HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-09 City Council (2)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
ATTN:POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:MARCH 9, 2004 CMR: 169:04
SUBJECT:CRITERIA AND PROCESS FOR NAMING AND RENAMING
CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES - REVISION OF
CURRENT POLICY 1-15
REPORT IN BRIEF
The current City policy for naming City-owned lands and facilities does not address the
process for renaming facilities or parks and does not include a role in the
recommendation process for the Parks and Recreation Commission or other appropriate
comlnissions. This report presents recommendations for revisions to the policy that will
add criteria for selecting names, incorporate appropriate commissions into naming
recommendations and define the process for renaming a City-owned land or facility.
This report also provides alternatives to naming parks or facilities in order to recognize
individuals who have made significant contributions to the community.
CMR 169:04 Page 1 of 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee:
1. Recommend that Council adopt the revised policy for the naming and
renaming of City-owned land and facilities.
Direct staff to explore alternative methods, other than naming of facilities, for
recognizing individuals who have made a significant contribution to the
comlnunity.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2004, Council considered a proposal to rename the Arastradero Preserve
in honor of former City Council lnember Enid Pearson, referring it tO the Palo Alto
Historical Association (PAHA). PAHA subsequently recommended that the name of the
park be changed to the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve.
In considering the request for a name change, Council asked whether the current policy
addresses the renaming of a facility or whether there were defined criteria for helping to
determine an appropriate name for a facility or park. Staff.explained that the current
policy only discusses the naming of new facilities and does not specifically discuss the
process for renaming existing facilities or City-owned lands.
The current policy for naming City-owned land or principal facilities requires a
recommendation by the Palo Alto Historical Association, based on suggestions offered by
the public, staff or members of PAHA. PAHA has the responsibility of determining
whether the suggested name meets the criteria of appropriate geographical or historical
significance. A list of fitting names that are deemed to warrant serious consideration are
presented to the City Council by PAHA in ranked order, with a recommended name for
Council to adopt. The recommendation is placed on the consent calendar of the Council
agenda and is approved by Council resolution. There is a provision in the policy that if
the resolution to name a facility is pulled from the consent calendar, the matter is then
referred to the Policy and Selwices Committee for further review and recommendation to
Council.
Council directed staff to review and revise the cun’ent policy so that it would:
¯ include additional specific criteria for the naming of lands or facilities in honor of
individuals
¯include a role in the name recommendation process for the Parks and Recreation
Commission, or other appropriate commissions
¯provide a process for transmitting historical information on the facility to Council
as part of the recommendation process
¯determine criteria that should be used for naming or renaming land and facilities
¯provide an alternate method besides the naming of lands or facilities for honoring
individuals who have made a significant contribution to the COlnlnunity.
CMR 169:04 Page 2 of 7
The intent of the policy is to guide the naming of City facilities in a fair, objective and
consistent manner and to aid in the selection of names that are suitable to the property or
facility, respectful of the history of the site and useful to the public in locating a park or
facility.
DISCUSSION
At Council direction, staff researched appropriate alternatives to the current naming
policy. Staff studied the policies of 42 cities, counties and park districts for criteria and
reviewed processes that would enhance the City’s policy. Specifically, the role that
historical associations and appropriate commissions play in the naming of facilities, the
criteria used in consideration of names, and explicit guidelines for renaming parks and
facilities were reviewed to formulate the attached revised policy (Attachment A). On the
attached revised policy, staff has highlighted new language by shading and underlining.
Criteria For Namin~ Parks And Facilities In Honor Of Individuals
The vast majority of Palo Alto parks and sub-areas within parks are named for
individuals. Only six of thirty-two parks are named for geographic associations and two
are named for landmark or historical connections. In contrast, most community centers
and libraries are named for their geographic location, such as the Mitchell Park
Community Center, College Terrace Library and Downtown Library. Only the Lucie
Stem Community Center and the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center are
named for individuals.
