City Council - Regular Meeting

Mayor, you are live.

Your time now is 522. On September 10, 2025, I would like to begin with a closed session for the city council meeting today. Roll call, please.

Thank you, Mayor. Mayor Nguyen?

I'm here.

Vice Mayor Monzo?

I'm here.

District One, Councilwoman Fan West.

Fan West here.

District Three, Councilmember Nguyen. Here. District Four, Councilmember Nguyen. Mayor, you have a quorum with District Four, Councilmember Nguyen absent.

All right, thank you very much. This time I would like to open for communication for closed session only. Do we have anyone sign up for closed session today?

And so the public is aware, in a moment, I will be asking the city council if they would like to consider adding a second item for consideration. Currently, our agenda indicates that the Conference for Legal Counsel anticipated litigation, that there's one item, and the question would be, would they like to make the findings to have a second item discussed under that? So, public comment.

Yeah, public comment. After public comment, we'll ask for your work on item.

Mayor, we have one speaker, Terry Raines.

Hello, item one, another case of significant exposure to litigation or two, another likely lawsuit against the city. Who and what is the basis for this potential case? Tony Bowie, Terry Range, Joe Devin, Joseph Ngo, Ngo Ky, Andrew Le, Mayor Nguyen, Council Members Amy Phan West or Nam Quan Nguyen. If any of the latter three recusals are necessary. Are the facts and circumstances known to the potential plaintiff? Government Code 54956-9E2 states. facts and circumstances including but not limited to an accident, disaster, incident, or transactional occurrence that might result in litigation against the agency and that are known to a potential plaintiff or plaintiffs, which facts or circumstances shall be publicly stated on the agenda or announced. Accordingly, rather than just provide a vague response of the city is in compliance with the Brown Act, Mr. City Attorney, I hereby request that you publicly state here before you enter closed session Whether or not you opine the facts and circumstances for this potential case or both are known to the potential plaintiffs and provide your reasoning for such opinion. If known, I hereby request disclosure of the facts and circumstances pursuant to 549-569. I'm also requesting that the city attorney report out now if any members of this council will have to recuse themselves for the potential litigation discussions. Item two, there sure have been a lot of... Closed session discussions about this property, the Rose Center Apartments. I vaguely recall seeing some public records indicating elderly development. Westminster wants to make substantial necessary improvements to the property, but wanted to buy out the land lease before doing so, which the city refused. and supposedly they can't afford to do said improvements with the deed restricted rents. Remember, only price in terms of payment can be discussed today. Ironically, at the last council meeting, I presented the closed session attendance record thus far in 2025 for council members Amy Fan West and Nam Quan Nguyen, where once again, both arrived late. Nam Quan has been absent for four of the nine closed sessions thus far in 2025, and arrived late for three of the six he did attend. Council Member Amy Fann-West has been absent for two of the nine closed sessions thus far in 2025 and arrived late for four of the seven she did attend. Nam Quan has missed 21.3 hours, 32% of 2025 meetings due to absences, tardies, and diocese departures. Amy has missed 14.2 hours, 22%. If this is an obstruction of government and legal proceedings, aka justice, I don't know what is. The two obstructionists need to face real consequences for this behavior. On a related note, I am looking forward to the city selecting a new firm to provide legal services at the September 24th meeting. After the new contract has been signed, this council must direct the new firm to sue Jones and Mayer over the Liberty Park illegal parcel sale and more. Thank you.

No further speakers, Mayor.

All right, thank you very much. Before I ask the City Clerk to read the items that we are going to discuss in the closed session, City Attorney, you have an item that you want to work on?

Yes, so under the Brown Act, government code section 5495, 4.2, subsection B2, if the city council determines that there's a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted, then you are allowed to take action on that item and add the item to the agenda. So we cannot publicly disclose what those facts and circumstances are right now. If you are not aware of what I'm referring to, we can certainly discuss that in closed session. What I'm proposing for your consideration would be the very first item that we would discuss in closed session would be to provide you the basis for this determination, and you can determine at that time whether you think that a Brown Act meeting in closed session is appropriate or not, and if you believe that it is not, then we will stop talking about that particular item. So the question before you is, and I... represent to you that those circumstances do exist and you can legally make these findings. If you would like to add it to the agenda, this is not a request. It is simply a choice for you to make. And I believe it is recommended by staff. And I'm telling you that it is a legal choice. So if you would like to make that motion, that you can consider that at this time.

I move to work on that item for a closed session. I second it.

Thank you.

I just want to remind you, we have to have four votes.

So three of four votes would be sufficient for these purposes. So it would be normally four, but because we have one person absent, it's three of the four that's required. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I have a motion made by Mayor Nguyen, seconded by Vice Mayor Monzo. This is to walk on an item for anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.92 for one potential case, which would bring tonight's item to two potential cases. I'll go ahead and call roll. District one, Councilwoman Van West.

I mean, it's so vague. I would like to know what it is, so in that way, I think it's important for the resident to know as well. So with that, I vote no.

Thank you. District 3, Council Member Nguyen?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Monzo? Yes. Mayor Nguyen? Yes. Motion carried, 3-1.

All right. So right now, can you go ahead and read the items that we are going to discuss in the closed session?

The city council will recess to a closed session for the following purposes. Conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation, significant exposure to litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9 D2, number of potential cases two, conference with real property negotiations, property 8190 13th Street, Westminster, California 92683, Agency negotiators, City Manager Christine Cordone, Assistant City Manager Adolfo Osieda, and Housing Specialist Michael Sun. Negotiating parties, Outerly Development Westminster LP, under negotiation price in terms of payment.

All right, thank you very much. At this time, the City Council will recess for closed session. We'll be back at six.

Thank you. do Thank you. so so Thank you. you Thank you.

Thank you.

Amen. Thank you. you ¶¶ so so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¦ 🎵 🎵 Thank you. so so

Thank you, testing one, two. The time now is 6.26 on September 10, 2025. I would like to continue with the, I would like to reconvene the city council successor agency to the Westminster redevelopment agency meeting. Meeting to call to order, please. Roll call.

Thank you, Mayor Nguyen.

I'm here.

Vice Mayor Monzo.

I'm here.

District 1, Councilwoman Fan West.

Fan West, aye.

District 3, Councilmember Nguyen.

Here.

District 4, Councilmember Nguyen.

I'm here.

Mayor, you have a quorum with all members present.

Thank you very much. Salute to the flag today. It's going to be District 3, Councilmember Mark Nguyen and invocation by Councilmember Amy Fan West. Please stand.

Please stand to salute the nation's flag.

under God, invisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Can you guys please stand with me in prayer? Lord, we just thank you so much for this opportunity to gather today to do city business and to also hear the voice of our constituent businesses and our investor, Lord. And Lord, I just pray that you bless this time. And I know we have a tragedy in our nation today, the death of a patriot of free speech, the death of a man who knew what the youth is in America. And his name is Charlie Kurt. And Lord, we just pray for his family right now. It's unfortunate that this is happening in America, the land of the free, because of the brave. But Lord, I pray that we can continue to draw and come together as a nation under this circumstances. I pray that we can agree to disagree. And Lord, we pray that you bless America. You bless our children. You protect them. And you protect our family. And Lord, we pray for those who are hurting right now, Lord. I pray that you comfort their hearts. And we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Please be seated.

Thank you, Council Member Mark Nguyen and Council Member Amy Van West. Next is City Attorney. Close session report, please.

Yes, we did discuss the two items that are on the printed agenda and the one item that was added to the agenda. And after additional discussion, it was determined that we were in compliance with the Brown Act by including that discussion. So I would request a motion to ratify the determination that it was indeed appropriate to add that item to the agenda. Can we have a motion to that effect?

Yes. I motion, Mr. Mayor.

Second to that.

Second. Second.

Thank you. I have a motion made by District 1, Councilwoman Fan West, seconded by Vice Mayor Monzo to clarify for the record that it was appropriate to add the item to the agenda under closed session. I'll go to call roll. District 1, Councilwoman Fan West.

Fan West, aye.

District 3, Councilmember Nguyen. Yes. District 4, Councilmember Nguyen. Yes. Vice Mayor Monzo. Yes. And Mayor Nguyen.

Yes.

Motion carried 5-0.

Export communications, including SB 1439, report one requires. Is there anything from the desk? Seeing none, hearing none, so moving on to City Club report, please.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to point out for the record that there is a late communication memo in front of you as well as online for the public and here in the theater for those members who are present. It is for agenda items number 3.1 and 3.5. Staff is requesting that you take those into consideration tonight before your motion to approve. That concludes my report.

All right. Thank you. See the manager of your properties.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the City Council. First, we'd like to announce that our Pink Patch Project for Breast Cancer Awareness Month is back. This is an innovative public awareness campaign intended to support the fight against breast cancer. In 2024, it's estimated that 310,720 new cases of invasive breast cancer in women and 27,000 2,700 new cases in men will be detected in the United States. The Pink Patches debuted in 2013 and were worn on police uniforms of participating departments during October in support of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Since then, the Pink Patch Project has evolved into a collaborative effort among public agencies worldwide. The Westminster Police Department joined this cause in 2015 and is still going strong as ever. All uniformed personnel can wear the pink patches issued last year on their uniforms to show their support during Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This year, the Westminster Police Officers Association will be selling pink patches for $10, canine pink patches for $10, and challenge coins for $20. All proceeds will be donated to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. To purchase any of these items, please contact property technician Kelly Wells at 714-548-3216. The countdown begins for our upcoming fall festival, and that's happening in two weeks. It's a Thursday through Sunday event, September 25th through the 28th. Join us at the Civic Center for carnival rides, amazing live entertainment, delicious food options, unique finds from retail vendors, a lively garden, and so much more. Discount ride tickets are available now for purchase on the city's website. And for more information, please visit the city's website. Be sure to follow the city's Instagram and Facebook for updates. And last, as noted in the last meeting, we said goodbye to our previous interim community development director, Sherry Vander Dusen. She's back in retirement to enjoy those grandmotherly duties. And today we'd like to welcome Steven Mendoza, who is our new interim community development director. And he's over there in the audience. You want to say hi? He is a retired... He is a retired longtime administrator, over 34 years of experience in local government, and recently the assistant city manager for the city of Santa Ana. He brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise in community and economic development and management, and he will be a great asset to this organization, so we're very excited. So again, welcome Stephen to the city of Westminster. That concludes my report for tonight.

All right, thanks, senior manager, for the report. Next is special presentations, and at this time, I would like to start with an update from Cal Optima regarding the recent back-to-school health and wellness fair, and with that, please welcome Cal Optima Chief Operations Officer Jung Kim for a short presentation, please. All right, thank you.

Not yet.

Yes.

yep yes i'm here this evening to simply say thank you thank you so much city council this just highlights what a successful event we had together we had over 3600 attendees that day i can tell you i was there that day that you had far more time to see how people coming One of the largest events I've worked out with my health I want to especially thank Mayor Wendt, Vice Mayor Rundle, and Council Member Markland for making the time to join us that day and for welcoming the families and the children who came out to get ready for the new school year. I also want to just special call out to law enforcement, OPD, and fire who were there with us that day, making sure that all of us who attended felt very safe. in the great city of Westminster. So again, I know that the Council of Council here and also the city staff have tremendous responsibility and a lot of different priorities for the city, but for you to make time to really host this event meant a great deal to all of us, and I know that a great deal to all the families who participated. I'll find out a couple of things as we go through some of the photos. This is a back to school event. We're welcoming our children as they got ready for the 2025 school year. A couple of things that I'll highlight in terms of the resources that we provide to our families. This little one here, as well as 749 other little ones, are better protected with bike helmets as they are maybe riding their bikes to school or in their neighborhoods or in the park. We hear a lot about bike accidents these days and how kids end up in the ER. So again, protecting them. and keeping them safe with that activity important to us. All those yellow, orange boxes you see there, those are 2,000 pairs of shoes and socks that we were able to provide to new students. These are shoes that we hope that the kids are using to skip, to run in the playground, as well as in their neighborhoods safely. We had diverse giveaways, food giveaways to support the entire family, not just our students. We also had 90 haircuts by salon by spring so that our children could go to school feeling really confident. I think that's also a really big part of their mental health and how they feel about being students. And the event was right here across the street at the Civic Center, which is a fantastic venue. What you don't see is right across in that kind of grassy plaza, we had families hanging out after all the events to enjoy the entertainment by tremendous global talent. Pizza Popsicles, maybe a little too early to date for Popsicles, but still a lot of Popsicles. And also the tacos are provided by, again, our community partners. We had 2,000 backpacks that were provided to students to carry all their things as they started the new school year. And things like vision screens, new glasses, as well as dental screens. We have all things that are important to promoting both the physical and mental health of our students, which really promotes the health of our families and the health of our community. So really, we are here at Palace of Health to say thank you for promoting the health of our children, the health of our schools, and again, the health of our broader Orange County community. We so look forward to partnering with you to serve all of our neighbors more in the future. And again, thank you very much.

