We are shooting the breeze up here.

It's 201 and we're going to call into order our rules and open government committee for Wednesday, September 17th.

Let's start with roll call.

Candelas?

Here.

The one.

Fully absent.

Kameh.

Cohen?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Alright, thank you.

We're gonna start by reviewing our council agenda for next Tuesday, September 23rd.

We um it's being noticed for 9 30 closed session, 1 30 regular session, and consent starts on page two, I mean page four, and continues on pages five, six, and seven, we have section three, the status of open audit recommendation, section six, our stormwater management annual report, section eight, gateway tower loan commitment and land purchase, and also the consolidated annual performance and evaluation report.

We have one item on land use consent.

Do we have any public comment on this agenda?

No public comment.

Okay, back to the committee.

Now I've had a request from district three to defer item 8.1 for a week because there will be several council members missing during due to the chamber study session next week.

So if anybody if makes a motion and is willing to accept that change, you can include that in your motion for the agenda, and we don't have an ad sheet.

So I would so move.

Second, all right.

So we're moving the deferral of item 8.1 by one week and um the rest of the agenda.

Let's vote.

Okay, motion carries 4-0, and now we will review the agenda for Tuesday, September 30th, with also with a 9 30 closed session and a 1 30 regular session consent starts on page five and continues on pages six and seven.

Section three, we have the approval in terms of an agreement with POA, and the focus area semi-annual status report.

Section 8.1 is the acquisition of 447 South Almaden, which will be heard concurrently with the SJFA item, which is on page, well listed on the agenda on page 12.

We'll get to that.

We have two items on land use, 10.2, 10.3, and a joint city of San Jose F Council and Financing Authority Housing Authority agenda meeting for a an item on page 12.

No public comment.

All right, back to the committee.

All right, that's about all right.

Motion carries four zero.

Thank you.

And we're on to our consent calendar.

There's four items on rules consent today.

We have any public comment on consent.

No public comment.

Okay.

Motion and a second.

Let's vote on consent.

All right, that motion carries four zero.

We have two items under section C.

The first is a uh policy memo that was submitted by uh Councilmember Ortiz.

We briefly discussed that at a council meeting a couple weeks ago.

Um we referred it to rules to refer to the investment policy review.

Are there any public comment first?

No public comment.

Okay, back to the committee for any questions or discussion.

Anyone want to?

All right, Councilmember Kameh.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

I know that um uh this uh uh type of uh, you know, sort of looking at our investment policy and what is that uh is being uh asked to be looked at more carefully.

Uh so I would only say that as we're looking uh towards the March 2026 timeframe, there may be other types of things.

I know that in the past there's been you know what is socially responsible and and that sort of thing.

Uh so I think that having that conversation at that time uh is something that I think uh would be worthwhile because I I know that this keeps coming up, and with that I would like to uh move the item sorry just respectfully request um that you allow staff the two weeks to do an official workload analysis this is actually a bit um more of an undertaking especially the trade-offs and sensitivity analysis um that would be needed so I know our finance director would actually like to work with the author during those two weeks so that we can through the workload analysis give you some options on what would be a green light versus what would be a yellow and what the scope of that work um could look like moving forward because there definitely will need to be some trade-offs if you wanted to pursue this.

Okay.

Yes.

Alright so we're the motion is amended to ask for a workload analysis on this item and come back to the rules committee at that time.

I'm just gonna make I before I go to my other colleagues for comment I'm just gonna make one comment and kind of a clarifying item.

It says in the wording here says from corporations that invest in ice I don't really think anyone invests in federal agencies.

I assume it's this is intended to mean uh corporations that contract with ICE or something like that.

That's how that's how we rate it okay so that was the first kind of kind of clarifying thing on the on there.

Obviously I think we all it probably is a re a time for us to review and rethink our overall uh you know question about socially responsible investing and I've even had questions last year about our investments and particularly also that as they relate to our um retirement portfolios which I know we don't have purview over but that we've we've we we have policies about um investing in fossil fuels and some other areas that we've we don't necessarily get um buy-in with um or cooperation from our um pension funds and investors and I and having a conversation at some point with them I think would also be helpful so there's a bigger scope I think that's part of this that maybe should be thought about as we look into this rather than piecemealing yes and that's what and I think that was the point of what you were saying.

Yeah I I think that was my intent because then you could understand the full picture as opposed to bits and pieces here and there.

Alright so councilmember DeWan.

Uh thank you uh Chair Lee answer my question is that the the workload analysis and and I think it's important that we we look at it all facet because sometimes you know we could hurt uh local businesses that um would unintended consequences I would just take caution to to how we um we look at this uh particular um investment uh policy thank you yes certainly and I've been concerned about it as well because it's pretty hard to for us to disentangle corporate uh contracts that we have for various software platforms and other things that may also be used by various other government agencies and to say that we we would no longer be have relationships with many of these tech companies because they also have relationships with the federal government is potentially very difficult but some something perhaps to to at least report report on all right council member condellus yeah no I no I appreciate the conversation and I think uh the intent of of this um and which is what what I'm appreciative of in that work a load analysis is just to have like a a tangible discussion of where our values are as leaders in the city to make sure that we are investing in socially conscious socially appropriate um uh organizations that um you know uh you know run um similar to where our values are and so uh I am appreciative uh as I said to to the workload analysis to see what the trade-offs are gonna be but but again I I think more importantly is a conversation of what where we as a city are are investing in because there's a lot of um there's a lot of portfolios and a lot of companies and a lot of investments that we can make uh that have similar yields and similar benefits to us as a city for for our finances uh that are more aligned to where we where our values are as leaders and so um I appreciate the the uh the opportunity to have this conversation and and do hope that um our department um that our finance department worked closely with the author's office uh to to scope out something that we can appreciate and take take it take our city where our residents and the people who elected us uh want want it to go so thank you that's that's all I have for now.

