Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Little Saigon Gateway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster speakers urge council not to return $1 million pledged for Little Saigon gateway and to let court decide councilmember lawsuit
Summary
Dozens of residents at a closed-session oral communications period urged the City Council not to return $1,000,000 pledged for a Little Saigon gateway and asked the city to pursue a lawsuit involving two councilmembers; council later reported no reportable action from the closed-session discussion.
Dozens of residents addressed the Westminster City Council during the closed‑session oral‑communications period on Aug. 13, pressing the city to resist an Orange County demand to reclaim $1,000,000 pledged for a Little Saigon gateway and urging the council to let the courts decide a lawsuit involving two councilmembers.
Speakers said the gateway is a cultural and economic priority for the large Vietnamese‑American community in and around Westminster. “The gateway is not just a structure, it’s a symbol of 50 years of Vietnamese American perseverance, success, and contribution to Orange County,” Gigi Vo told the council. Several speakers urged the city not to return the funds and to move forward with the project, saying the money had been publicly pledged and that preliminary work had begun.
Other speakers addressed Item 1 on the closed‑session agenda, the city’s pending litigation against two councilmembers. “Please do not drop this case,” Gigi Vo said in reference to the lawsuit over alleged disruptive conduct by councilmembers. Several residents said the matter should be settled in court rather than dismissed by the city council.
City staff later told the council that closed‑session discussion of the pending litigation (City of Westminster v. Amy Fan West et al., Orange County Superior Court case 30‑2024‑01443472‑CU‑MC‑CJC) produced no reportable action. The council’s closed‑session agenda also included a real‑property negotiation and a matter of anticipated litigation; the council said the other two items would be discussed later and, if necessary, reported out then.
Why it matters: The $1,000,000 pledge originated with a former Orange County supervisor; residents said reclaiming the funds would stall a culturally significant project that organizers argue will draw visitors and revenue to Westminster’s Little Saigon business district. The lawsuit and the county’s demand have both prompted sustained public attention and multiple public speakers at the meeting.
Background and next steps: Staff told the council the county said it was seeking to reclaim the funds; speakers countered that the contract authorizing the payment remains in effect through 2026 and argued the county should not unilaterally rescind the pledge. The council did not take any public, reportable action on either topic during open session. Any legal or contract developments would stem from the county’s action or subsequent filings in the separate litigation.