Thank you. As mentioned, Cal Optima partnered with us on the Back to School event in August. And today, on behalf of the Park and Recreation Department, I'm honored to announce that Cal Optima will also be our title sponsor for this year's Fall Festival. Let's put our hands together to thank them for that. And so on behalf of the entire City Council, our city staff, and the residents of Westminster, we sincerely appreciate your generous sponsorship and continued support of our community. Thank you so much. Next, at this time I would like to invite City Council to join me up front, and also would you please come up to the stage for the photo. We're still in the presentation. So, next is recognition of Westminster Home Depot Store 0647 and Orange County Fire Authority Station 65 for recent beautification projects. So, last year, the crew at OCFA Fire Station 65 identified a need to remove aging and problematic landscaping in front of the station. In the spirit of community partnership, the crew reached out to Home Depot store in Westminster to explore possible support. Upon hearing about the project, the store manager eagerly offered to assist, donating all the plants and providing professional installation at no cost. with coordination and support from OCFA, Station 65 crews, and the Home Depot team. The project was completely buy-in-store, works complete buy-in-store, new landscaping, enhancing the station curb appeal, and contribution to neighborhood pride. This generous act of service is a great example of public-private collaboration benefiting our local community. We would like to recognize Store Manager Najin Akkar, the Home Depot crew, along with the OCFA Fire Captain Al Gomez and Engine 65 for their commitment to community. Let's give them a round of applause. We will invite you up shortly to receive your certificate, and I'll take a photo later on. Let me go ahead and recognize the next one. Presentation of Proclamation for National Hispanic Heritage Month. Each year, Americans observe National Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to October 15 by celebrating histories, cultures, and contributions. National Hispanic Heritage Month is an opportunity to celebrate the spirit and accomplishment of Hispanic Americans everywhere, including their dedication of service. Now, therefore, I, Chi Charlie Nguyen, Mayor of the City of Westminster, on behalf of the Vice Mayor, Carlos Manzo and Councilmember Amy Van West, Mark Nguyen, and Nam Quan Nguyen do hereby proclaim September 15 to October 15, 2025 as National Hispanic Heritage Month in the City of Westminster and encourage all to participate in local events and to learn and experience the positive influence that have enriched our communities. Tonight, members of Westminster School District Spanish Dual Language Immersion Programs are present to receive this proclamation. And again, we will invite you to come up later. Next is our presentation, our proclamation for Hunger Action Month. The month of September has been designated Hunger Action Month in order to bring attention to food insecurity in our communities and to enlist the public in the movement to end hunger by taking action, including volunteering donating and advocating to ensure every community and everybody in it has the food they need to thrive. Now, therefore, I, Chi Charlie Nguyen, Mayor of the City of Westminster, on behalf of Vice Mayor Carlos Menzo, and Council Member Amy Van West, Mark Nguyen, and Nam Quan Nguyen, do hereby proclaim September 2025 as Hunger Action Month in the City of Westminster, and urge to bring attention to food insecurity in our communities, and enlist the public in the movement to end hunger by taking action. Tonight, Mark Lowry, CEO of Orange County Food Bank is present to receive this proclamation. At this time, I would like to ask City Council to join me at the front of the dais so that we can present tonight's presentation. And we will start with Home Depot store 0647 and OCFA Engine 65 first.

So the first, uh, 7-day approximation will be presented to you by Professor Sarah Holyfield, store number 647, Port Hill General's Reformation Bureau, OCFA, 565, biotech, stalking, communal landscaping, and incontrovertible carpet. Commission to thank the Orange County Fire Authority, Fire Station Number 65 for their help, organization, and support

Let's break back up the same way.

Okay. So this recommendation that we've had, and this is, uh, I'm following up with the city council, and the city would start with the San Francisco

All right, thank you so much. Moving on to oral communications concerning agenda items only. So Madam Clerk, would you please read the instruction in the record?

This is the time of the meeting that members of the public may address the City Council regarding any items on the agenda except public hearing items. Members of the public wishing to address Public hearing items may do so at the time of the public hearing. Unless otherwise extended by a majority vote of the city council, comments shall be limited to three minutes per speaker. Any person wishing to address the city council in person should complete a green speaker slip which are provided at the theater entrance and public podium and submit the card to a city clerk department staff member. When your name is called, please step to the podium at that time and state your name and city of residence for the record.

I just want to remind you that there's oral communication for agenda items only, so please.

Mayor, we have six speakers.

Yes, please.

First is Tammy Hamill, followed by Michael Varengia.

Good evening. Tammy Hamill, Westminster resident, District 1. Speaking on 9.1, I hope that part of your discussion is going to start with where this redistricting started, which was Texas, under the demand of President Trump, so that he could get more seats, so that they could make it All Republican. And not just bad mouth California like some of you do. Because as usual, there's a lot of partisanship that goes on up here, a lot of comments that are made. One in particular that just happened is that Amy Found West decided to mention Charlie Kirk, who was shot today and killed today. But there was no mention of like the two Democratic legislators that were shot in Minnesota in June. So it's really getting tiring of the partisanship that goes on there whenever something with California, Biden, whatever, whoever she didn't like.

What item that you're talking about? 9.1. Agenda item.

9.1. That's what I said. 9.1.

Prop 50. 9.1 is about redistricting. It's not about killing anyone.

Yeah.

My point has to do with that because of your continued partisanship from that seat. The chump change seat that your husband called it. So yeah, the partisanship that you always show. That's part of the point.

That's okay. Yeah. Go ahead.

You're the one that brought it up up there with your fake prayers. You show your partisanship all the time. My point on this was, are you going to discuss where this redistricting started, which is a Republican state by a Republican president, or are you just gonna continue to badmouth California like you usually do? That's my point. If you paid attention, maybe you would understand what people are saying. Good?

Good evening. Thank you. I'm also speaking on 9.1 from a different aspect. Why is this even on the agenda? What does this have to do with running the city of Westminster? Nothing. It has absolutely nothing to do with running the city of Westminster. The residents out here are interested in city council taking care of the city of Westminster. There's nothing in Proposition 50 that speaks to Westminster, whether it's good or whether it's bad. And I'll be honest with you, I'm voting no, and I'm sure Ms. Hamill will vote yes, and I don't care. We all have different opinions, but it doesn't belong on this agenda. We need to have council members more focused on what we need in this city. We need to worry about crime. We need to worry about getting businesses that are actually going to invest money into Westminster, not petty BS like this. And yes, I'll agree, it's partisan. Of course, the one in Texas actually stemmed out of a lawsuit, but this is still partisan. It has nothing to do with Westminster, just like it has nothing to do with Texas. So how about if we focus on what's best for the residents in the city as a whole of Westminster? Let's look at companies, businesses that want to invest in our city. Tax income. Let's ask all these small businesses that do a lot of cash business to pay their taxes. I'd love to see more police officers and firefighters in this city, just like I would love to see less homeless issues, less crime issues. But if we're worried about Proposition 50 and the clown that runs the state, then we're ignoring what goes on in our city. So let's focus on that. The other item, 9.2. If you're gonna dump a particular individual, off the Planning Commission? How about if we appoint a really good Planning Commissioner, the one that had the seat in the first place? Let's do that. Let's get rid of the problem, and let's bring back the positive influence on the Planning Commission. Can we do that? That's good for the city of Westminster, and you don't have to worry about Prop 50. Thank you, folks. Everybody have a good evening.

Next speaker, Tony Bui, followed by Donald Link.

Good evening, Mayor. and city council member and the secretary and also all the staff here. Thank you for all your hard work to the city. And first of all, item 9.1, I support that we have to oppose the Proposition 50. This morning I was there at Phuoc Loc Tho with a lot of other people, but I didn't see our mayor there. I saw the mayor of Bria of Garden Grove. It is on different opinion and different activities. All right, so my friend here want to make a recommendation, request to remove Planning Commissioner Tony Bui. On what ground? I've been working with the city from working... all voluntarily since 2016 as planning commissioner, and then traffic commissioner, and then park recreation commissioner, and later on be planning commissioner. So I have never failed my duty to protect the rights of the people. Look at all the video recording. I stand strong for the people of Westminster to make Westminster strong again. Similar like make America great again. All of you, do you know American is? American is accumulate. Accumulate mind, energy, resource. including compassion and appreciation Nature. That is a nature within all of you. You have to accumulate on the mind and material and energy of the people to make America great and to make this city of Westminster is a city of Americans. We don't have to work for certain group of people. We have to concentrate to help the American great again. Thank you very much. If you want to remove me, I really request have a meeting with all of my colleagues that has been there, such as Mr. Amin, Mr. Don Anderson, Casey Wombert, and Tran Nhan Tran. Have a meeting with them, rather than listening to here and there. That is not fair for me, who has contributed for 10 years. Thank you very much.

Donald Link, followed by Roger Mindrum.

Good evening, Mayor, and council members. My name is Donald Link, and I'm here tonight because frankly, I'm stunned that this council is even considering taking a position on Proposition 50. as indicated in agenda item 9.1. You can do that as individuals, citizens when you vote, and not as elected officials of this city. Let's be honest. This isn't about protecting our city. It isn't about fixing our streets, keeping our neighborhoods safe, or making sure that tax dollars are spent wisely. This is about politics, pure and simple. And dragging the city into sacramental partisan fight is not your job. When Texas ran through redistricting to add five congressional seats, it was politics. Everybody knew it. And now California rolls out Proposition 50, which many see as a direct answer to Governor Abbott and Texas' lawmakers. Politics, again. So why on earth would this council think it should jump into the middle of that? Do you think the people of the city elected you to play political chess on behalf of Sacramento? Because I can guarantee you they did not. If you put the city's name on a statement opposing Proposition 50, you are not speaking for the residents, you are silencing half of them. You are telling every voter who supports that measure that their opinion doesn't count because their own council already decided for them. That is not representation. That is partisanship. And it has no place here. And meanwhile, what happens to actual problems in our city? Streets need repair. Homes need painting. Parks need attention. Public safety needs funding. But instead of rolling your sleeves up and working local issues, you're burning time and energy on state ballot measures that voters, not you, will decide. That is not leadership. That's grandstanding. So let me make this plain. I'm not here to push against for or against Proposition 50. I'm here to tell you that this council has no business putting its nose into partisan fights between Sacramento and Austin. Leave that politicking to the politicians. Stay focused on the job you were elected to, serving the city. Thank you. Also, as far as agenda item 9.1, I reserve my opinion as I do not wish to be sued.

Roger Mindrum. Followed by Nick Papadu.

Papadu.

Papadu.

Good evening, Roger Mindrum, 30-year resident of Westminster. Excuse my voice. I'm gonna agree with Mr. Lank mostly and Mr. Varengia on Prop 50. I have my personal opinion on it. I think it's unconstitutional. I think it's going against our state constitution. It's already in place. It's purely political, but that's exactly what you guys are gonna do if you're gonna actually vote on it tonight of this resolution. You're gonna take your personal political beliefs and do the same thing that the scumbags in Sacramento are gonna do. You're doing the same thing. You're gonna silence half of the city. You don't speak for anybody, really. I mean, there's five of you. You think you're going to speak for 90,000 people? I don't know what the political makeup is, Democrat or Republican in this city, but you're silencing people when you're going to do that. So I oppose this evening being on the agenda. As far as 9.2 with Mr. Bowie, I don't have the transcripts of all of what he said in the YouTube media, but I... I would approve removing him because from what I have seen, partial of his comments were very disparaging against city employees or city management and a whole lot more, along with the vice mayor of Garden Grove, who should be reprimanded for that too, but he didn't. I really thought Mr. Bowie would come up here and talk about free speech, but... As far as that goes, yeah, he's still going to be able to say anything he wants, but there is consequences to it. So I agree on that. As far as Blakey Park, I would like... that to remain old Westminster, pre-1975 history, old history of Westminster. There are so many areas in this city that the Vietnamese people can celebrate their culture and their history here, and I think you should just keep your hands off of it, except for putting money into it to preserve the actual long-term history of the city. Thank you.

Nick Papadu, followed by last speaker, Terry Raines.

Hi, my name's Nick Papadu. I've lived in Westminster a long time. And I'm here to speak first about this proposition to make some kind of proclamation about national politics, basically, or state politics, which you guys have nothing to do with, really. You're not even qualified to speak on the matter. But a recurring theme of the speakers before me explains the political ambitions, really, the political ambitions of people that really harm the city, deny half of it a voice. And I'm here to speak on The lack of wisdom shown by Proposition 5.1, which is part of a plan to take over the museum, this is really despicable. The hostility and divisiveness of this proposal is absolutely just past. And again, it's just a result of somebody's political ambitions and fantasies about beating somebody and higher. uh race which they have no possibility of winning anyway um the uh but uh the animus shown toward the his toward the historical society and that park by this city council and this mayor is absolutely atrocious and and there's no excuse for it there's no excuse at all uh in fascinating book came out last year called also on view, that examined off-the-beaten-track museums in the Los Angeles basin. And they mentioned two from Westminster. One was the Vietnamese Museum, the Army Museum that used to be on Bolsa, but they left. They went to Garden Grove. And now, and the other one was the Westminster Museum, which you're trying to destroy or appropriate. This makes no sense to me. We are getting attention from outside of Westminster and you're trying to toady to your own Voters and your constituency. Shame on you, really. There's no excuse for this at all. Play games with the street signs in Bolsa if you like. Fantasize about raising money for your archway over Bolsa. But ripping off the people of Westminster, really, in what's traditionally, for the past 40 years, been a historical park. This was not the idea of the community to have a cultural center. This was your idea. You got it when you visited San Jose. Nobody from the community came to you and said, oh, we need a cultural center. Nobody did that. You planted the idea thinking that you could easily rip off the historical society and the city by appropriating the park. It's not going to happen. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Last speaker, Terry Raines.

