Board rejects rezoning for Valley Farms solar project after contested public hearing; PAD vote not taken

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors heard more than two hours of testimony April 30 on a proposed rezoning and planned area development (PAD) for the Valley Farms Energy Center, a proposed solar photovoltaic project with battery energy storage on roughly 160 acres east of Highway 87 near Bartlett Road. After testimony from project proponents, local officials and more than a dozen residents, the board voted on the rezoning ordinance and failed to approve it; a related PAD item was not adopted because the rezoning motion failed.

Applicant NextEra Energy Resources submitted materials for a zone change from General Rural (GR) to I‑3 (industrial) and a PAD overlay to limit uses and set development standards for a roughly 60‑acre area described by staff as the "best area" for battery storage within the parcel. Planning staff told the board the rezoning is consistent with a prior comprehensive plan amendment that designated the area for green energy production.

At the planning and zoning commission the case had passed 7‑0 with seven stipulations. NextEra representatives, and several invited speakers including utility and business leaders, urged approval; speakers highlighted the project's proximity to an existing Salt River Project 230 kV transmission line (the Abel‑Randolph line), the county's need for additional power and storage, local economic benefits and the company's community investments. SRP representatives said battery storage helps balance the grid and supports local customers.

Opponents — including Coolidge city staff and numerous residents — raised concerns about public safety, battery‑storage fire risks, potential impacts to future municipal growth corridors (including the North‑South Corridor and Coolidge growth areas), property values, long‑term decommissioning and whether the project is sited in the correct location. Several residents cited recent high‑profile battery‑storage fires elsewhere and urged a cautious approach. The City of Coolidge submitted a formal letter opposing the rezoning because the project lies within a corridor the city has identified for long‑term municipal growth and a potential arterial/expressway alignment.

Planning staff notified the board that, during the filing period, the county had received substantive numbers of both support and opposition; staff said two additional letters of opposition within the 300‑foot notification swath triggered Arizona Revised Statute 11‑814 requirements for a supermajority (three‑quarters) vote on the rezoning because of objections both by area and number of property owners in the zone‑of‑influence. The board took a roll‑call vote on the rezoning ordinance and the motion failed (2‑3). Because the zoning ordinance did not pass, the PAD ordinance had no legal effect and no vote was taken on it.

Board members cited a range of considerations in their remarks. Supervisors who opposed the rezoning said the site is in a location the City of Coolidge sees as part of its future growth area and expressed concern about the proximity to residences, potential evacuation risks in a battery fire and uncertainty about long‑term impacts on local planning. Supervisors voting to approve stressed the county's earlier comprehensive plan designation for green energy production at this parcel, the presence of nearby transmission infrastructure, and the economic and grid benefits proponents described.

The vote leaves the property zoned GR. Applicant and staff may choose to revise the proposal and return, or pursue other siting options consistent with county zoning and the comprehensive plan. The board record shows memoranda and letters submitted by both proponents and opponents will remain part of the public record for any future filing.