San Jose Rules Committee Reviews Coyote Valley Corridor Study on February 18, 2026
San Jose Rules Committee Reviews Coyote Valley Corridor Study on February 18, 2026
The Rules and Open Government Committee of the San Jose City Council met on February 18, 2026, at 2:00 PM with a quorum present (Councilmembers Candelas and Foley among others, with voice votes due to a computer system issue preventing video). The committee reviewed upcoming council agendas, approved a consent calendar, and discussed a memo on the Coyote Valley Corridor study, ultimately voting to have staff produce a workload analysis before bringing the item back.
Agenda Reviews for February 24 and March 3 Council Meetings
- For the February 24 council meeting (closed session at 9:30 AM, regular session at 1:30 PM), the committee approved the agenda with an adjustment: item 3.4 will be the first item heard after 3:00 PM rather than a strict time certain, to avoid interrupting ongoing discussions. Motion passed 5-0.
- For the March 3 council meeting (closed session at 9:30 AM, regular session at 1:30 PM), the agenda was approved without public comment. Motion passed 5-0.
Consent Calendar
- The committee approved the consent calendar (five or six routine items) with no public comment. Motion passed 5-0.
Discussion Items
C1: Coyote Valley Corridor Study Memo
Councilmember Campos introduced a memo requesting that the Coyote Valley Corridor study be placed on a future city council agenda as a consent item to recognize the work already done and acknowledge the indefinite pause. The memo was co-signed by Vice Mayor Foley and the Mayor.
Public Comments & Testimony
Three speakers provided testimony:
- Chris Marcese (representing the Marcese and Jung families) thanked city staff for their work on the Monterey Road Corridor study, expressed hope that the council would assist longtime landowners, and noted that the study had been on the right track before being indefinitely deferred.
- Jerry DeYoung (planning consultant for property owners) expressed frustration that the study was paused about halfway through, and pointed out that the council had simultaneously rezoned properties to planned development zoning, leaving landowners in a potentially worse condition. He urged the council to hear more about the study's status and potential next steps.
- Norm Mattione (attorney for property owners) described the distinct character of the eastern side of the Monterey Road Corridor (small parcels, mostly 5–11 acres, annexations dating back 50 years) and the landowners' desire for viable uses, including residential development for family use. He noted the study is suspended, not terminated, and worth revisiting.
Committee Deliberation
Vice Mayor Foley acknowledged the community's frustration and moved to approve the memo but requested a workload analysis from staff to determine the effort needed to produce a draft study. Staff (Lee) clarified that no draft study exists—only preliminary survey work—and that producing a draft would require considerable resources. The committee clarified that the intent is to memorialize work done to date, not to restart the full study including CEQA analysis. Councilmembers expressed a desire for clarity on what exists and what next steps would require.
Key Outcomes
- The committee approved the motion (5-0) to have staff return next week with a workload analysis outlining the time and resources needed to write up the work already completed. The item will be revisited after that analysis.
- The meeting adjourned at 2:23 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, it is two o'clock. So we're going to call the February 18th meeting of the rules and open government committee to order. We will start with roll call. Candelas. Foley. Here. Come here. Here. We have a quorum. And we apologize that we don't have video today, right? Or um the computer system, so we're going to be. We're going to do voice votes and um follow along with our paper copies of the agendas. We will start on pay uh start with our agenda for the February 24th council meeting. And that one has a uh 9 30 closed session and 1 30 regular session, and consent starts on page five and continues on pages six and seven. Section three, we have an annual summary of labor negotiations, public hearing on the status of the city's vacancy recruitment and retention efforts. Section five, we have a funding agreement with affirmed housing. In section eight, we have the establishment of two business improvement districts and actions related to East Santa Clara Senior Affordable Housing Project and Trillion Senior Apartments Housing Development on Santa Clara Street. And in land and oh, in section eight, we also have lower income voucher and equity program. There are two administrative hearings on land use appeals under land use that we heard at the end of the agenda. And we have an ad sheet. Do we have any public comment? No public comment. Okay, no public comment on this item. So approval with the ad sheet. And I think there was a well before just to there was a request that we talked about last week about time certain for item 3.4. And after speaking with uh council member Ortiz, we would like to just move make that item time certain for 3 o'clock. So is that okay with the makers of the motion? Yes. I'm on the maker motion. Time certain. I I really prefer not time certain because that means we are in the middle of an agenda item and we have to stop and start with item 3.4. Yeah, I've always wondered about the wording of this. Is it possible to say it'll be the item first item heard after 3 o'clock or something? Is there a wave of Lee? How do we can we phrase that so it's not going to interrupt an item but goes first after 3 o'clock? And why is go ahead, Lee? Sorry. I'll let you answer. No apology, needed advice, mayor. I was gonna ask Rochelle. I think we could change that wording to first item to be heard after 3 p.m. I think that's fine. Yeah, let's do that because that as I said, time certain means we stop whatever we're doing in the middle and then we break up a conversation when we could be well within the middle of a presentation. Yeah. Okay. I I would accept that. Okay, so that's okay with the mover and motion and this. Make it a motion in the second, or I think that's it on discussion on this. So all in favor say aye. Aye.
openpublica.com