Hello, item 3.1, late communications. You're welcome. Vice Mayor Wynn should have been Vice Mayor Manzo. 3.5, attachment added late. Let's hope this plan encompasses the economic development priorities and needs of the entire city. We already have the Little Saigon blueprint and a full-time outreach worker for Little Saigon. 3.8, as someone who regularly goes the extra mile for this community, please approve both proclamations. Again, why do our proclamations and certificates say, I, Chi Charlie Wynn, mayor of the city of Westminster, on behalf of, when the entire council signs them? The mayor isn't signing on behalf of anyone but himself. 3-9, we already canceled the October 8th meeting due to the Cal Cities Conference. Now we have to reschedule the 22nd to the 15th because this council majority voted to send three members to D.C. Are we sure there won't be a planning commission meeting on the 15th? 5-1, the staff reports... states council members plural visited blakey park on april sixth wrong only vice mayor manzo visited that day or any day for that matter the rest of you have never been there on march twenty six acmo zeta stated title report and deep dive into the easements we heard loud and clear no architects after vice mayor asked No hiring of an architectural firm, right? Yet a firm was hired, MIG, who sent a landscape architect to the site and was awarded a contract to create this site map. When council member Mark Winn made the amended motion, he expressly said, no architect, as did Carlos. But when the city clerk read the motion into the record, she left that part out, and it was approved 3-2. The consensus was up to $5,000 for a title report and deep dive into the easements. How much was spent for both? At least $3,650 for the title report, plus $5,905 to MIG, for data collection in this map. The city spent almost $10,000, not what this council approved. Yes, it's within the CM spending authority, but it's shady to go against the council direction. The official agendized action tonight is receive and file only, no discussion of a Vietnamese cultural center per the Brown Act. 9-1, Prop 50 does not belong on this agenda. Council Member West, you and Mayor Nguyen have a direct conflict of interest to influence the voters to defeat Prop 30 as the 2026 Republican congressional candidates. City Attorney Porter, West and Mayor Nguyen must recuse themselves and not discuss or vote on this item. Furthermore, the new map does not impact Westminster, still entirely in CD45. Remove this from the agenda. Mayor, you voted for the diverted criminal Amy Phan West to go to DC, so she in turn would help and support you. When will you ever learn? 9.2, what took you so long, Charlie? Why just remove Bowie from the Planning Commission? Remove him from the Citizens Oversight Committee too. And why just remove Bowie from the Planning Commission? All three commissioners appointed by you and council members Mark Nguyen and Nam Quan Nguyen are useless and should be removed. Gee, will this council finally Reappoint Laura Rose to the Planning Commission after screwing her and the city and its residents over by appointing your problematic political pals. Do better, Westminster.

Mayor, there's no more speakers.

All right, thank you very much. Next is consent calendar.

Mr. Mayor, may I briefly address quick? Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Thanks for coming and sharing your concern, Michael, Mr. Lank, and also Mr. Roger. I really appreciate your concern of fixing our homelessness crisis, our crime, fixing our city, fixing, repairing our streets. It is very important. It all tie into funding. And when it's redistrict, we get less funding because it's gerrymander. When our voice are taken away, when they merge us into LA County in this congressional district, that will be an issue for us. If we really truly want to have a voice and keep that voice here locally, that's why local control is very important. So I'm really thankful that Mr. Michael, Mr. Link, and Mr. Roger for being here too. Hear item 9.1 later. Thank you so much.

All right, consent calendar. All matters listed under consent calendar are considered routine and may be approved by a single motion followed by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the city council or staff request that specific items be removed from the consent calendar for separate action or discussions. I would like to approve item 3.8. Is there any items that council want to pull?

Mayor, I'd like to pull item 3.5.

3.5.

And then approve the remainder with also amendments to 3.1, correct? That's my motion.

Okay. Mayor, I'd like to pull item 3.3. 3.3, okay.

Amendment to also pull 3.3.

A minute?

Motion.

Motion.

Okay.

Is there a second to the motion to approve the rest of the item? A second. Okay.

Thank you.

Motion and second.

I have a motion made by Vice Mayor Monzo, seconded by District 3, Council Member Nguyen. This is to approve the consent calendar with agenda item numbers 3.3, 3.5, and 3.8 pulled from the consent for separate discussion, and to also include the 3.1 amendment by late communication.

All right.

I'll go ahead and call roll. District 1, Councilwoman Fan West.

Fan West, aye.

District 3, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. District 4, Council Member Nguyen.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Monzo.

Oh, yes.

And Mayor Nguyen.

Yes.

Thank you, motion passed 5-0.

Okay, item 3.3, first amendment for the theater operation programming of the Rose Center with the fans of the Abbey Center, DBA fans of the Rose Center Theater, a California non-profit 501C3 Corporation. Council Member Mark Nguyen.

Can staff just give more detail on the item?

Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the Westminster City Council. Okay. This item before you today is the First Amendment to the agreement that was initiated in 2019 with the Friends of the Rose Center. It includes a 5% venue fee applied to rental use, including non-profit and for-profit rental, and it extends the agreement through June 2021. with an optional three month extension after that through September. And the reason we're asking for this today, we're talking about it today is to allow the city to continue the theater DNA study which will conclude in September and will be presented in October.

The 5% on the fee, that's starting on January 1st, 2026 until June 30th, 2026, right?

Yes, and then if the city chooses to engage in the extension, the additional three-month extension as well.

When is the report from our consulting in terms of the and the facility for the catering, when is that report going to be done in terms of making recommendation for the council of what's next for us to do?

The report will be presented in October. I think tentatively right now on the October 15th council meeting. And then the council will be provided the different options presented by the consultant.

I would like to make a motion to... not approve this item, but just to have it on standby until we see the report in October, and then we can see what we can do.

I will second that. The reason I second that is because you mentioned that next month the consultant was going to talk to us about the findings, right? If that's the case, then why we have to extend the lease when we are having the consultant come back and tell us, I'd rather wait to hear the findings before we can approve for the extension. With that, I second the motion.

I have a couple of questions. If I may, I'm pretty sure this is a city manager question that, or Tanya question. So wherever the consultant is gonna, advice is gonna provide, whatever it is, is gonna take time to initiate, to implement it, I mean. So that time is gonna be approximately a year or so, is that not correct?

It would depend on the direction council wants to take from the recommendation. If it required any budgetary considerations, then we would need to add money to the budget in order to fund those particular recommendations. But ultimately it would depend, it will take time to draft the RFP and to go out for bid for the services. And then in the meantime, This would allow cultural arts to continue here in the theater as well as the rental groups that have planned bookings in the space as well through June of 2026.

So can you explain what is the difference between approving something today or approving it in October? What's the difference?

If this item isn't, oh, sorry.

Yeah, no, that's, I mean, that's just really at council's discretion at this point. Whether you approve it now or you approve it then, if you approve it a month from now, for example, it just gives them one less month to book events if they decide they're going to be booking events, but...

But if there's still, whatever we do is gonna take, whatever decision this council makes during that time, the operations still, it's gonna, it should continue. Because we're not gonna have an empty theater, are we?

That's really up to council.

Well, I'm not for having an empty theater. I mean, whatever we choose to do during that presentation from the consultant, that's going to take time to implement whatever decision we make. So it's not going to happen. We're not going to all of a sudden have something start, you know, the next month. It's going to take time. So I don't understand why we would stop the production of the arts for that time period. It just doesn't make any sense. We're not going to continue. We're not going to start, implement whatever we choose to do in October. It's not going to start in November. It's going to take a year or so. So I don't understand why we would not continue to have the theater operate. So that's my choice. Mr. Mayor, I have a question.

Go ahead. City Attorney, didn't we move forward with this

This item was discussed in closed session. I don't want us to publicly disclose what, I mean, certainly we can make a motion to disclose that. That's within your purview. This item was discussed in closed session. However, there was no action taken at that time other than to return with this agenda item to be considered an open session.

Right. I think I agree with Vice Mayor. It's important for the theater not to be vacant. But if we don't approve it now, it might be vacant. Is that correct, City Manager?

So they still have occupancy through the end of this year. That's the end of their contract. This extension essentially would be through the end of June. So it would be vacant as of the beginning of the year.

Well, I can respond to that. First of all, we have the consultant to do the business first. And they are ready to come back in a month. waiting for a month to make a decision is not that long. And why do we have to rush into signing an extension for another contract? What if, like you mentioned, what if we decide to do something quicker? Then we have to wait until June to do that. Why do we have to take that? Why don't we wait until another month to make a decision on this? Why we have to rush into it? And at the same time, I have to mention this. If we extend, right now they are using this arena. We are paying for the electricity, we are paying for the utilities and everything. I don't know why we have to pay for another six months And I don't know why that we have to take that long to make decision to decide what we have to do next. So at this point here, I'd rather wait for another month to make a decision on that.

Mr. Mayor, may I ask, I noticed in the study, it says that we will get in the meantime, if we approve this agreement, a motion for this today, this agenda item, they will give us 5% of what they make to the city to help the city. I think that's a plus. That's number one. And then for us, since we're doing research to see what we should do with the theater in the meantime, it will give us about six months anyway till next summer to figure out who's gonna take over or what we need to do. So I think with this agenda, if we motion to approve tonight, it will be a plus for the city with a 5% to the city. So with that, Mr. Mayor, I motion to approve as is.

Second. Move on, no. I second.

Is there a motion already?

Ma'am, there was a motion and a second. If you want to, then you can do the substitute motion.

Oh, sorry, Mr. Mayor, I substitute. I substitute motion to approve as yes.

Second.

All right, is there anything else? If not, yes.

Thanks, Mayor. The 5% increase, even with the 5% increase, it is not enough to pay for the utility. As of last year, the city paid over $160,000 just for utility to maintain this. For six months, just think about it, half of that, that 5% is not even going to cover half of that. That's my two cents.

At the same time, that 5% is charged on top of whoever is using it. It's not coming out of the one who are renting it out, but they come out from the vendor who rent this arena.

Again, we're in the business of providing a service to the community. That's my opinion is we're here to serve the community and provide this service, and this service of altering culture is a service to the community. this this theater has been operating and we've been on the hook for that i understand that i'm not arguing that fact but to have an empty theater it makes no sense when whatever decision we make in october it's going to take time to implement so the last thing we need is an empty an empty theater so how come so we have a motion in the

How can we say it's an empty theater if we make decision by October time frame? It's just a month from now that we are gonna make decision and it's going to be, you decide the empty theater for how long.

Yes. Thank you, Mayor. To be clear, I think Councilwoman Fang was misappoint here. Even if we let the theater empty, okay, then we don't lose the money, okay? So take into account that they share like a 5%, like you mentioned before, like earlier. It doesn't make any difference, okay? So we still losing money over this if we balance it out. So I think,

Let me ask staff clarification. So what are we paying in utility per month estimate? Assistant manager, do you know what we pay estimate a month for utility?

I don't have that information with me.

Yeah, we would have to get back to you on that exact dollar amount, and we can provide that to you at a later date.

City Manager, do you know what's the estimated amount of utility that we're paying every month?

Well, so that's a little bit of a trick question because the reason that it's provided as an annual amount is because the utility cost for this building actually incorporates both sides. There's not a differentiation between the theater side and their electricity use and the catering side, what their electricity use is. So there's actually not a way to quantify which side is using what and how much, but that's why it just comes out to what the annual cost is. I don't have the bills. I mean, I look to our public works department, but I don't know if he has that information offhand either.

Okay, so the annual amount that we are paying about is city manager?

It's about 160,000.

I think it was 160,000 in total, and that includes not just electricity. It includes various other things, including maintenance costs as well.

Okay. So 160, then what are they making? And then the 5%, what would that estimate out for a year would be?

So the estimation that was provided in the staff report is based on the rentals that occurred in the fiscal year 23-24, which was the closed fiscal year. And they estimate around $2,000 a month would come to the city from the venue fee if all rentals were the same as that period of time. In the six month period. So at $2,000 a month over the six month extension of this contract, that would be $12,000.

So I guess that we have the subsidy motion and the original motion. Now why don't we go with subsidy motion first. Can you repeat the subsidy motion?

Mr. Mayor, let me, so basically estimate because there's two section, the catering and the theater. So 160, so half of that say 80 about, okay? 80 for the theater. And we're pretty much half of it, half of the year is where the city gets 12,000 total for a whole year would be 24,000. So of course we are losing money on our end. I do see that. Are we able to get people to fill in in the next six months? Some movement in the theater? No? You don't think we'll get it?

Are you asking if we would be able to get a new contractor to come in and set up and offer theater, cultural arts activities and rentals?

I'm asking if we're able to rent it out to anyone who wants to rent the theater for an event, a concert, or whatever.

So within the city doing it on our own? Just whoever want to rent. We have no mechanism for renting this facility out as a city because it's been operated by, you know, a separate entity for the entire duration. So we would still have to come back to council to present a policy of some sort to allow us the authority to even rent the facility. So it's not just, you know...

So we can't just, in the next six months, we can't rent this space out, basically?

