English Bulldog Puppies for Sale in San Jose, CA

A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge has tossed a lawsuit seeking to block plans to bring a new Costco to a West San Jose shopping center. The decision clears the way for the hotly contested development project to move forward.

The suit, backed by a resident group known as West Valley Citizens for Responsible Development, argued the San Jose City Council had erred in approving the Costco project in October 2024. The lawsuit, filed two months after the council vote, alleged the proposed 165,000-square-foot store at the Westgate West Shopping Center violated city zoning rules and the project’s environmental review process was inadequate.

Judge Charles Adams rejected the group’s arguments in a 28-page ruling delivered Jan. 5. The plaintiffs have roughly two months to file an appeal, according to a legal expert familiar with the case.

“West Valley Citizens for Responsible Development is understandably disappointed by the trial court’s decision, and is currently evaluating all options for possible next steps,” Anthony Arger, an attorney representing the group, told San José Spotlight.

Meanwhile, City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood celebrated the ruling as “thorough and thoughtful.” She also accused the plaintiffs of using the legal challenge over environmental concerns as a pretext to “obstruct or delay” the project.

“The decision means that this project can move forward, which will serve to revitalize and reuse existing empty and vacant commercial buildings, and generate sales tax that helps provide city services for residents,” Wood told San José Spotlight.

Costco representatives did not respond to a request for comment.

Residents have been up in arms over the proposed Costco ever since development plans for the site at 5287 Prospect Road first surfaced in 2021. They have warned the introduction of such a large retailer to the shopping center, which neighbors Prospect High School, would create severe traffic safety risks in the surrounding neighborhoods.

In their lawsuit, the resident group alleged the project’s environmental impact report, a review required by state law, failed to account for all the potential impacts the development might bring. In addition to traffic, the group pointed to potential impacts related to air quality, noise pollution, strains on public services and urban decay, among other issues.

The lawsuit also contended the project is inconsistent with San Jose’s general plan and the site’s zoning designation.

The court rejected both arguments. In a wide ranging opinion, Adams dismissed multiple legal claims advanced by plaintiffs, including their allegation that the city had failed to provide adequate responses to comments from residents on a draft environmental report.

“Petitioner has not established that any error in the City’s response would be prejudicial,” Adams wrote. “When viewed as a whole, the (environmental report) reflects a good faith effort at full disclosure.”

Costco officials have previously said they estimate the project would bring 250 to 300 jobs to San Jose and generate about $2 million in annual tax revenue. In the face of public backlash, the company also made several changes to its development proposal. That includes a pledge to spend $2.5 million toward pedestrian and bike safety improvement work — such as path widening and crosswalk modifications — along Lawrence Expressway, which is west of the shopping center. Additionally, part of the shopping center’s parking area will be reconfigured to close off a driveway on Graves Avenue that opens into a residential area.

The Costco will replace buildings that have housed Ethan Allen Furniture Company, Bikram Yoga San Jose, Smart & Final and Orchard Supply Hardware, all of which will be demolished. The project will be the first U.S. location with rooftop parking, according to Costco, and will include a tire center.

Responding to the ruling, District 1 Councilmember Rosemary Kamei, whose district includes the shopping center, highlighted the expected economic benefits the Costco could bring to the city.

“The court’s decision allows a project to proceed that brings very significant public benefits — including millions of dollars for pedestrian safety supporting students in the area — and replaces longstanding blight with an economically beneficial use,” Kamei told San José Spotlight.

Costco is still in the process of obtaining building permits for the project, according to a spokesperson for the Department of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. Once construction gets underway, the project is expected to take 21 months, officials have said.

Contact Keith Menconi at keith@sanjosespotlight.com or @KeithMenconi on X.

San Jose, CA – A small earthquake rattled parts of the South Bay early Thursday morning, with residents near San Jose reporting brief shaking.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Integrated Seismic Network (CISN), a magnitude 3.1 earthquake struck 24 kilometers east-northeast of Alum Rock, near San Jose, at approximately 6:54 a.m. local time on Wednesday. The quake occurred at a depth of about 8.8 kilometers, classifying it as a shallow earthquake.

The epicenter was located in Santa Clara County, within the greater San Jose–Silicon Valley region of Northern California. Community responses submitted to the USGS “Did You Feel It?” program indicated light shaking, with no immediate reports of damage or injuries.

Seismologists note that earthquakes in the magnitude 3 range are common in the Bay Area and are often felt by people nearby but rarely cause structural damage. The region sits atop several active fault systems, including the Hayward and Calaveras faults, making minor seismic activity a regular occurrence.

