Hanford council delays decision on 650‑unit Copper Ridge project after residents raise traffic and water worries

Hanford — The City Council on Dec. 16 adopted the environmental finding for the Copper Ridge Mixed‑Use Project but stopped short of approving annexation and other related land‑use actions, instead continuing the public hearing to Jan. 20 to allow staff and the developer to supply more detail on traffic mitigations, water capacity and possible phasing.

Staff described Copper Ridge as a phased development proposal on roughly 83.6 acres south of the larger annexation area, proposing 650 dwelling units (350 single‑family and 300 multifamily), a 5.4‑acre commercial parcel, a planned‑unit development request for several deviations (reduced lot sizes and setbacks), and associated annexation and general plan amendments. The project team told council it had completed traffic‑ and water‑capacity analyses and made minor edits to environmental documents after earlier planning commission review.

During public testimony dozens of nearby residents urged denial or changes. "If you approve this project tonight without fixing the road first, you’re knowingly creating a public‑safety hazard," Andrea Barone said, calling 9¼ Avenue a corridor with chronic speeding and asking the council to require the developer to fund physical traffic calming before occupancy. Other speakers raised groundwater and irrigation concerns and said many neighbors reported not receiving early notifications.

Developer and project supporters countered that technical studies — including two independent water analyses — conclude there is adequate groundwater supply and that the proposed subdivision conforms with the city’s low/medium density parameters. Greg Nunley, who lives nearby and spoke in favor, said the project’s per‑acre density (about 8.3 units per acre) falls within allowable ranges and that the proposal includes on‑site mitigation obligations. He also suggested a phased compromise that would allow roughly half the project (330 single‑family homes) to proceed ahead of any higher‑density portions, with traffic re‑analysis at a defined build‑out trigger.

Council first voted to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project; the MND passed on the roll call. When asked to initiate annexation proceedings by directing staff to file a LAFCO application, the motion failed on a 2‑2‑1 split, with some members citing unresolved concerns over traffic, water subsidence risks and neighborhood compatibility. Facing those unresolved issues, council later voted to continue the hearing to Jan. 20 so staff and the applicant can present further traffic‑mitigation, phasing and water‑reliability options.

Next steps: the council’s January 20 meeting is the earliest date set to revisit the matter; if annexation is not initiated, staff said subsequent map or PUD approvals cannot proceed as presented because the site would remain outside city limits.