Council would have to come, yeah, so the agreement would have to expire with the theater. We would have to have a policy with a fee schedule and parameters and, you know, all the things that are associated with that. We'd probably have to do some, you know, improvements, et cetera, before we rent it out on our own. So that in and of itself would still take time. Okay, so would we be able to get some kind of fee up by November?

No. No?

No, from what I understand it too, the city doesn't own this equipment that's here. Is that not correct? The city doesn't own the sound system, doesn't own the lighting. Is that not correct?

That is correct. And I think the benefit of having this discussion when the study is presented is because all of this will be laid out. Correct.

Yeah, that's what I'm getting. So whatever it is, like the city managers discussed, we don't have the mechanism to be doing any of this and we don't have the staff to do that. As it is, we're shorthanded in every department, and to me, this is, who are you gonna throw this at? Whoever you do, whichever staff, whatever department you put this on, they'll probably quit. I mean, they're already overworked as it is, and we're gonna throw more at them? So it's gonna be something that you're going to hire a whole nother department or hire a company to do whatever it is that needs to be done.

I mean, if I can, before we start deviating into the what ifs, I mean, that's the whole point of the study. Correct. The importance of the study is actually being able to give this council all those necessary options. And that's why it's really important before a decision that's made on what we're going to be doing or what we're going to be tasked with is to have that discussion on the study and the results of that study. So I think before we start going into the what ifs, we just have to have the results of the study shown.

Right. So with what you guys are talking about, Mr. Mayor, may I have one last statement here? So as the gatekeeper of the city, all the council may or may not hear, I feel like it's our due diligence to be physically with our finances as the doorkeeper of the city finances. I think with the number that I calculated briefly here, 80,000 were paying for one section of the theater versus the catering, and then we're getting money back 12,000. I don't think that comped, and I feel like more money is coming out of the city than coming in. With that, Mr. Mayor and Council, I motion to withdraw my substitute motion and to just to wait till we get the correct number. So as of right now, I motion to table this. If that's okay with the Council for the next time discussion to table this.

Well, the motion is not to take action on this. That's fine. You just withdraw your motion.

Yes, that's fine. I withdraw.

So with the withdrawal, so we don't have the substantive motion. We have the original motion. Is there any motion, any substantive motion at this time?

Well, you know, I think table and withdraw is too different.

No, no, but the original motion, I already motioned. Oh, he already motioned to take no action.

And table are two different things.

We want to go back to the original motion. May I? I think she wants to withdraw her motion. In the meantime, we go back to the original motion.

So what I'm doing is I want to table it, meaning we can bring it up for discussion afterward as a council discussing closed session about this issue. So that's why I wanna table it.

Okay, so I have a motion on the floor already, which was prior to your substitute, which you have withdrawn. And that motion is to take no action, which is ultimately to deny staff's recommendation. So are you looking to do a different motion council member?

Well, I understand that staff are recommending us to approve as is.

But the motion on the floor is to take no action and to deny.

I know, take no action. Now, with take no action at this moment only, but that doesn't mean we don't come back to it. Is that correct, Mr. Mayor?

No, it can be come back. It can come back later.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking tabling it.

Take no action at this time.

Okay, we'll take no action, but we can come back later. Yes, so I withdraw my motion right now.

So if I can just make a clarifying comment. If tonight's motion is to take no action, but the intention is to bring this back at a future meeting, can the city council direct staff what meeting you would like that, the meeting in October, the meeting in November? It sounded at the beginning of the discussion that this was gonna be something staff was already presenting with a separate item. in October, so are you looking to table this and defer it to a future meeting?

Council Member Mark, do you want to amend your motion? Yes, I want to make an amendment. And then bring it back sometime later?

Yes, I'll make the amendment to my motion to take no action at this time and to bring this back to the council after the consultant present the report on the- Okay, I second it.

It's a motion. As long as the second, yeah, as long as the second agrees to that.

So my seconder is mayor. Do you agree to that amendment? Yes. Okay. So I have an amended motion made by district three council member Wynn, seconded by mayor Wynn. This is to take no action and to bring the item back after the consultant report is presented to the city council. I'll go to call roll. District one, councilwoman Fan West.

Fan West, aye.

District 3, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. District 4, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. Vice Mayor Monzo. No. And Mayor Nguyen. Yes. Motion carried 4-1.

3.5 professional services agreement with RSG Solution Incorporated, DBA, RSG Inc. to develop the city's economic development strategy plan. Council Member, I mean Vice Mayor Mezzo.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, can we have a brief staff presentation on this, please?

Good evening, Mayor Nguyen, city council, and community. So before you this evening is the purchase and sale agreement with RSG Solutions to develop the city's economic development strategic plan. To provide some background and a little context on how we got here, this item stems from one of several strategic goals set by the council earlier this year. Specifically, it pertains to strategic goal number one, achieve financial stability. When it comes to economic development, there are certain initiatives that can help build or contribute to a financially prosperous community. These initiatives include business outreach, a more proactive effort in developing and maintaining relations with the business community and development and real estate community, All of these we've worked really hard at since the beginning of the year. Since economic development has been identified as a top priority for this council, we've made progress on a lot of these areas and we've been really excited to share them with you so far. To build on that momentum and as identified in the strategic planning process, another initiative that supports the city's goal is developing the strategic plan. This is important because it will memorialize our efforts and really provide staff this guidebook, this roadmap, on implementing solutions and recommendations that a consultant would provide. It outlines strategies to promote quality development, encourage job creation, and really just help get our city to a financially prosperous situation with various programs and initiatives. So several months ago, staff released an RFQ to our economic development consultants. This RFQ outlined really what we were looking for in a partner as we complete this endeavor, outlined the city's goals as you laid out during the strategic planning process, and emphasized the importance of community outreach since we know how important that is here. We received three Proposals ranging in cost from $120,000 to $170,000, depending on the level of community outreach that was involved. Proposed timelines for completion also varied between four to nine months. And in evaluating the proposals, we really consider the three factors that you see on the screen. It's understanding our distinct business environment and our broader community. It's the relevant qualifications and experience they have, especially in working with culturally and ethnically diverse communities. And then also their public outreach and engagement approach, because that, again, was really important to us. So as part of the evaluation, staff also conducted interviews. So this was a really comprehensive process. So based on our review of the proposals and interviews, we recommend awarding the contract to RSG Solutions Incorporated for development of the plan. The consultant is here this evening, Ms. Jessica Gonzalez. She's a director with the firm. She'll be working with us. If approved, we're very excited for that, and she's here to answer questions you may have. RSG has a strong understanding of the city's objective and long-term goals, which we discuss with them at length during our interviews. We really hone the idea of how important, again, outreach is when they do this process. The plan will be tailored and unique to Westminster based on our community's unique challenges and opportunities. It's important to note that this consultant has worked with the city before. They've partnered with us on various initiatives over the past two decades, affordable housing projects, real estate projects, most recently the city's 2020 Small Business Grant Program. So to develop a plan, RSG will complete the following tasks. These are detailed more in the proposal and Ms. Gonzalez can answer questions, go over these in more detail if you'd like. So the tasks will do outline kind of their approach and their methodology in completing the project. And again, throughout this conversation, we placed a heavy emphasis on community outreach and engagement, so that is a significant component of this. The estimated time to complete will be six to nine months, so around March to June of next year, and they will present a final plan to council. This project will cost $137,760, which is reflected in your purchase and sale agreement. And funding is budgeted in this year's fiscal year budget. In conclusion, approval of this item before you will initiate the development of the strategic plan and supports strategic goal number one, achieve financial stability. We are excited to collaborate with them to develop a plan with implementable initiatives that provide a framework for our efforts and ensure alignment with the city's long-term goals.

Thank you. Thank you. I have a question. First question is we know we have six tasks and is there a different dollar amount per task or how is that broken down and to come up to the 137.7 amount?

Can you please go back to the slide that shows?

Pleasure to be here today. Yes, there is an itemized number for each of the tasks proposed. We also endeavor to make sure that we are putting forth the best efforts to ensure that we were competitive in our cost, which I think your staff found that RSU was the most competitive.

And is there a different dollar amount per task?

There is. It is broken out per task. Your staff probably has that available to share with council.

Yes, that's available in the proposal, which is an exhibit to the agreement. There's a task and fee schedule there.

Can you kind of answer for the public's sake? How will this help with small businesses in our community?

Absolutely. So developing a strategic plan is essentially creating a roadmap to understand the needs of your residents, of your businesses. What RSG will be doing is doing a concerted effort to engage with your business community, your entrepreneurs, sole proprietors, the diverse makeup that makes Westminster such an enriched community. By hearing directly from your businesses, their needs, current anticipated needs, We'll be able to identify recommendations, initiatives, policies that the council can adopt long-term and short-term to be able to address the needs. So this is a conversation, a dialogue with your business community to support them with the resources they need for continued growth and expansion.

Okay, and then as far as your team meeting with the small business community, what's the makeup of your team as far as we need to have different languages, you know, Vietnamese, Spanish, English?

So we have approximately 40 people in our firm. Some of us are fluent in different languages. I am fluent in Spanish. We would be having resources in order to be able to accommodate Vietnamese translation. We'd also be looking to your staff to identify any resources that they would want us to partner with. We are open to any partnership opportunities to ensure that we are really having conversations with all sectors of your community.

OK. And last, you've done this before in other cities, I'm assuming, correct?

Absolutely. So RSG has over the span of 40 years worked with multiple cities. I myself have spent 20 years working directly in the public sector. So I actually worked on the other side of the house for various Orange County cities. 15 years of my professional services were working directly with Orange County.

So in those years, do you have any success stories you can share with us?

Yes, we have economic development strategic plans that we are leading that have led in the past with diverse communities. Currently, I'm working with three other agencies on their plans. RSG has an extensive resume and portfolio of strategic plans. Each one is customized and tailored to the specific needs of that community. So it's not a one size fits all. It's learning about the needs of your community developing in partnership with staff, in partnership with your stakeholders, a plan that will be responsive to the needs of your community. And that's really what equals success, making sure that it's tailored to your community.

Okay, so we have some economic success. At the end of this and after it's been implemented and a year or two years have gone by where there's been some economic success in adopting or establishing these new goals. Is that what I'm hearing?

Yes, what we do is we work closely with your staff. We develop an implementation matrix with performance metrics so that it is a plan that is a living document. It doesn't sit on a shelf. It's something that is manageable, is flexible, can be reflective of your needs. And so the council and staff would be able to see these metrics, be able to adopt them, see that they are keeping the community accountable and are being responsive to the needs of the community.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Vice Mayor, sorry, I just wanted to clarify. This was the proposal as part of the late communication that you received, so.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for all your help. Is there a motion for that? Mayor, I motion to approve. Second.

Thank you. I have a motion made by Vice Mayor Monzo, seconded by Mayor Nguyen. This is to approve the professional services agreement with RSG Solutions Incorporated, DBA, RSG Inc. to develop the city's economic development strategic plan and amount not to exceed $137,760 and authorize the city manager or her designee to execute the subject professional services agreement on the city's behalf. I'll go to call roll. District 3, Council Member Nguyen.

Yes.

District 4, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. Vice Mayor Monzo. Yes. And Mayor Nguyen. Yes. Motion carried 4-0.

3.8 approval of proclamations. The reason I approve this item is because I would like to go ahead and approve and I asked to approve this item so that we can present it today to, I believe that we have to bring the receiver to here today to receive the, okay. So with that, I move to approve this proclamation. Proclamation. I second it.

Thank you. I have a motion made by Mayor Nguyen, seconded by Vice Mayor Monzo. This is to approve the following proclamations, World Alzheimer's Awareness Month, September 2025, and Extra Mile Day, November 1st, 2025. I'll go ahead and call roll. District 3, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. District 4, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. Vice Mayor Monzo. Yes. And Mayor Nguyen. Yes. Motion carried 4-0.

So let me go ahead and read the proclamation and then we'll present it to you. More than 164,000 residents in Orange County and over six million Americans are currently living under Alzheimer's disease. The mission of Alzheimer's Orange County is to provide hands-on care and support, information, referrals, education, and resources for families in Orange County and surrounding areas who experience memory loss, Alzheimer's, and dementia. Now therefore, I, Chief Charlie Nguyen, Mayor of the City of Westminster, on behalf of Vice Mayor Carlos Manzo and Council Members Amy Fine West, Mark Nguyen, and Nam Quang Nguyen, do hereby proclaim September 2025 as World Alzheimer Awareness Month in the City of Westminster and encourage all members of the community to learn and participate in activities to help raise awareness and knowledge. At this time I'd like to ask the City Council to join me at the front of the dais to present the proclamation to Celina on behalf of the Azamara of Orange County. So would you please come up to the dais so that we can present the award to you. So again,

Thank you for this confirmation. Alzheimer's Orange County has been serving OC for about four years now. There are many different programs, including educational workshops, enhanced care management. We have a team of social workers who work very closely with many families across OC. So very glad to be receiving this confirmation.

All right, moving on to public hearing. At this time, I would like to move on to public hearing. So Madam Clerk, would you please go ahead and read the instruction for the record?

Thank you, Mayor. Anyone wishing to speak on an open public hearing may speak in person. Speakers during public hearing comments will each have three minutes to speak on each public hearing item. Any person wishing to address the City Council in person should complete a green speaker slip, which are provided at both the entrance of the theater and public podium, and submit the card to a City Clerk Department staff member. When your name is called, please step to the podium at that time and state your name and city of residence for the record.

