not change the overall acreage of industrial land but would swap the overlay location and adjust associated transportation mitigation sequencing and phasing maps.

Applicant counsel Tia Lewis and planner Matt Robinson said the move is intended to improve marketability of industrial parcels closer to 27th Street by freeing a rectangle of general industrial land for smaller industrial users while relocating the large‑lot overlay to a flatter, serviceable eastern area. Robinson said the large lot as originally mapped has seen little interest from traded‑sector users willing to take 50 acres at once and that moving the overlay could accelerate nearby infrastructure (notably Ferguson Road) and phased development.

Neighbors voiced concern about traffic, access and locating industrial uses behind existing homes. A nearby resident said Stevens Road access onto 27th is already congested and warned that shifting industrial activity eastward would increase truck traffic near residential streets and the library. Applicant teams said they have discussed market interest with smaller industrial users and submitted a transportation planning rule memo and a revised transportation mitigation table to staff.

The Department of State Lands submitted written comments raising four technical issues about continuity of the large‑lot site, compliance with Goal 9 site characteristics, transportation impacts and whether the 10‑year holding period for the overlay would be restarted. The department requested a continuance to provide written comment. Staff said the administrative rule defining a 50‑acre 'site' does not mandate contiguity across a dedicated right‑of‑way and that the project does not change the overall industrial acreage or the overlay’s 2031 holding requirement; the applicant disputed the need for delay and registered an objection to continuance.

State law gives participants the right to request a continuance before the close of the initial hearing. The commission granted a continuance to a date‑certain, scheduling the next hearing for July 13, 2026 at 5:30 p.m.; the record will be reopened that night so parties may present and rebut evidence. No final action was taken on the amendment at the June 8 meeting.