In order to ensure a historical connection between the name of an individual and the park
or facility that is named in honor of the person, the first naming criteria is proposed to be
modified to put an emphasis on the association between the person and the particular site,
and secondarily to the City as a whole.
In keeping with the City’s history of naming parks in honor of individuals, staff proposes
to amend tl~e criteria that provides for naming City-owned land for a benefactor who
contributed the land, or funds for purchase of the land or facility, by clarifying that
donation of land or resources does not constitute an obligation by the City to name the
land or facility for the person. Similarly, while it has been a tradition to name parks in
honor of persons, it would be a significant change from tradition to name a park in honor
of a benefactor business, group or organization. For this reason, staff recommends that
the name of a business, group or organization not be used for a park or City-owned
facility.
Following the example of neighboring cities and what has generally been the practice of
the City of Palo Alto, staff recommends that names honoring individuals be in
memoriam, except in unusual circumstances. With the exception of parks or facilities
named in honor of the benefactor who provided the land or funds for the site, almost all
of the parks or facilities in Palo Alto were named in memoriam for the individual. An
CMR 169:04 Page 3 of 7
exception to this practice was Mitchell Park, which was named for J. Pearce Mitchell,
who served on the Palo Alto City Council for 31 years. The revised policy allows for an
exception in extraordinary circumstances, such as in honor of Mayor Mitchell’s
extraordinary selwice.
A new criteria encourages the recognition of names that reflect the City’s ethnic and
cultural diversity. It is hoped that this recognition will contribute to greater respect and
understanding of different cultures within the Palo Alto community.
Two additional criteria were added to prohibit naming parks or facilities for elected
officials who are in office at the time or City employees whose principle contribution to
the community was through the course of their employment with the City. While an
exception can be made for employees who volunteer beyond the scope of their job duties
to selwe the community, staff has provided alternative methods of recognition (see below)
that are deemed more suitable than dedicating the name of a park or facility to the person.
Rote Of Advisory Commissions Or Committees In Reviewing Names
The current naming policy does not include a role for City commissions. Staff
recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission have a role in the review of
names for parks, City-owned lands and recreation facilities; the Library, Advisory
Commission a review role in names for libraries; the Public Arts Commission in names
for art facilities; and the Policy and Services Committee in the review of names for
police, fire, utility or other civic facilities. The Commission or Committee would provide
a forum for public comment, and would ensure that the name of the park or facility
properly reflects the history and culture of the neighborhood or user group that the
facility will setale.
All of the cities and agencies who were surveyed on their naming policies included a
review process by the Parks arid Recreation Commission or another commission whose
sphere of influence is most closely associated with the facility in question.
The inclusion of the Parks and Recreation Commission or other appropriate commission
is not intended to diminish the role of the Palo Alto Historical Association in the review
of suggested names. While the Historical Association will continue to assess the
historical or geographica! context of the name, the appropriate commission will help to
determine whether the suggested name is helpful to the public in identifying the location
of the facility and whether the name is consistent with the character of the park or
facility.
Documentation Of Past History And Justification For Name Selection
The Palo Alto Historical Association will continue to be the first level of review of park
and facility names. The process of name review will be enhanced by requiring the person
or group making a naming suggestion to document the reasons for the particular
CMR 169:04 Page 4 of 7
suggestion; the historical connection between the name and the park or facility; and, in
the case of a proposal to name a facility for a person, the contributions that the individual
has made to the community. Using a suggestion form will help standardize nominations.
Three surveyed agencies who use a suggestion form have found that the form is
beneficial in encouraging a well thought-out r~sum6 of the suggested name.
Criteria For Renamin~ Parks And Facilities
Many Palo Alto parks have been renamed in honor of persons who have made significant
contributions to the community or who have historically been associated with the area
where the park is located. Seven of the twelve City parks that have been renamed in
honor of individuals originally had geographic names, such as Meadow Park, Mayfield
Park and Amarillo Park. After the death of Lucie Stern, the Palo Alto Community Center
was renamed the Lucie Stern Comlnunity Center in honor of the benefactor of the center
and many other City facilities.