4.1 public hearing case number 2025-0166, a request to adopt an urgency ordinance and introduce for first reading a non-urgency ordinance to amend section 17.250.035, housing overlay of Westminster Municipal Court. At this time, I would like to ask for a stop report, please.

Thank you and good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and council members. We're here tonight for case 2025-0166. This is a city initiated zoning code amendment to amend chapter 17.250.035 housing overlay of the Westminster Municipal Code. The housing overlay is used to provide a minimum density for sites which have been included in the six cycle housing element, which was certified and adopted by the city council and state. All of the sites within the housing overlay are located within mixed use zoning districts. As council will recall, the city is currently working on amending the mixed use development standards to allow for greater density per the recommendations provided to this city by EPS. To this date, staff has received a number of inquiries from developers or property owners looking to develop housing overlay sites at densities in the 20 to 25 units per acre range. At the August 20th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, staff presented the proposed zoning code amendment that will be seen here. The commission voted 5-0 against recommending approval of the proposed zoning code amendment to the council, finding that the proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and welfare of the city. The shown map shows mixed-use zones within the city with the MU40, the mixed-use 40 zones in dark blue, and the mixed-use 36 zones in light blue. The yellow crosshatch areas are the housing overlay. As can be seen, the majority of these housing overlay sites are located adjacent to Westminster Boulevard, Beach Boulevard, and Bolsa Avenue. The following two slides simply provide a visual example of what types of multifamily projects occur at a given density level. At densities below 30 units per acre, projects are likely to be their townhomes or low-rise apartment buildings as seen in the images on the screen. Projects at densities above 30 units per acre are most likely to be apartment buildings, three to five stories in height, which can take a variety of forms and can be implemented with mixed use or commercial space along the bottom floors. The proposed ordinance amends section 17.250.035 of the Westminster Municipal Code. Currently, the minimum density within the housing overlay is 20 units per acre. The proposed zoning code amendment raised the minimum density within the housing overlay to 30 units per acre. This density is in line with the densities which were proposed in the six cycle housing element, which assumed a density of 85% for housing element sites, or 34 units per acre for the mixed use 40 sites and 31 units per acre for mixed use 36 zone sites. Ensuring that the housing element sites develop at a density close to the density assumed in the housing element will ensure that the city does not have to identify and designate other sites within the city to accommodate for any shortfall in the city's assigned number of housing units or RHNA numbers that the city planned for in the six cycle housing element. The proposed ordinance also allows the housing overlay to be placed over non-housing element designated sites within the city should the city desire to do so. It is important to note that applying the housing overlay to any new site would follow the same protocol as a zone change and include public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. At the August 13th, 2025 meeting, the City Council passed an urgency ordinance which imposed a moratorium on approving any housing development of less than 30 units per acre on any site within the housing overlay. This moratorium will expire on September 27th, 2025, 45 days after adoption. If the Council were to introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading tonight, the earliest a second reading could take place would be September 24, and the ordinance would not go into effect until the 31st day after that date. This would leave at least a 28-day span between the end of the moratorium and the effective date of the ordinance proposed tonight. Due to this period, an urgency ordinance is also being presented for City Council approval. The urgency ordinance contains the same proposed changes that can be found in the traditional ordinance, only difference being that the urgency ordinance would have immediate effect and take care of the gap between second reading and effect. Per state law, an urgency ordinance must be passed by a four-fifths vote. As the proposed ordinance will not affect the allowed uses in the underlying zones or create any more maximum density, the ordinance is exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption. Tonight, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed ordinance. City Council also has the ability to adopt an urgency ordinance amending chapter 17.250.035 and introduce the proposed ordinance for first reading. With any proposal for approval, staff would recommend that the city council motion for staff to fix the dates for noticing found within both ordinances. That concludes my presentation, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, and this time I will open or foresee the council question for staff, if there's any. Okay, here, yes, for you. All right, council member, go ahead.

Yes sir, thank you mayor. So this new coding amendment also add the ability to apply housing overlay to other sites?

Correct. Currently in the housing overlay, it says that it has to be applied to, or it can only be applied to housing element sites. What we were asking for is the city to have the ability to apply that to any site if it deems it significant for housing. And like I said, that wouldn't be a unilateral decision on behalf of staff or the council. It would still have to go through the zoning amendment process, which would require public hearings before the planning commission and the city council before the housing overlay could be imposed on any new property.

So the current housing overlay in the city is mainly on Westminster Boulevard between, say, Willow, the 405 freeway, to some part to beach, right, and then some on beach, and then Balsa Avenue. Correct.

The main corridors are Westminster and a little bit east of beach, and then beach from just north of Westminster down to just on the other side of the cemetery and down Balsa.

Okay.

Now I know that going from 20 units per acre to 30 units is definitely going to help us in terms of meeting the housing mandate as mandated by the state. But why is it that going from 20 to 30 in the housing overlay would help overall in terms of the aesthetic or the specific plan of this area? Can you elaborate on that?

Part of what we are asking council to consider is that we are working on amending the mixed use zoning standards at this time to implement the recommendations that were given by EPS last year to council. Those recommendations were to raise the density into the 80 units per acre range. What has been found by EPS is that the current density of 40 units per acre, there is no product that works in that range. So what we are trying to do is with that upcoming density increase is to make sure that the city is getting products that reflect that density increase. Townhomes are normally built in about the 20 to 26 unit per acre range. While we agree that townhomes have their place in any city, if the city is trying to transform those corridors along Beach, along Westminster, we are looking for something with higher density. Townhomes aren't going to bring in any kind of change to the city. It will just be another tract along beach. But if we can get products that bring in some density, that's when you start driving local commercial businesses, local retail, local restaurants, because that density helps support more business. So we are looking at it from a holistic standpoint. This isn't just about the density. This is about bringing business to those corridors. This is about creating mixed-use buildings in those corridors. And that can only be accomplished at densities above 30 units per acre.

All right. Thank you so much. Okay, so I have.

Is there anything else? If not, I would like to open for public comment. Do we have anyone sign up for public comment?

Mayor, we have one speaker, Terry Raines.

Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part. Poor planning doesn't justify circumventing law. Why have a planning commission consider code amendments if you always ignore their recommendations? There's no PC resolution of denial in your packet, but the commission unanimously found the proposed amendments would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare. Why don't both ordinances include the whereas for the noticing of tonight's hearing, only for the August 20th PC hearing? Government Code 658-58C states, legislative body shall not adopt or extend any interim ordinance pursuant to this section unless this ordinance... contains legislative findings that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Government Code 36937 states, an ordinance takes effect immediately only if the ordinance is necessary to preserve public peace, health, or safety, and contains a declaration of the facts constituting the urgency. The urgency ordinances proposed on the 13th and before you tonight, do not comply with state law. City Attorney Porter, this new urgency ordinance does not include any findings that this amendment must be adopted immediately to preserve public peace, health, or safety. Accepting a housing development application for a site in the overlay zone with a density of 20 to 30 units per acre is not a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, or welfare. It's quite the opposite, actually. Thinking you might not meet RENA numbers because the city procrastinated in making these code amendments is not an emergency. I provided you copies of both statutes. Hopefully you have them. Furthermore, this urgency ordinance is not a renewal of the original moratorium. It's a new urgency ordinance likely to get around restrictions in state law. Government Code 658E... states when an interim ordinance has been adopted, every subsequent ordinance adopted pursuant to this section covering the whole or a part of the same property shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect upon the termination of the first interim ordinance or any extension of the ordinance as provided in this section. F states the legislative body may adopt another interim ordinance pursuant to this section, providing that the new interim ordinance is adopted to protect the public, safety, health, and welfare from an event, occurrence, or a set of circumstances different from the event, occurrence, or set of circumstances that led to the adoption of the prior interim ordinance. 658C also states an interim ordinance adopted pursuant to this section that has the effect of denying approvals needed for the development of projects with the significant component of multifamily housing may not be extended except upon written findings adopted by the legislative body supported by substantial evidence on the record that the continued approval of the development of multifamily housing projects would have a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety. Standard procedure is to provide a redlined version of the existing code with the proposed amendments and a clean copy of what the code will look like with those amendments, but not here. Do better, Westminster. Council, I urge you to reject the urgency ordinance and think long and hard before you approve the first reading of this regular ordinance. Thank you.

We have one more speaker, Mayor. Diane Tollefson.

Hi, I'm Diane Tollefson. I noticed that the Planning Commission said to deny it. Five, zero. So all five of the people on the Planning Commission says to deny it. And I want to know why they said to deny it. I mean, do you folks get the reasons why they say to deny it? Or do you just see, we deny it? There must be reasons that they deny. One of the things that I'm concerned about of high-density structures is that they have forgotten that people in California drive cars, lots of cars, and there's never enough parking places. And if we have businesses combined with a high density living, I noticed that in other cities that the poor little businesses downstairs don't have any places for people to park because the people who live in the buildings upstairs take all the parking places. I think it's poorly designed. I've been in cities in the world where they have lots of high density seven story buildings and people are crammed in like rabbits. But those people don't have cars. They have public transportation that is very effective and very few cars. And we're different. So we have to have plenty of parking places and accessibility. if you're going to have a combination of people dwelling over businesses. Because if I were a business person and I didn't have a place for any of my customers to park, I wouldn't want to have my business there. I've seen many of these high-density places that have business below, and they're all empty. and it's because there's no place to park. So please consider what your planning commission has suggested to you and find out if some of the reasons that they object. When I see a committee that says 5-0 to deny it, that's pretty impressive and I think you should listen to what they have to say. That's all.

Mayor, we received an additional speaker for Roger Mindrum.

Good evening. I have to agree with the last speaker there. I actually did attend that Planning Commission meeting, and she's right. You do need to ask why that was a 5-0 vote, and also ask who's pushing this now, who exactly is pushing it now, and why. You all know the general view of the Residents here don't want high density. No one in this entire area, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, nobody wants this high density and now you're pushing it to make it even denser. You should vote no on it, agree with the Planning Commission, especially if you did not watch that meeting and see the presentation that was presented there. But please ask those questions and you should vote to agree with the decision of the Planning Commissioner, thank you.

Mayor, we have no further speaker cards.

All right, thank you very much. And now back to Mayor and Council Member discussions. Is there anything on this council here?

Go ahead, Mr. Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Well, I appreciate the comments of the community. Definitely, you know, when I hear what you have to say, as you may know, this is not the first time we've heard this information from our staff. I know the council, at least three of the council were able to make it to a bus ride around other neighboring cities to see what their high density looks like. I unfortunately could not make that day, but I see it every day in my day job. And I can tell you that is what most communities are doing. Over the years, I've been here in the city a long time, and I've heard those comments from years past that we don't want that. But then quite a few folks that I've spoken to, they're like, why can't we do what Stanton is doing? Why are they looking so much better than we are? There is a reason for that, because if it doesn't pencil out for the developers, the developers are not going to come. And the cost of construction, the cost to build something is very high. And if the numbers aren't there, it's not going to happen. There is a lot of positives. to this. Every different project is going to have some similarities, but some differences as well. And I can tell you from the many, many cities that I've been working in, this is pretty popular and successful. And I know that this council has spoken about this and is looking to go in this direction because we want As you can see, some community members speak about, you know, on the west side of town, for instance, why aren't we doing this and why aren't we doing that? Well, you know, it takes money to do that, and if it's not there for developers, they're just not going to come. I did hear the Planning Commission meeting and I've heard their comments and some of the comments from them are, you know, just personal feelings about how they feel about the density levels. But I know that this is, from what I've spoken to many community members, we want redevelopment in our city, and we want to see our city progress, and it's just not. As you can see, our city's been stagnant for many years. And a lot of our commercial areas, commercial zones are still the same as they were in the 60s, not very much upkeep is happening either. So I'm currently in favor of Bringing it up to 30 doesn't mean it's going to happen. It just gives you the opportunity for somebody for it to happen. We don't know, but it may. So thank you, staff, for this presentation. if hopefully our city attorney has looked at this, the way the staff report is written as far as the recommendations for urgency and all that, and we're okay with all that, city attorney, with the way it's presented?

Yes.

All right. All right, Mayor, thank you.

All right, thank you. Council Member West?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm looking at the map and I notice where it's going to need those high density 30 units. It's basically off of Westminster Street where there's a lot of shops and stores along there that can be beautified. I can see with that it might beautify. It's not overlooking single homes or anything there. And then I'm looking down Beach Boulevard as well. Those areas are also shops and stores off of Beach Boulevard. And then also Bosa Street, there's a lot of restaurant stores in that area and mobile home parks. So it's not really overlooking single home from what I'm seeing on the map. And of course, when we redevelop and build those units, I know they beautify the area as well. So that is a plus for our city. But I do have concerns when it comes to single homes and if we have those units around there, that is a concern for me and for the resident of District 1 and resident across the city of Westminster that has single homes. So with that, if they do expand to that, then I have a concern. But as what I'm looking at, it's only in Westminster Street off of Westminster Beach and Bosa where there's all of like, you know, stores, shops and buildings in those areas. So I don't see of a concern there of, you know, privacy intruding into privacy, someone's yard or anything like that. So for me, I don't see any concern. But I do hear the concerns of the resident. They do not want high density, and I do understand that. But the high density are not in single home area. It is in business area. So with that being said, I don't see any concerns. So I motion to approve as is, unless there is concern that it's hidden that I don't know about.

