The Fresno City Council did not approve the Southeast Development Area (SEDA) environmental review or the specific plan on Dec. 18, instead asking staff to take additional, targeted steps before any decision.

Mayor Jerry Dyer, who opened the evening hearing, said the administration’s priority is a narrowly defined first phase in the southern portion of SEDA — what staff and the mayor called “South SEDA” — and proposed safeguards including phased thresholds, a supplemental environmental review for later phases and a voter referendum option before permitting broad expansion. “Not 1 single piece of development will occur in the SEDA during my administration,” Dyer said, adding the city would conduct a financial analysis before returning to council.

Planning Director Jennifer Clark told the council staff’s preferred alternative — the consolidated business-park map in the EIR — concentrates flexible research-and-development uses in the southern portion and would be analyzed separately from any residential development. Clark said staff will prepare a fiscal impact analysis, an infrastructure-financing plan and an updated land-use map reflecting the selected alternative and return to council with findings in the spring or early 2026.

Councilmembers’ questions focused on water supply and infrastructure costs, tax-sharing, impacts on nearby school districts, and whether the plan would transfer tax revenue away from inner‑city neighborhoods. Councilmember Brandon Vang said he could not support SEDA “as it is today” and urged more time to study the project’s 10,000‑page record and its financial feasibility. Several other councilmembers said they would not vote for certification in the plan’s current form but supported public comment and further analysis.

The council’s final motion — amended on the dais — directs staff to analyze the consolidated business‑park alternative with South SEDA as Phase 1; to prepare a financial analysis and infrastructure financing plan; to bifurcate the study so the business‑park (R&D/industrial) and the residential pieces are evaluated separately; to examine community‑benefit funding, CFDs/EIFDs and other financing tools; and to propose firm phasing thresholds (including a higher residential buildout threshold and job/housing balance) and protections for Lone Star Elementary and other sensitive uses. The motion passed 5–2.

The council did not certify the EIR, adopt a specific plan, or approve any construction. Instead the body directed staff to publish source data and to return with a more granular report on costs, revenue projections, water and sewer infrastructure needs, traffic and vehicle‑miles‑traveled analysis, and mitigation options.

Public comment was extensive: more than 50 residents, farmers, teachers, union leaders and environmental advocates urged council to halt or rework the proposal, citing farmland loss, groundwater and well impacts, school enrollment and finance consequences, air quality, and the risk that long‑run infrastructure and service costs would fall on current residents. A smaller group of business and tourism leaders supported the business‑park consolidation that staff recommended, saying it would bring jobs and regional visits. The council's referral will be the next step in what officials said could be a months‑long process before any final action.

The council also preserved the right to tighten any return materials and requested explicit red‑lines of any legal or code changes before the next hearing. Staff said the project web page (fresno.gov/seda) holds the EIR appendices and will host future source data for the analyses requested by council. The council will review staff’s work when it returns; no construction approvals or EIR certifications were granted at the Dec. 18 meeting.