Judge throws out the case to stop Bay Area city's sixth Costco

"The proposed Costco at 5287 Prospect Road has been a hot button issue for years. The shopping center once had a Smart & Final, an Orchard Supply Hardware and a Midas, all of which would be demolished to make way for the Costco. In October 2024, the San Jose City Council unanimously approved the project over "vocal opposition" from community activists."

"At the time of the approval, Save West Valley co-founder Marc Pawliger told SFGATE that the warehouse store was "unfit for that location due to its massive scale" and proximity to Prospect High School. "The San Jose City Council's choice to approve the Costco project resolution despite overwhelming community opposition over student safety, overwhelming traffic from lack of road and parking capacity, and noise was expected," he added."

"Not long after the approval, the group West Valley Citizens for Responsible Development filed a civil suit against the City of San Jose. In the suit, they petitioned the Santa Clara County Superior Court to order the city to stop the project, alleging the city council violated zoning laws and did not properly conduct an environmental impact review."

"That petition was denied in full earlier this month by Judge Charles F. Adams. In his order, Adams wrote that because the shopping center is over 50 years old, it has a longstanding precedent for being zoned for commercial development. In addition, the judge ruled that the petitioners misinterpreted requirements for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act."

Judge Charles F. Adams denied the petition seeking to halt construction of a proposed Costco at 5287 Prospect Road, clearing the way for the project to proceed. The development would replace a Smart & Final, Orchard Supply Hardware and a Midas. The San Jose City Council unanimously approved the project in October 2024 amid community opposition citing student safety, traffic, parking and noise concerns. West Valley Citizens for Responsible Development sued, alleging zoning violations and inadequate CEQA review. The judge found a longstanding precedent for commercial zoning at the site and concluded the petitioners misinterpreted CEQA and failed to meet their burden.

Read at SFGATE