So a motion to approve it, yes.

Oh no, I was just gonna clarify, we have, there's two on the staff report is, they have A, B, and C, so I don't know, Councilmember, which ones, what's your motion?

I think we can go with one motion for all three, right? Yes. Before.

So I just want to clarify really quick. So the recommendation option A or item A is for the city council to uphold the denial of the case or to move forward with B and C, which is to adopt an urgency ordinance and then take for first reading an ordinance. So Councilwoman Fen West, if I could just clarify for the record, your motion is to do A, and uphold the denial, or B and C and do the ordinance?

I know that you guys are asking for, the staff are asking for emergency ordinance, right? To approve 30 units, basically. And for me, I do see, you know, option B and C is what I understand for that section area. Correct. Now, the adopted urgency ordinance zoning, changing that overlay and introduce the first reading of ordinance and the ordinance of this council. Okay. Westminster text, amending this, read by title only, waive further reading.

So first question is, are you uphold or deny?

So basically I'm okay with B or C, but I'm not doing A, but what the city recommend, is it B or C from what I'm seeing on the map?

So it's going to be council's discretion, but what is in front of you is to do B and C, or you could do a variation that's up to the city council on how you'd like to move forward. Okay. So I will motion for B and C. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

I just want to, um, add a few things before we can vote on this. Not so long ago, I have a chance to go with, I want to thank city staff have arranged a trip for us to visit a few areas. And it's really an open eye for all of us to see what they develop out there in different cities. We actually went to city of Stanton and city of Long Beach. And where else? I think the two cities. And we have a chance to visit a number of developments there. And I think that we are, for some reason, I feel that we are so far behind on that. And this item is also, it's not the first time that we talk about this, so I don't have any problem with it. I think I provided input last time already. So I don't want to... have any more discussion on this one for myself. So if there is no more discussion on that, then we have a motion and second on the floor to approve this item.

Thank you. And just for clarification, during staff's presentation, they identified two errors in the urgency ordinance as well as in the ordinance, and I'll read those errors into the record for clarification and make sure that my motion and my second are okay with those. Therefore, clarification, they're changing the sentence that will say, and location of the hearing was advertised in the Westminster Herald Journal newspaper, at least 20 days is what it currently states. We are amending it to 10 days prior to the August 2025, 20th meeting, it'll be August 28th, 2025. So my motioner, Councilwoman Van West, are you okay with those amendments in the urgency ordinance as well as the regular?

Well, the thing is that my only concern, like I mentioned earlier, in this ordinance, it's not going to have anywhere where in the future you guys are going to move into a single home area to rezone there because I will have a concern.

The answer is no, but I'll let Ken answer the question. So at this point, we are only looking at the housing element sites. Those were locked in and council voted on those for the six cycle housing element. We're not looking to expand to any single family zones. This does give the city the ability to place the housing overlay on sites as they should come up. But again, that wouldn't be at the discretion of staff that would have to go to public hearings before both the planning commission and city council, so that if ever in the future there was any kind of, if staff did bring something to place it over single-family homes, which we are not planning to do, you would still be able to vote on that at that time. It would not be a unilateral decision.

Okay, that's good to know. So with that, you guys are approving C, B and C, right?

B and C with those amendments that I read into the record. I just need you as my motioner and my seconder to approve.

I approve them.

So what is the new, ma'am, I'm so sorry, I was, if you briefly can repeat that.

So it's just for clarification, and the ordinance staff is requesting, changing out that it says at least 20 days currently, it would be 10 days, and the correct date would have been August 28th instead of August 20th, which is noted in the ordinance.

Now what's the purpose of, you know, reduce it to 10 days versus 20 days?

So there's a state law that any new ordinance that is going to affect land use has to have 20 days noticing for planning commission. There's no law for city council. So we included accidentally the dates from the planning commission, but we are amending those so that they're correct for this meeting.

Okay. Okay. So you did it. There's an error. Correct.

We're just amending. Mr. Mayor, can I have a question?

Yes.

Do we have any planning commissioner in the audience right now?

Yeah, public comments.

Um, Mr. Mayor, uh, I guess, uh, one of the commissioner planning just text me and say, um, because he just left, but no, no, we are at the public hearing for 4.1. So we, yeah, this is the 4.1 item.

So right now, if I may. I recommend that we not communicate regarding those communications any information. If there's any pertinent new information or if it's just opinion, that's one thing. But if it's new facts, then we would need to disclose on the record, are they providing new facts or is it just this person's opinion?

So I guess my question is why are all the four or five planning commissioner vote to basically not approve of this? I mean, what information that you give them that we don't have? I mean, what's the difference?

And if we go with the plan commission's suggestion, are we going to be okay with state law? Is it comply with state law?

Scott.

So if I may, the staff report you were given and the presentation tonight is nearly identical to what was provided to the Planning Commission. The difference is that the Planning Commission stated they do not want the increased density. They wanted us to be a low density city. That was the reason given. And then they found that the increased density was not in the best interest of the public welfare. But the information that's been provided to both bodies is identical. Everything we are doing is we've checked it with lawyers. We are in compliance with state law. In fact, one of the reasons we are doing this is because we want to stay in compliance with housing element law. What staff is afraid of is that if we have too many sites develop at under what we proposed in the housing element, which was around 30, 32 units per acre, by state law, we have to find replacement sites. we do not want to have to reopen our housing element and designate new housing element sites. Because at that point, the state reopens the entire housing element. They're not going to just let us open a portion of it and be content with just us amending that little portion. The state has been getting more and more strict with housing element law and what they want included in these housing elements. We are afraid that if we do have to find new sites and reopen the housing element, the state will want exactions from the city. And we are trying to avoid that scenario by raising that minimum density to 30 units per acre.

Okay, so my question to you is, did they see this map, those commissioners' planning, and where it's located is off of single homes. Did they see that as well?

So the only change I made to this presentation was this title slide and the recommendation. All the slides in between those two are exactly what was shown to the Planning Commission, and my presentation was nearly identical.

So basically from what I'm hearing from staff is that the planning commissioner just said they don't want high density at all in the city completely, no matter what. But they didn't see where it's located. They didn't care where it's located, right?

They were shown the exact same map you were with the exact same explanation that it was along the Westminster, Beach, and Bolsa corridors, yes.

Right, okay, thank you. So...

If I may, in the staff report, it's the minutes from the Planning Commission and their comments during that meeting. It's in the staff report.

I believe that you call for the vote, right? Yes.

I have a motion in front of us. Motions made by District 1, Councilwoman Fan West, seconded by Vice Mayor Monzo. This is to adopt an amended urgency ordinance entitled, An Urgency Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Westminster, California, approving a zoning tax amendment, case number 2025-0166, Amending Title 17 of the Westminster Municipal Code, Chapter 17.250.035, Housing Overlay. and introduce for first reading an amended ordinance entitled, An Ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Westminster, California, approving a zoning tax amendment, case number 2025-0166, amending title 17 of the Westminster Municipal Code, chapter 17.250.035, housing overlay, read by title only, and waive further reading. I'll go to call roll. District 1, Councilwoman Fan West.

I just want people to understand as a council, we want to make sure we see everything and we make decision accordingly. So with what we saw, what I presented, I'm accountable to that. And staff, as staff, you know, verify with us that if they do going to rezone high density in single homes, they're going to come back to the council. So with that, I fan West's eye for that vote.

Thank you. District 3, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. District 4, Council Member Nguyen. Yes. Vice Mayor Monzo. Yes. And Mayor Nguyen. Yes. Motion carried 5-0.

All right. Thank you. Next is update on existing condition at the Blackgate Park and presentation of the site map. So I may ask for a sub-report, please.

Hi, good evening again. So this is an update on the Blakey Park. So I'll just go through the background on this park timeline. Beginning on March 26, City Council directed staff to obtain the title report and preliminary site assessment. Staff then requested the title report. which was then delivered on April 22nd. As mentioned earlier in public comment, on April 6th, council visited the Westminster Historical Society. And then on July 9th, staff visited Blakey Park with MIG, a prospective landscape architect, to review the site. And then throughout August and September, We handled draft site map revisions. We consulted with the Historical Society on naming pieces of equipment and housing and elements within the park itself. So here's a map of our city outlined in blue with Blakey Park highlighted by that little yellow arrow. The park is located at 8612 Westminster Boulevard. It's near Bouchard and Westminster. It's a 2.37 acre parcel. It was generously donated by Leora Blakey as an undivided interest between the city and the Westminster Historical Society. And there is an existing easement for Southern California Edison on the property as well. The team in general of city staff and the community that have been working on this project so far is our city manager's department, public works department, as well as consultation with members of the Westminster Historical Society, going back to even before these conversations started when we were engaging them about how the park was utilized, just to become more familiar for my own edification as I started here. And then we have Oscar Johnson, a principal landscape architect from MIG. That's the project team. We have Oscar here with us as well, who will go over the site map.

Before we spend some time looking at the site map, Mayor and Council, I'd like to make a statement on the preparation of the site map and the scope that was developed by the City Manager's office. I was tasked by the City Manager to work with the consultant, to find a consultant and work with them to develop a scope based on Council direction. Council's direction was to develop an existing condition site map. Now in the world of sitemap preparation, I'm gonna take off my assistant city manager hat. I'm also a licensed civil engineer, right? So we could hire a licensed civil engineer to do the work, but they don't know anything about historical buildings. We could have hired an architect but we're creating an existing conditions map, right? Instead we went with the services of MIG. We could have hired a land surveyor, but they really don't know anything about historical sites. So instead we went with MIG, a landscape architect, because they're able to create an existing conditions map and also provide the best information as it pertains to historical buildings and things of that nature. So I just wanted to clarify that. This is existing conditions preparation. by an architect, not architectural services for anything else. All right.

Thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. Oscar Johnson with MIG, principal of the MIG Fullerton firm. And again, as Adolfo was saying, we were hired just to do an existing condition map. Shawna went over the existing amenities and pretty much went over everything that was there. I'll just kind of briefly go through. We did have a site meeting with the Historic Society, so we had the opportunity to look in the buildings. And we did have a tour of the site as well. So just going over the site, you can see at the top, just to orientate you, the Westminster Boulevard is to the north. We have the church to the east and Westland Plaza to the west. Just down below too, just to give you an overall view, there's a residential area to the north, I'm sorry, to the south of the site. So going back up to the, north portion of the site. Majority of the buildings are the Midway City Women's Club, which houses the collection of the Westminster history. We also have the Warren Family Farmhouse, as well as the McCoy Hair House, which is Westminster's first drugstore. And then we also have the historical element, which is the giant plow. That's the orange element in the middle, which I'm told is the world's largest plow.

Is that correct?

Correct, yes. if you ever wanted to know that. Then there's also the Warm Family Barn. So those are the major elements in addition to the Shutter Shack. Those comprise the main elements of the northern portion of the site. There's also an easement that runs north-south, which is an SCE easement. It's about 30 feet wide. It's the yellow element on the west side of the park. The parking lot is about another acre or so. It houses about 102 stalls. There's also a emergency access to the south of the park at Summerwood Drive. Currently, there's no pavement, so it's really not conducive for actual ingress and egress. The main access is at the north side of the park, which is there's vehicular access as well as pedestrian access. Currently, the church does utilize the existing parking lot for parking during church hours. There's vehicular access on the east side at two locations as well on the site. And again, that really kind of goes over the existing conditions of the site, which we were hired to do. At this point, I can take any questions that you have on the existing conditions of the site.

Okay, is there any question from the Council? Yes. Yes, Council Member West.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I guess with this assessment that we approved last time on the Council, can you guys let us know how much did we spend on this assessment?

Sure. The site assessment itself was $5,600, and then the title report was another $3,600. And both of those are attachments to this staff report, along with the quote that MIG provided.

Is there any other questions?

No, that's pretty much it. Thank you.

Yeah, so that's total, the 56 and 36, that's total for all the assessments and this, what we're seeing on the screen, is everything?

Correct.

Okay. I see the lines right there where it says SCE Vehicle Access Gate. So from that gate all the way to the end there, right now it's empty. It's just a parking lot, right? Am I correct on that? Correct. Okay. When you access these buildings right here, Midway City Women's Clubs, and then Warner Family Bond, how are the condition of these buildings?

We weren't tasked to actually do a condition assessment of the existing buildings, just the site and locate the existing amenities.

So do you think that what is the life, do you have any idea of a lifespan of these buildings?

We can work with staff to gather that information. At this point, I don't have that information.

Okay. And with your... Well, I guess I have a question for staff. Have you engaged with the historical board of the directors there for any questions and have you talked to them at all?

Yes, absolutely. So we have been talking to the Westminster Historical Society throughout this entire process and even before this process. Just clarifying, making sure we had accurate information to include in the sitemap, taking into account their instruction about what the names of particular items were. So yes, we have absolutely been in contact with them.

I would like to go back to you for the second half that we were talking about. It's just an empty lot. Have we ever used that for anything else, or do you know anything about that?

I would defer to staff for any historical uses of that element.