Emergency officials have not issued any alerts, and no service disruptions were reported as of Wednesday morning. Residents are encouraged to review earthquake safety plans and ensure emergency kits are up to date, especially as smaller quakes can occasionally precede larger events.

Anyone who felt the shaking is encouraged to submit a report through the USGS website to help scientists better understand how the quake was experienced across the region.

This article was produced by a journalist and may include AI-assisted input. All content is reviewed for accuracy and fairness.Follow us on Instagram & Facebook for more relevant news stories and SUPPORT LOCAL INDEPENDENT NEWS! Have a tip? Message us!

California had an Extreme Cold Watch for parts of the state as below-freezing temperatures hit parts of the state the night of Jan. 8 through the next morning.

Below-freezing temperatures can be a foreign concept to Californians in some parts of the state, so much so that some wonder, "Why is it so cold?"

Cold conditions can be hazardous for people, especially unhoused people, pets, and livestock. The cold can also prove dangerous for sensitive crops in a densely agricultural state like California.

While some who may be used to cold weather might laugh at temperatures like 26 degrees, potentially hitting the Ojai Valley, some places in the Golden State have infrastructure that is not designed for extreme cold, much like torrential downpours.

Why is it so cold in California?

The National Weather Service in San Francisco has credited the cold temperatures to a combination of clear skies, long winter nights, and light offshore flow allowing a shallow "cold lid" to develop near the surface, the Desert Sun previously reported.

Along with cold, strong winds, it passed through the mountains, valleys, and foothills of Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. Santa Ana winds are also expected to last through the weekend.

Even though higher-altitude air is warmer, this stable layer traps cold air at the ground, particularly in valleys and low-lying areas. Coastal spots will be moderated by the ocean and downslope winds, keeping temps slightly warmer.

Areas along the Central Coast, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the northern interior of the state were forecast to reach the upper 20s, with the coldest nights Jan. 8 and the morning of Jan. 9, the Desert Sun reported.

What is the coldest temperature in California history?

The coldest temperature ever recorded in California is -45 degrees in Boca, a neighborhood of Truckee near the border with Nevada.

While temperatures in some of the state's biggest cities are not nearly as cold as Boca's, some big Golden State cities had some surprising lows.

Coldest temperature in the five biggest California cities, according to Extreme Weather Watch:

What is La Niña?

The National Weather Service predicted on Jan. 8 that the La Niña weather phenomenon would likely transition to a neutral-ENSO, El Niño-Southern Oscillation, by January through March for at least the Northern Hemisphere. The weather service also predicted that the El Niño pattern would likely follow in the later months of 2026.

La Niña is part of the ENSO pattern and is marked by cooler-than-average water in the region, USA Today previously reported. Such a pattern brings cold and snow to the Northwest and unusually dry conditions to most of the Southern states, according to the Climate Prediction Center.

Ernesto Centeno Araujo covers breaking news for the Ventura County Star. He can be reached at , 805-437-0224 or on Instagram and X.

Some people think a proposed tax on California's billionaires to make up for cuts in federal funding to hospitals and healthcare programs will drive money out of the state.

To Seema Kanani, a medical social worker for a major hospital system in Northern California, it is time to sound the alarm about the future of healthcare in the state.

"We need to do this now. We can't wait 5-10 years," she said. "We are at risk in the near future, actually, of having hospitals, ERs, and community clinics close down."

She's been a member of the healthcare justice union, the Service Employees International Union – United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), for 19 years.

Her union is proposing a billionaire wealth tax to make up for massive federal healthcare spending cuts that are set to take place over the next decade, which will largely impact middle- and lower-income Californians.

"A lot of my patients will choose to kind of ration their diabetes medication or other medications they cannot afford because they have to choose between paying their electricity bill or getting their medication," Kanani said.

The idea is to levy a one-time, 5% tax on the wealth, not income, of billionaires that live in California.

"There are over 200 billionaires just in California. So, it's time for them to step up and do their part for the state that has given them so much," she said. "This is not meant to be a long-term fix. That's why it's an emergency, one-time tax. It's not a long-term tax."

A December analysis from California's non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office revealed the proposed billionaire tax would likely generate tens of billions of dollars for the state over several years. It also notes that state income tax revenues would likely decrease by hundreds of millions of dollars per year on an ongoing basis if the ultra-wealthy were to leave the state.

The latter is what San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan fears will happen if the idea comes to fruition.

"We will actually increasingly have to rely on middle-class and working families to fill that gap. That's who will lose here. People who will benefit are the taxpayers of Texas and Arizona and Florida, who will now have more billionaires relocating to their state and sharing in the burden of paying for their public services and infrastructure," Mahan said.

Mahan believes the concept would do more harm than good in the long-run for California.

