Planning commission recommends Advancing Maricopa 2026 general plan, 5–1

The City of Maricopa Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5–1 on April 27 to recommend the Advancing Maricopa 2026 general plan update to the City Council, advancing a state‑mandated process that could put the plan before voters in November.

Matthew, a consultant with Michael Baker International, told the commission the plan is a 10‑year, policy‑level roadmap rather than an ordinance and that Arizona law requires two public hearings before the commission and a 60‑day review period. "After the second public hearing, that is where we make a formal recommendation to council," Matthew said, noting the commission’s recommendation would move the draft to a council work session May 19 and a council public hearing June 2. He said council approval must occur at least 120 days before the Nov. 3 election for the plan to appear on the ballot.

The presentation described how the draft refines the existing plan’s structure—reducing roughly 83 goals to 44 and narrowing policies from about 363 to 242 to remove redundancy—and summarized outreach: three community workshops, an online project page and more than 700 survey responses and 2,000 individual comments, including 228 comments submitted during the required 60‑day review.

Public commenters urged the commission to tighten links between growth and infrastructure, assign measurable timeframes to major projects, and address specific traffic and safety concerns. "I would encourage clearer alignment between growth and infrastructure," said Tina Dugan, who also reported a broken project website link and asked how residents could review public comments. Ron Adrami told the commission the 427‑page draft lacked revenue expectations and called for quantifiable results and timelines; he also urged the city to plan to remove the traffic light at Casablanca on State Route 347, calling it a public‑safety priority. Britney Pissola said public outreach felt inadequate and said the draft language is lengthy and difficult for residents to parse.

Matthew responded to public concerns by saying the general plan intentionally sets broad policy and that implementation detail and funding commitments typically appear in the city’s capital improvement plan, zoning updates and other action documents. He said the project website (maricopagp.com) hosts the draft plan and the public outreach summary and that staff would add the comments received during the commission process.

During deliberations, commissioners pressed for clarity on annexation and the extent of city authority over the larger planning boundary. Matthew said the municipal limits shown in the draft are distinct from the wider planning area and reiterated that development authority for unincorporated areas remains with Pinal County; annexation requires contiguity and property‑owner consent under state law.

Commissioner Thomas moved to recommend approval of the draft plan; the motion was seconded and carried by roll call, 5 in favor and 1 opposed. The commission directed staff and the consultant to prepare a summary of the public comments and any recommended changes for the May 19 City Council work session. If the council approves the plan and it meets the statutory timing, the city would place the measure on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot for voter ratification.

The commission then heard brief staff scheduling items and adjourned.