Sahuarita council reviews draft 2025 general plan; consultants to return with tightened language Feb. 23

Consultants from Michael Baker International walked the Town of Sahuarita council through the draft 2025 general plan during a Feb. 9 study session and asked council to identify wording changes before the plan moves to final consideration.

Matt Kliesico, the project manager identified in the presentation, said the update is a state‑mandated exercise that began in January 2024 and moves through three phases: existing conditions, drafting, and a statutorily required 60‑day review. He told council the process aims to produce a vision and policy document for voter ratification and stressed that "we're having a work session. So no decisions are being made this evening" while urging council to identify needed edits before the Feb. 23 meeting.

Why it matters: the general plan sets policy guidance that council will use when reviewing rezonings and other land‑use decisions; though the town does not control state or federal permitting agencies, council members said the plan should clearly indicate where the town has authority and where it does not.

Consultants summarized outreach that included in‑person workshops, online materials, and surveys that produced consistent participation across rounds (the second survey drew 224 responses and the third 340). The statutorily required 60‑day review (Oct. 1–Nov. 30) generated 37 resident comments and eight agency comments; consultants said those responses informed policy clarifications and an implementation matrix of short‑, mid‑ and long‑term actions.

Key themes raised during the session included balancing growth with preserving a "small‑town feel," water availability and conservation, air‑quality concerns, and aligning the plan with the town’s economic strategy. Kliesico said the draft preserves existing land‑use categories but clarifies parcel boundaries and recommended adding an implementation table so residents can see next steps for policies they approve.

The transportation and regional infrastructure maps prompted a focused exchange about the Sonoran Corridor and El Toro alignments. Kliesico said the corridor language on the maps reflects state or federal preferred alternatives and "it's not to suggest that this general plan is saying that's the preferred corridor." Council members asked for legend language and footnotes that clearly indicate those alignments are ADOT/federal projects and discussed whether the plan should include stronger language opposing specific corridor alignments.

Planning & Zoning input: Kliesico reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted two recent hearings and forwarded a recommendation to council that would approve the general plan subject to adding two policies: (1) consider the Pima County Conservation Land System map and guidelines during post‑annexation entitlement reviews; and (2) add a land‑use policy (LU‑3.5) that promotes development that respects local water resources and air quality.

Council direction: members asked consultants and staff to return Feb. 23 with word‑smithing options that (a) clarify the map legend and external project labels, (b) avoid implying town jurisdiction where authority is held by state or federal agencies, and (c) incorporate commission‑recommended policy language that balances economic opportunity with resource protection. Consultants said they will provide alternative wording and implementation options so council can focus on final language rather than drafting live at the meeting.

Next steps: staff and consultants plan to bring revised language and a recommended motion back to council on Feb. 23 so the council can consider formal adoption and, if approved, place the plan before voters in accordance with statutory timelines.

Ending: Council members thanked staff and the consultant team for outreach and work on the plan; the meeting was adjourned with no formal action taken on the general plan at this session.