"It's an incredible risk. We are talking about putting at risk the driver of our economy, the job creation engine of California, for a one-time tax, to subsidize a system that is ripe with waste, fraud, and abuse," he said. "Let's get serious about tackling economic inequality by closing loopholes, not pushing capital out of state."

He acknowledges there are bigger-picture solutions needed for addressing wealth inequality in the Bay Area, California, and the nation.

"Wealth inequality is a very real issue. It deserves serious solutions. I think there are a number of them out there that we ought to pursue. We make it far too easy for very wealthy individuals to avoid paying taxes on their accumulated assets. I've heard from folks who are quite wealthy who acknowledge that they can borrow against their assets and never pay taxes on them – they can pass them on, tax-free, to their heirs," Mahan said. "There are very real ways that are pragmatic that we could, at a national level, close massive loopholes related to wealth accumulation that would level the playing field, generate additional public revenues, and really, create a more fair economy for everyone."

From Kanani's standpoint, this step is needed to help save California's healthcare system, and it is not meant to be a silver bullet for solving wealth inequality.

"The life and the American Dream that California is known for is not going to exist if the healthcare collapse happens," she said. "I would welcome anyone that has other ways to tackle this to suggest so."

She's hopeful the proposition will receive enough petition signatures and will be put to voters in November. It will need 874,641 signatures by June 24 to qualify for the November ballot, according to Ballotpedia.

In:

When Gov. Gavin Newsom declared today that the state will likely receive an extra $42.3 billion in tax revenue over the next three years, thus alleviating a stubborn budget deficit, the inimitable Yogi Berra’s famous observation came to mind.

“It’s like déjà vu all over again,” Berra quipped in 1961, after watching Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris, the New York Yankees’ star sluggers, hit back-to-back home runs.

Four years ago, as the state’s economy rebounded from a pandemic-caused downturn, the state’s revenues saw a brief upward spike. Someone in the administration, perhaps Newsom himself, decided that the revenue jump would be permanent and that it meant a $97.5 billion surplus over several years.

“No other state in American history has ever experienced a surplus as large as this,” Newsom bragged as he unveiled a 2022-23 fiscal year budget that topped $300 billion.

Newsom’s declaration touched off a spending spree that boosted outlays by $14 billion. But the revenues never reached the assumed level and his Department of Finance eventually — and very quietly — acknowledged that the administration had overstated income by a whopping $165 billion over four years.

The additional spending, which outpaced real revenues, created what was dubbed a “structural deficit” in the annual $20 billion range ever since, covered with an array of accounting gimmicks, spending deferrals and raids on special funds and emergency reserves.

A few weeks ago, the Legislature’s budget advisor, Gabe Petek, projected an $18 billion deficit for the 2026-27 fiscal year, rising to $35 billion later.

The draft budget that Newsom’s finance director, Joe Stephenshaw, outlined this week would increase outlays by $27 billion over the current year to $321 billion, including a $248.3 billion general fund, up $20 billion.

The revenue increase projection, which Newsom mentioned in Thursday’s State of the State address, would cover all but $2.9 billion of the new spending plan, Stephenshaw said.

Simply put, if the budget’s projected $42.3 billion revenue increase is real, Newsom can conclude his governorship —– and probably segue into a presidential campaign — with the state’s finances no longer plagued by deficits.

Balancing the budget would also bolster Newsom’s opposition to calls from the left-leaning legislators and activists in his own party for tax increases to cover the shortfall and President Donald Trump’s cuts in federal health and welfare support.

However, we saw the corrosive effects of overestimating revenues in 2022, so the new forecast should be viewed skeptically.

Newsom hedges his bets by portraying the budget as a placeholder that covers little more than spending increases driven by law, inflation and caseload until more revenue data is received.

“While the budget is balanced in the 2026-27 fiscal year, with a discretionary reserve of $4.5 billion, it projects a deficit of roughly $22 billion in the 2027-28 fiscal year and shortfalls in the two years following,” the draft declares. “The administration intends to build on this budget proposal in May with a revised plan — reflecting updated revenue and spending data — that balances the budget in both the 2026-27 and 2027-28 fiscal years with adequate budget reserves.”

Having been burned badly by his phantom surplus in 2022, Newsom is obviously aware that a repeat would be politically poisonous. His more cautious approach was symbolized by how the budget was presented.

In years past, Newsom would personally go through the budget, almost line-by-line, in presentations that sometimes lasted three hours. This time, he dispatched Stephenshaw to face reporters and characterize the budget as a draft that will be updated in May, as Newsom and the Legislature face a June 15 constitutional deadline for enactment.

Dan Walters writes commentaries for CalMatters.