A judge invalidated the approvals for a proposed Costco in northwest Fresno, siding with an environmental group that argued the city did not properly assess the project’s impacts.

Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jonathan Skiles ruled in favor of the Herndon-Riverside Coalition for Responsible Planning and Development, saying the city of Fresno failed to conduct an adequate environmental impact report.

Skiles, in a 13-page ruling issued July 17, issued a writ of mandate setting aside certification of the EIR and approvals of the project. He heard arguments in his Fresno County Superior Court room on June 18.

“Let a writ of mandate further issue commanding the City of Fresno to refrain from further approvals of the Project unless and until the City certifies a revised EIR and makes findings in compliance with CEQA,” Skiles wrote, referring to the California Environmental Quality Act, the state’s environmental review law. He was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010.

It remains unclear what the ruling means for Costco’s plans to move to a new 219,000-square-foot location at Herndon Avenue and Riverside Drive. The big-box retailer has sought to move from its location on Shaw Avenue near Highway 99 — opened in 1985 — since at least 2020.

Costco did not respond to a request for comment.

Karbassi: ‘Fully Committed’ to Costco

Fresno City Council President Mike Karbassi — who represents the area — criticized the environmental group.

“It’s just another example of how you have professional environmental agitators that just want to use the legal system to do everything they can to prevent any growth and development in this city,” Karbassi said.

He argued the biggest loser is Fresno’s middle class.

“I am fully committed to there being a Costco that stays in Fresno. I’m going to do everything I can to make sure this site could be that site,” Karbassi said. “I am committed to keeping Costco and the construction jobs here at Fresno.”

Options include another attempt at rezoning the property. An appeal is still an option for the city.

Dan Waterhouse, vice chair of the environmental coalition, said his group are not obstructionists.

“People can believe what they want to, but quite frankly, despite some hyperbolic comments coming from certain city councilmembers, that’s not our intent. We never were and are not trying to obstruct the project. We just want the city to fulfill its requirements under land use planning law,” Waterhouse said.

The coalition would accept a Costco if the city follows environmental law, he said.

“We’re not opposed if the City does the right work and has a candid discussion to which the electeds are accountable,” Waterhouse said.

The Judge’s Ruling

The proposed Costco would feature the usual retail building and gas station, but also a car wash, and a “last mile” warehouse within the retail building.  The city council approved the project — including the environmental report — in April 2024. The process took four years.

The lawsuit focused on the “last mile” warehouse — also known as a market delivery operation — which would store items, readying for home delivery. The proposed warehouse within a warehouse is 47,000 square feet.

The environmental coalition argued that the MDO is an industrial use, and not allowed for the retail zoning the city approved. The city argued it is an accessory use.

“The portions of the records cited do not demonstrate that there was any finding that the MDO was fully integrated into the retail warehouse or a finding that the MDO was subordinate to the principal use of the retail warehouse that would support the use as an ‘Accessory Use,’ “ Skiles wrote.

The judge also agreed with the coalition that the EIR failed to adequately assess greenhouse gas emissions. He disagreed with the city’s conclusion that the new Costco would have “less than significant impact on climate change,” calling it “without foundation.”

The ruling favored the city in one area: Three nearby alternate sites mentioned in the lawsuit would not be feasible.

Third Big Land Use Loss for City

The city contracts with Aleshire & Wynder — a law firm with offices throughout the state including Fresno — for land use issues.

This is the third major land use case the law firm has lost. A judge recently ruled against the city for not approving an apartment complex in north Fresno.

In 2024, an appellate court ruled that the city cannot use a “blanket” environmental review to approve projects, after a Fresno judge ruled in the city’s favor.

Fresno City Attorney Andrew Janz defended the attorneys.

“My deputy city attorneys and outside counsel are doing an outstanding job in the face of challenging laws and facts. I continue to have full faith in their abilities and work product,” Janz said.

Karbassi is not concerned.

“We just live in a very progressive state that doesn’t consider the full ramifications of these environmental laws,” Karbassi said.

Janz cited several wins by Aleshire & Wynder attorney Anthony Taylor, including the approval of a industrial park in west Fresno, blocking Adventure Church’s attempt to purchase the Tower Theatre, and La Hacienda mobile home park.

Read Skiles’ Ruling