All right, thank you.

So we have a motion on the floor to refer to her for a workload analysis, and we're voting and the motion carries 4 0.

Thank you.

And now the second item is a memo to ask for support for assembly concurrent resolution 71 related to Little Saigon Freeway.

Uh Councilmore Dwan, are you going to I I maybe this is self-explanatory, but do you want to say something before we start?

Of course.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Uh first of all, I want to say thank you to Assembly uhman uh Ashkara for for bringing this ACR 71.

Um it's just designate a very short small portion of US 101 near Story Road exit um in San Jose as a little Saigon Freeway.

Um today my colleague and I bring forward an important proposal to honor the the vibrant Vietnamese American community here in San Jose and throughout California.

I thanked my uh colleague uh Mayor Matt Mahan, Councilmember Compost, uh Councilmember Kamei for their support and collaboration.

The ACR 71 seek to designate a portion, just a small portion of 101 near Story Road exit as a little Saigon Freeway.

This designation is more than just a name, it's a tribute to the resilience, the contribution to rich cultural heritage of one of the largest Vietnamese American population in the country, and technically it's the largest population uh for a city in the world beside um in Vietnam.

San Jose, little Saigon is a cornerstone of a cultural identity and economic vitality, and this freeway naming would serve a lasting symbol of appreciation and recognition.

By supporting this resolution, we celebrate the Vietnamese diasporas journey, their pursuit of American dream, and their invaluable role in our community.

It's also complemented other local efforts like the Vietnamese Heritage Garden, the Thank You American Monument, which honored their history and gratitude to United States of America.

I urge the committee to support ACR 71 as it make its way through the Senate Transportation Committee in January, ensuring the future generation remember and honor the contribution that the Vietnamese American community.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Do we have any public comment?

No public comment.

Okay.

Back to the committee.

I appreciate that.

Councilman Ross.

Uh no, uh, thank you.

Thank you for your leadership on this item.

And and you know, I think I think this is important.

I I represent a very diverse district.

Um the Tele Road, which we share um is very, very representative uh of our Vietnamese community.

In fact, you know, the Lion Plaza is in my district.

So uh Councilmember Dwan, this is this is super exciting, and and uh uh thanks to Assemblymember Osh Kalra for his leadership on on ushering this through the legislative process, which we all all know is very is uh is a long one, uh, but this is definitely a noble cause and something that our Vietnamese community in San Jose um uh is is really really excited about and hope after you know the uh we we can I I see there's only four four uh authors on your memorandum, Councilmember Duan.

So hopefully uh, you know, this is uh this is something that we can we can all support.

So anyways, uh I I appreciate it.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

And um I just want to say that I I'm proud that I also forty percent of my constituents are Hispanic and this um this last uh weekend we went out and celebrated the um Hispanic uh Independence day, and it was fantastic.

And I and every year I I think we're we're doing it better and better, and and I'm very proud of uh being part of it.

Thank you.

Alright, I assume he he he couldn't choose which one of us to join the memo.

So he left off a fifth.

All right, let's uh let's um vote on this item.

All right, that motion carries four zero, and we are moving on to open forum.

We have public comment.

Jeff, please go ahead and make your way to the podium.

You have two minutes to speak.

Hi, Dom.

Jim Bell, remember?

Okay.

Um this is uh just an idea right off the you wouldn't have heard anywhere else.

I think that the homeless encampment that took root because of uh in Guadalupe Park took root because of lack of access.

Um more is needed than clearing out once it becomes entrenched.

My idea is to create a pedestrian viaduct across the tracks to enter the park on Coleman Avenue between Heading Street and West Taylor Street.

At the time, um this is uh Tom Tom Gordon was a Bellerman uh man.

Uh at he he proposed temporary closure of Emory Street back in 2010, 2011, 2012, something like that.

I was against that because I believe that an open neighborhood architecture is healthier for the College Park Neighborhood Association.

Okay.

And the so I think that the sale of Emory Street to Bellaman worked against San Jose regional planning.

The former grade crossing on Stockton behind Bellaman's baseball field is where a pedestrian way is possible to enable safe access to Guadalupe Park for the good of all.

And I also wanted to say that uh federal funding would be attractive uh for a project of this sort because it addresses the root of the problem.

And uh my idea stems from uh the sale of that one block section of Emory Street in 2012 and uh I had I gave uh to Councilman Mulcahi a letter about the that background, which is uh in my view a brown act related issue that should be looked at.

And this is important because there's on the there's a uh land use development proposal on it on the thirtieth that I'd like to speak to on that regard.

Back to the committee.

Thank you so much for the public comment, and our meeting is adjourned at 2.17 p.m.