The Planning Commission on Oct. 14 continued the public hearing and decision on the Copper Ridge project, which proposes annexation, a general-plan amendment, pre-zoning, a tentative subdivision map, a planned unit development and certification of a mitigated negative declaration (MND No. 25-73).

Staff described the project scope: development of 83.61 acres into a residential subdivision containing 650 dwelling units (300 multi-family and 350 single-family), a 5.45-acre neighborhood mixed-use site, and the annexation of approximately 141.85 acres into the City of Hanford from Kings County jurisdiction. Staff said the proposal includes pre-zone requests to RM (medium-density residential) and MXN (neighborhood mixed use), a tentative tract (945) with an overall density of about 8.31 units per gross acre, and an estimated potential population increase of roughly 2,002 people using an average household size of 3.08 persons per household.

Staff recommended certification of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 25-73 and forwarded the land-use applications to the City Council with recommended resolutions. During the hearing an outside advisor who reviewed the environmental document raised multiple legal and substantive concerns, citing appellate guidance that annexations must evaluate impacts for annexed territory even if only part of the annexation is planned for immediate development, and flagged issues including farmland conversion assessment, groundwater/sustainable groundwater agency references, and vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) analysis. The commenter noted discrepancies between figures in the draft MND and earlier city-provided screening data.

The applicant and representatives responded, describing peer-reviewed water assessments by Wallace Engineers and the city-contracted engineer, and noting those consultants found adequate water supply for the project. Applicant representatives also said some concerns raised would be addressed by later, project-specific approvals (for example, a proposed schematic showing a potential future gas station would require its own review and a separate conditional-use process if pursued).

Commissioners discussed options, including continuation, approval with conditions or a recommendation against approval, and the chair noted that the planning commission’s role is to make a recommendation to City Council. Given the number and substance of the comments and the outstanding technical questions, a commissioner moved and a second was made to continue the item to allow the applicant and staff to address the flagged deficiencies. The commission then voted unanimously in favor of continuing the item to the planning commission’s next scheduled meeting.

Key project applications before the commission included Annexation No. 165, General Plan Amendment No. 0009-24, Pre-Zone No. 0013-24, Tentative Tract 945 (Tentative Map 00012-24), PUD No. 0037-24, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 25-73. Staff said the project had been made available for a 30-day public review period and that the city’s third-party peer reviewer had cleared the document for the staff recommendation; an outside legal reviewer and some commissioners disagreed that the MND adequately addressed all legal and local technical issues.

The continuation preserves the record and allows the applicant time to respond to the written comments and for staff to determine whether revisions (and potential recirculation) are necessary under CEQA. Staff advised that if revisions are substantial the document would likely require recirculation for public review (commonly a 30-day period); if not, a shorter notice referencing the existing circulation period could be used. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for a final decision on annexation and associated land-use approvals.