Yeah, MIG was hired per the scope to just create the map and engage staff as well as the historical society. In the 20 years I've been here and checking with Community Services Director Vanessa Johnson as well as Public Works Director Jake Ngo, we cannot recall a time when the city had a function back there that was operated by the city.

Okay, so now we do have the map and we know things, what is out there. Should we do the feasibility and to see what available and what can we do with the rest of them? the parking lots and the lifespan of those existing buildings?

Certainly, yeah. We can work with staff to look at the building, do an additional information on the existing conditions of the building and any feasibility studies that the council would direct staff to do.

All right, thank you. Is there any other questions?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you.

So back to staff, I know that you mentioned the two number that was spent on this proposal to assess. One is $5,600, the other is $3,600, which is total of $9,200. I'm looking on the record that you have here under American Title, the fee was $3,150. And then the other one was a letter that was assessed by MIG, proposal of landscape and the services that will be the professional fee of getting the condition map and also collecting data as total 5,905. So where does that number that you said is in here, I don't see it anywhere, 5,600 and 3,600. Sure, absolutely, I apologize, I misspoke.

MIG price was $5,905. And as mentioned, the title report was that $3,150.

Like what I just quoted, right? Yes, exactly. Okay, it is very important, you know, that when you quote something that you get the number correctly, and then saying that's in here, what I look at is not correct. So with the number we have in here, it is important to make sure that's correct. That's all I want to say, because it's a little demeaning to say, I didn't see those numbers, that's why I asked. Because the number I got was different when I read the report. And when you said, I'm like, oh, it's not here. And you said it's in here. So come across as the council didn't read her agenda. And that doesn't look good for the staff and council. But with that, I appreciate you clarifying it. That is the correct number. It's different. So thank you. Mm-hmm.

This is a 2.3-acre lot. Who provides the landscaping, like lawn mowing and tree trimming and maintenance on the water line? Who does that?

I think for that question, if you're okay with it, we'd like to have our public works director provide some information. His staff is in charge of day-to-day stuff out there and have been for, Jake's been with the city for almost 24 years or more than 24 years, so he'll be able to provide you with that information. Thank you.

If you could just one more time repeat the question for our public works director.

So I just want to know, this is basically a marriage of the society and the city. So we don't have half or, I mean, there's no percentage, right? It's basically like a marriage. I just want to know who provides the maintenance of this lot in terms of, you know, tree trimming, lawn mowing, if a water line breaks, you know, who does this stuff?

Before Jake answers the question, I did also want to state that it is important to note that... What was the date, Shauna, when you first made contact?

The first time we ever... In September was when we first started speaking with... September of 2024 is when I first started speaking with them just to speak about how the property was currently maintained, who was handling various parts of it. And that was... just so that for my own edification of getting to understand how we operated together as a group since the property did have joint ownership.

Ultimately, we want to get to the point where this question is clearly defined and memorialized. What Jake is going to answer are the current practices that have been in place for many years. So it's two different things, right? I just want to clarify that.

Before we proceed, can I ask the city attorney, right now before it is agendized, is the site map, are all these other questions allowed since it's not agendized? Can you clarify that, please?

So you are allowed to speak within the things that a reasonable person would include as being included. So you can talk about the update on existing conditions. So what are the existing conditions? Anything relating to existing conditions? And I think certainly who's maintaining it relates to existing conditions at Lakey Park and presentation of the site map. So what is happening there right now is a perfectly valid question.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and council members. Currently at Blakely's Park, city staff and contractor maintaining the landscaping, paying for the water bills, and the electricity for that particular property.

Do we have an estimate on how much it costs, let's say from last year?

I do. I actually put some numbers for the last year. The total is about $6,883 for Edison bills, water bill, landscape maintenance, tree trimming, and also paying for gas.

Out of that number, are we sharing with the historical?

No, that's the total the city's paying for all those.

And is that the total amount or is it partly of the minutes?

Those are the total amount. I mean, that is the total amount for the whole year. Okay.

Can you say that again, $6,800, Director?

Correct, $6,883.78.

And this is every year? Every year that the city is going to pay for it?

Yeah, every year. I just pulled the number from last year.

Okay. But we've always been doing that, right? We've always been doing the maintenance and everything. The city of Westminster.

That's correct.

Okay.

Additionally, in terms of, let's say, if the roof on the homes there, who provides the maintenance and who pays for that? Does the society pay for that and have a contractor that goes out and re-roof their roof or things like that?

In the past, the society members, the director contacted the city, and we looked at the area overall and see who was responsible for what. Recently, if you remember, we have an ARPA funding to improve some of the building at Blakey Park. I think the total for that project is about $279,000. And what we did was to improve the exterior siding of the Blacksmith building. the ceiling of the museum building, the roof over the barn, electrical enclosure, and siding and painting the exterior of the barn building. So that was the improvements using the ARPA funding.

So basically the city provided the society with this grant to improve the roof, the ceiling, things like that in the existing building on the lot.

Actually, the city staff is doing the project.

Doing the work. Okay.

All right. I don't know. Should I ask you or staff here? What is the assessment, the use of that, your assessment in terms of using the facility? Did you say a facility?

The usage of the site? Yeah. I think Shauna can probably, is the best staff member that can address that?

Sure. The park is open one Sunday a month. The museum portion is open to the public one Sunday a month. In addition, to my knowledge, they do some special events at the April event. Sixth day, I think there was an ice cream social, that's an event that's open to the public, and they do some other things kind of throughout the year as well. So full. But their main opening day is one Sunday a month.

Okay, and this is, we call it historical for the people to visit, and we open one Sunday a month, and you know what time, to what time?

There's one to four.

One to four, the three, four hours.

Thank you.

Okay, all right. And how often do we have to do the maintenance?

We do regular maintenance every month and every week on the mowing and grass. Tree trimming once, I'm sorry, every two years.

Okay, and does the city do any kind of works or we are using it at all? using the site at all from the city standpoint.

So from a programming perspective, and Vanessa Johnson can correct me if I'm wrong, we don't have any city events at the site.

Okay. Yes. Please feel free to add.

No, Adolfo's correct. We do not program that site.

Okay, thank you. It seem like we are doing the minutes. What I heard before, have you talked to society or find out if the parking lots, they actually rent it out to the church? Did you ask anything about that? Did we, the city, from the city standpoint, did we receive any money from them or get a share from them?

They do rent the parking lot out to the church next door. At this point, they're renting it month to month to the church, and I believe it's $350, and no, the city does not receive a share of that.

Okay, so where does money go?

Historical Society receives it.

Okay. Okay. It seemed to me that we have 2.3 acres of land and we don't use, it's up to the point that we need to. And it's a city land. And at the same time, we are doing the maintenance. We are paying every month, doing maintenance every month. We are paying for improvements and everything. And the usage is very minimal. And I don't know what the condition of the buildings out there. I guess that because of the, you know, we are not allowed to look into that. But I understand this item is also a receiving file. But I would like to have a motion to direct staff to look into the feasibility of that. we can't let it go like that unnoticed and we don't know what is the condition of the building and continue to do the maintenance without knowing what is out there. So my motion is to, the next phase is to do a feasibility of these building and also the land, whether we can, my question is can we build another building on that piece of land? Hold on, hold on, please.

I have some questions, can I?

Hold on, let me, I'm not done yet. I'm not done yet. So my question is, is there a possibility to build a building on that piece of a parcel?

We definitely have consultant teams that we can reach out to, MIG being one of them, where we can explore the feasibility of that and bring back to council what that would cost and in what increments you would like it presented to you. We could do an initial assessment. If you give us a dollar amount, we won't exceed that and bring you back some information. It's really up to the council.

So if we have to do the feasibility study, in your estimation, what is the cost that we have to?

I can't answer that question.

Okay, all right.

I have a question. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Jake, where are you at? How much do we pay for maintenance at each park in our city? Do we mow the grass in those parks?

Yes, we do, but I don't have the number breakdown for each part available right now.

Do we water the grass in those parks?

Yes, sir.

And those parks are used by the public, correct?

Yes, sir.

Do we use any ARPA funds in any of those other parks in the city?

Yes, we do. We do have projects that we put in two soccer fields at Sigler Park. We built the upper fund using the upper fund to build the community gardens on Cherry. We also improved the ball fields at Westminster Park and Buckingham Park.

Yep. So in other words, we're putting that monies that we have, it's for the use for the community, correct?

Yes, sir.

All right. Same, this is Blakely Park, so it's a park, so that's why the $279,000 that were allocated from ARPA, that didn't come from the general fund as the other improvements for the other parks. So that's what we did as a service for the community. I don't think some of those questions, I don't think they... They're kind of directing the conversation in a way saying that the community is not using this park. Yes, they are. Can they be used more? Yes. I feel that maybe it's time for our city to collaborate with the society and activate that park more than it currently is. But as far as saying that we're putting money out and we're not getting any of it, I think that's ingenuous because that you can say that about any park. We are providing a service to the community. That's what we're here for, to provide a service. History is something that we need to learn from. There's a lot of history here in the city. I know I have been there many of times. I do not know if I can say that that is true for the rest of my colleagues. I invite you to go there. Is it state of the art? No. But it has a lot of good stuff in there. And can it improve? Yes. But to say that it's not a community benefit, it's not an asset, to me that's wrong. I was in favor of doing this site plan because we don't have that on our files as a city. So that is perfectly fine that we should know what's there and make sure we have everything recorded with the city, make sure that all the documentation is on file so we know what's what. That is perfectly fine. I'm still not done.

I haven't seen that.

You know, the thing that we, you know, a lot of times the conversation for me is frustrated because it seems that we never want to talk about generating revenue for the community, but we want to talk about spending money we don't have. We don't have money to spend on something like that. The $350 that the society makes off the parking, it's $350. I mean, come on, they're not getting rich off of the parking lot. Those dollars are going towards some of the cost of running it. And I'm all in favor for working with them and trying to activate it more, but at this time, We're in no shape and no place to be spending any kind of money we don't have to do any kind of thinking we're going to build another building. Where are we going to get the money from? Come on. I think that's something that's wishful thinking at this point. Let's talk about generating some revenue, then maybe we can do something in the future. But that's my take on it.

All right, thank you, Council Member Manso. But I'd like to ask some of the concern that I have. First of all, I ask questions, you know, how much that they rent out for the parking. I don't know the amount, so it is my right to ask the question, and also, I don't know whether we, from the city's standpoint, we have received any of that. I have the right to ask questions. I'm not saying that they are rich in term of getting that money. Number two, I understand that, you know, doing comparison, this park compared with the other open parks, I think the other open parks we open for the community use 24, I mean, not 24 hours, but we open number, I mean, from early in the morning until 10 o'clock at night, right? So this park, I believe that this is gated park, and it's only open from one to four for one Sunday. Am I correct about it? Okay, all right, so that's all I have. At this point here, I move to do the- Manel, I have a question, Mr. Mayor.

Yes, okay, go ahead. Looking at this, I realize there's two different things that I'm concerned about. Number one, I see that there's two different phrase that you guys use to assess. First, number one, you guys need to obtain the, from America title, first American title. And that's fine, we need an outsource of insurance to do that for us. Now, the second concern I have is that MIG consultant who is doing this project, sourcing it outside, the phase one and phase two, I feel like our city can do it. Basically, phase one is looking at the existing utilities, historic restoration, which we can pull that up. Phase two is existing condition map preparation. So you're looking for showing existing condition, easement, setbacks, existing structure, and related historical significance. I know we can ask, you know, the society, historic society for those information. I just don't see why we spent money outside, out sources when we can have it inside to do that as staff here. So this is, I know it's minimal money that was spent, but at least we can Save something, that's one concern. And second, I noticed that this action that staff recommend today is just receive and file. And that's all we're asking today. So I motion to approve the original ordinance is to receive and file only.

Would you like me to address your first question?

Yes, please.

So we have a very talented staff. Like I said, I'm a registered engineer. We have several registered engineers in the city, but we do have a lot of other priorities in the city established by the council and at the and expected for the city manager to present and meet all of the responsibilities. So from a staffing perspective, we needed to outsource this to stay in line with the expectations that the community has for our day-to-day needs.

Okay, so I guess from what you're saying is that you guys, your bandwidth is thin, basically, and you can source this out for about close to 6,000 to do this. I understand it's small, but now I guess I understand that you're saying the bandwidth you don't have. But under your leadership staff here, don't we have how many in the department?

We have a lot of responsibilities and from the city manager's office, we have to appropriately allocate hours for our staff to meet the expectations of the council and the community. And after we assess that, the recommendation to council was to outsource this particular effort.

So I guess my question is how many staff do we have to do stuff like this? How many staff would it take?

It's really a matter of the workload that is the responsibility of the city manager. Not that we can't handle it. It's just that if we do handle this, there are other priorities that won't be handled. And then we'll have questions to answer as to why those were not. So this is the best way to move forward with the current needs and expectations and also accomplish this essentially new unexpected request.

Right. Okay. I appreciate that. Yeah. So it sounds like it's just the bandwidth you guys don't have and different priorities we need to get done. So I appreciate that clarification. You're welcome. So the second one, as I mentioned, is to motion to approve to just file for our record. So I...

Thanks, Mayor. I would like to see more collaboration between the city and the society. I feel like this asset that is shared between the society and the city, we can enhance the potential and make it more accessible, more positive for the community. With that, I second the Mayor's motion for a feasibility study.

I just want to add, and I have a couple more questions. Number one, I want to address Council Member West. If we receive and file this one, that means we are going to keep this condition the same. It's been how many years already, and we are spending money to do the assessment on this, and now we are going to keep it the same. I mentioned that, I asked, I believe that Director Chek said that, Director Ngo said that we spent our money, 200 and something thousand dollars for improvements. Can you repeat the number again?

It was 279,000 from the ARPA funding. From that 279,000, what did we improve on and when did we do that? The improvement was done earlier this year, and what we did, we did the exterior siding of the blacksmith building. We replaced the portion of the existing ceiling of the museum, the roof over the barn, some electrical enclosure, and we also did the siding and paint the exterior of the barn building.

Okay, what about the condition of their parking in the routing area? Do we need any fence that we need to improve or what about condition of the parkings?

The parking wasn't assessed at that time and it wasn't a scope of work. Okay.

For long term, it is the responsibility of the city to maintain that parking lot.

The city is responsible to maintain that parking.

That is correct.

When you say the city is responsible to maintain, what are the time frame that we have to do the improvements?

It really depends on the use of the parking lot. We don't have a lot of traffic that comes and goes to the site, so for that reason, and also because I believe it, and Jake can correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it's a concrete pour, so concrete tends to last longer than asphalt, but it's really about wear and tear. So at this point, because there isn't a lot of wear and tear, the repairs are minimal, but over the life of the city, over the next 50 years or so, there will be money to be spent on that parking

And I understand that you said when we don't use this, it can last longer. But at this time here, I believe that they rent month to month to the church. So it's been using, the parking's been using. So sooner or later, there will be the improvements that need to be done on this one. Yes. So with that, I think we have a motion and second on the floor. On the floor and...

So clarification, I think staff may need some clarification. So is it direction to bring back an item for future discussion? I want to make sure, you know, obviously we've got Brown Act considerations. We want to just take action on the agenda item. You can request future information or...

What I hear, if we're being directed to initiate a feasibility study, we would bring back to the city council what that could look like. If we're going to take a big bite out of a feasibility study, we'll bring you several iterations of what that could cost and timelines so that council can make a decision on dollars and time. All right. Thank you, Mayor.

City Attorney,

Tell me if I'm wrong or right. So today, I feel that it should be a receiving file as stated on the recommended action. If there's a request for something else, that should be agendized and then spoken about at that time on a separate, you know, it should be issued, you know, with the current policy we have is the mayor can do it on his own for a future item or the council will vote on it at the end of the meeting and do an agenda request, a separate, not here with this recommended action.

You can always, so you're correct that we obviously need to stay within the confines of the agenda. And you're also correct to point out that you do have the ability as the city council to request that future items come back to you. And that's what I'm hearing this is. So you are correct that there is a special portion of the agenda designed for only that, but it is not required that that is the only time at which requests for future agenda items be placed. So you can do that now. You can do that later. It's within the discretion of the city council.

Then let's do two. Let's vote on this receiving file. And right after the vote, then we can do an agenda request.

I thought that was in our ordinance when you guys approved of it last time. Is that correct?

Correct. Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that even though the item is received and filed, but the council can also make the recommendation or direction.

Correct. So actually, what the recommendation is, that does not limit your discretion. What does limit your discretion is you can only talk about what is stated in the agenda title, which is update existing conditions at Blakey Park and presentation of a site map. So anything relating to the conditions of this particular property is within your purview. So if you would like to direct staff to bring back more information on a particular item, such as completing a study relating to existing conditions, you can certainly do that.

Yeah, but the motion is made to a whole new action to do a feasibility study. That's a whole action. That's not providing more further information.

Whether we do that under this agenda item or later in the meeting, it's up to your discretion where in the meeting you would like that to occur. You can do that now. You can do that later.

So why don't we just vote on the receiving file and then agendize separately? A whole feasibility study isn't requesting just small information, just a whole study. Something like that, how long would that take, assistant city manager?

I hear you very loud and clear. No, I'm just asking a question along with that take. The CD attorney said very loud and clear that you can do it now or you can do it later.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

My motion, you can do motion whatever you want to, but my motion is to direct staff to do the feasibility. instead of receive and file, okay?

Wait, you say what? You want staff, you direct staff to?

To continue on this to do the feasibility of this.

So basically you said earlier from what I'm hearing that you want to move forward to look, assess where you can build the new building, is that correct?

Well, first of all, there are a lot of things. They need to look into what the lifespan of this building, do we need to upgrade this building, or is the building safe and sound at this point? And at the same time, we see whether we can actually build more and use for more usage of this park. 2.3 acres and we are not using it. We use only half of them and we are not even use half of them. So why we are wasting all these? So what I'm asking is we need to look into that for the feasibility for us to go ahead and Usage, for more usage or for expansion?

Mr. Mayor, I'm looking at MIG and their record receipt of what service they provided. They provided the easement. They did an evaluation on the easement, the existing structure of those buildings and related historic significance of that area and the registration, the fencing of it, existing parking lot and the number of stalls. They did all the assessment outside. MIG have assessed that already and the service they charge us for. 1,565 for project data collected and project manager, project manager, project management, and then existing condition map.

So 4,340.

So Mr. Mayor, when you say to move, ask staff, direct staff, to look into those buildings and see if it's changing or whatnot. They already bill us for that. The infrastructure, you know, right here, the existing structure, the setback, the easement. the number of stalls, parking lot, the structure of the parking lot, Mr. Mayor. So what I'm seeing is that I feel like you want to agendize something more. I'm more than happy to hear what you have to present to us. but I think with this information, staff is asking us to file and receive.

Council Member West, like the question I have for, the question I have before for them, they can't answer. They said that they will look into it more if staff direct them to do it. Because what we direct them to do before is just to do the map and then limited the amount of work. So now we need to look into further into that. That's why I'm asking for the feasibility.

Yes, the scope that was described by Councilwoman West was It pertained to assessing, let's just say the footprint of all of these buildings, the names, the correct names of the buildings, the size of the buildings. That was all based, that's all an existing conditions analysis for the development of a site map. What I'm hearing from the mayor is moving forward with it, we want to understand more about the actual life, excuse me, the lifespan of the building, the usage of the building, accessibility to the building, those details were not a part of the scope. So I'm hearing that you would like us to proceed with that. Yes. To determine the possible lifespan of the buildings and expansion of the buildings. That's what I heard.

Yes, so I agree with the mayor on that part. Those items you just described, I think they're acceptable with this. that it's okay to bring it back with this. But a complete feasibility study for a whole new building, that's a whole different action. That is my point. That's a whole different action. So to me, vote on receiving file and staff come back with that particular information that was stated that's part of these existing buildings, that is reasonable. A feasibility study is a whole different action. It's a whole different monster. It needs to be its own agenda item. That's how it should be.

I don't know if you understand that. I think I stayed very clear on that. With the feasibility to study whether we can build another building on that partial, okay? And at the same time, to look into the lifespan of those buildings. Very, very clear on that.

We're prepared to come back.

I'm not asking to model or to come up with architecture to have another building with five story or whatever it is. That's not what I'm asking for.

So, Mr. Mayor and staff, so how much would it cost us to come back with those information to?

That's what I was trying to get to. So that will not cost us anything, right? There will be some staff time. And then consulting firms typically will work with cities because it's part of their marketing. It's part of them trying to essentially attract new work. The scoping of this, which is essentially how much it's gonna cost, the scoping of it doesn't cost the city anything. We're not gonna pay the consultant to sit down and scope it out with us. There will be staff hours associated with that conversation, of course. When we bring something back to you, there'll be no dollars expended to any consultant to get to that decision point. But we'll bring you back decision points at no cost, essentially, other than staff hours.

right so with that i have no problem like with mr mayor and vice mayor talking about i don't mind but i guess you just clarify in this study it's just the the skeleton the footprint yeah yes and then now we're going a little deeper looking into you know how we need to fix certain things or you know how long or how to attract more traffic i understand that But when it comes to the building, rebuilding a new building, like Mr. Vice Mayor, I think we have to come back with another agenda item to talk about it, because it'll cost more money.

I agree completely with that.

So with that, if you guys approve us move receiving file and look into what Mr. Mayor said, I'm okay with that motion.

Okay, we have motion and second on the floor.

Can I also make a point? I made a point earlier about working in collaboration with the society, as Council Member Mark Winn mentioned. Let's collaborate and work with our community service department to activate this area and have more events. I can see some Easter, our bunny hop. I can see our Santa on a go. I can see, I mean, Vanessa is the experts. Those are the only two things I can think of right now, but there's, you know what I'm saying, right? Those things are something that we should be doing, working with them. I don't know if that is required, but let's go for it. I think that might be another agenda item, right?

We're not going to any fixing building yet, so I don't think we should work with anyone right now. Just basic.

I think the city manager has something to say.

I know I've been patiently just listening to the dialogue, and of course it's all very important to get everyone's feedback. I do want to say before the narrative just gets out there, staff did proactively reach out in September. We did work with the Historical Society on just looking at how we can be better at collaborating with each other. So before anyone puts it out there that we're not being cooperative or working with them, I do just want to put it out there that we were working on having these conversations with the Historical Society. conversations. We were looking at amending what an MOU would look like. We have really outdated documents, et cetera. We're working on trying to consolidate documents to see that we're on the same page. So I just want to point that out that we are doing that. It's just that with these discussions, we've had to pivot toward this existing site plan. We're more than happy to re-engage the Historical Society on those other collaborative efforts that we were already working on before, but we do want to point out as well that it is a two-way street, and so as we're reaching out, we would hope that the Historical Society would be open to sitting with us and having an open conversation with us on what we can do together in partnership. So I just wanted to put that out there.

Thank you, City Manager.

Yes, City Manager, thank you for verifying that, clarifying that, that you guys are reaching out and talking, and it's a two-way street. So with that, if we can call for a vote, Mr. Mayor?

Yes. We have a motion and second on the floor.

Yes, thank you. I have a motion made by Mayor Nguyen, seconded by District 3, Council Member Nguyen. This is to receive and file the update and direct staff to bring back an item to the City Council regarding a feasibility assessment for the property at Blakey Park.

When you say feasibility, no, it's about the information of the conditions of the building.

Yes, so if you want me to expand, so I can amend it to regarding a feasibility assessment to identify the lifespan of the buildings and accessibility of the buildings and expansion. Yes. Expansion.

Expansion with expansion.

The possibility of expanding.

Expansion what, the building?

No, that's not what we're, that's a whole different one. Well, that's gonna cost money. Yeah, we're not talking about expansion. We're just talking about the existing buildings, not expansion.

Okay, that's my motion, okay? So if you want to have another motion, it's up to you.

Make a substitute motion to receive and file bring back the existing conditions in the lifespan of the existing buildings. And I think, and then the lifespan of the buildings. And the city manager already spoke of collaboration, but that is subject to motion. Only pertaining to the existing buildings.

Yeah, so what we all kind of agree earlier, I feel like all of us agree to just have staff come back, just give us the general. Now it's just a skeleton, but we need a little bit about the information about the building right now. But we don't want to expand anything or rebuild anything because that's going to cost us money. But I think it's important to bring it back to the people involved. to hear what we have to say, right? To hear the comment.

Mr. Mayor? Who does directly? All right.

Yes, the council member. From what I'm hearing is, like, what you and Vice Mayor Manzo want to to move on with the current, what? Resolution, right? Okay.

Receive and file, okay. To show us what, you know, the building right now. Okay, let's put it this way.

So if we receive and file And then later on, we go back to this same item, and then we continue to discuss. And then we go back to what the mayor wants. So we're going to waste time, right?

No, no, we will agenda something different for the next one.

We very much agree.

Pretty much the same thing. This is what he wants, and then next time he's going to agendize the same thing.

That's what we're saying. It needs to be agendized.

Why don't we just do it right now?

That's why we call for the vote.

I don't know. That's my point. It's just like you want to delay it.

No, it's about the process. That's what we do. It's Brown Act. It's about the Brown Act.

Let's move on. Let's move on. Is there a second to the substitute motion?

I'm sorry? That's my point.

That was my second motion.

Is there a second to the substitute motion?

I second it. It's just what we all agreed to.

No, the motion, second motion is different.

So if I can clarify for the record, just because there's been kind of a lot of dialogue around the motions. I have a substitute motion now made by Vice Mayor Monzo, seconded by District 1 Councilman Van West. This is to receive and file the update and then direct staff to bring an item back to the City Council regarding the lifespan of existing buildings at Blakey Park.

Yeah.

So the original motion is to look into the lifespan of the building and the possibility of building another building in the parcel. His motion is not to do that, just only for lifespan of the building.

So just looking at the existing building, right?

To see... Lifespan of the building, that's all. Yeah, but with you, you want to... The lifespan of the building and the lot that we have there, is there a possibility to build another? Building. Building. For more usage.

So I'm going to ask staff, so with that, are we going to cost more money to evaluate how to build another building? Would it cost us money?

So if we could read, I'll answer your question. The question is, what we bring back to you, either one of the motions doesn't cost the city any money other than the staff hours that are required to generate the report and have conversations with consultants. So no, it does not.

Well, Mayor wants basically to see if there's a possibility of building a new building and where and how much it will cost to build that.