The advantage of renaming a park or facility is that it provides a process for the
recognition of persons who have made an outstanding contribution to the community. In
cases where the test of time indicates that a person was unsuitable or that there is not a
proper historical connection between the park and the individual, a new name can be
chosen.
The disadvantage of renaming a park or facility is that when the site is recognized by the
community or it serves as a geographical reference point, changing the name can cause
confusion to the public in finding the site. This is generally more of a problem for
popular destinations that are regionally "known than small neighborhood or mini-parks.
Many of the agencies surveyed discouraged the renaming or parks unless there was no
other facility or land that could be named for an individual, or except in the case of an
extraordinary, event, such as recognition of a war or major calamity. There was generally
less reservation about the renaming of buildings or sub-areas within parks or open space
areas.
Staff recommends that City policy, discourage the renaming of existing park or
recreational facilities, particularly one whose name has regional significance, unless there
are extraordinary circumstances, and no other new facility or portion of an existing park
or facility can be named. The revised policy suggests that if a park or facility is to be
renamed in honor of a person, that this only be done when the person or persons have
made "major, overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet
unrecognized." These extraordinary contributions would be detailed on the name
suggestion form and would be expanded upon by the review of the Historical
Association.
CMR 169:04 Page 5 of 7
The policy of renaming facilities incorporates three additional criteria to the list of
established factors for general park naming, i.e. that the person:
1. Has made lasting and significant contributions to the protection of natural or cultural
resources of the City of Palo Alto
2. Has made substantial contributions to the be~erment of a specific facility or park,
consistent with the established standards for the facility
3. Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of recreational opportunities
within the City of Palo Alto.
Alternative Methods Of Honorin~ Individuals
As an alternative to naming or renaming a park or facility for an individual, staff offers
the alternative of creating a central monument for the recognition of people who have
made significant contributions to the community.
Recognizing that few individuals, though deserving of significant recognition for their
service to the community, are likely to qualify, to have a facility named in their honor, a
community "Walk of Fame" or "Wall of Fame" could be established. The cities of San
Jose, Burlingame, Foster City, and Rancho Palos Verdes have established criteria for
recognizing individuals on a walk or wall of honor. Such a tribute is a permanent honor,
consisting of a marker describing the honoree’s accomplishments, placed along a selected
pathway. Generally, these cities require that the person honored have contributed ten or
more years of sen, ice to the community; had a positive impact on the lives of City
residents; be considered an appropriate role model; made a significant impact on the
continuation and or enhancement of established community programs; and/or created
new opportunities for the community through new facilities or pro~ams.
If the Policy and Services Committee directs, staff could further explore the feasibility of
creating a walk of honor, perhaps along Centennial Way or in the plaza of City Hall.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
One option that was not incorporated into the attached revised policy but that is used by
other agencies is the practice of taking no action on a name suggestion until at least six
months from the receipt of a suggested name change or the adoption of the naming
policy. This "cooling-off period" helps to ensure that decisions related to naming parks
or facilities are objective and not swayed by emotion or sentimentality. Staff feels that
this practice is not necessary because of the thoroughness of the selection criteria and the
objective review by both the Palo Alto Historical Association and appropriate
commission.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The changes recommended in this report will have minimal resource impacts. Some
additional staff time will be required in reviewing suggested facility and park names or
new names with the appropriate commission before adoption by City Council. The
CMR 169:04 Page 6 of 7
process for gathering suggested names from the public or staff through the office of the
City Clerk remains unchanged, and therefore will not result in any additional expense.
The renaming of facilities may result in the need for changing facility signs, maps, plans
or other documents. The cost of this alteration would vary with facility and would be
reported under the Resource Impact section of the staff report presenting the name
recommendation.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This revised policy is consistent wi.th Council direction. The recommendations presented
enhance and clarify existing policies and are not contrary to other City policies.
TIMELINE
March 9: Policy and Services Committee review of draft revised policy.
April 12: Council review and approval of revised policy.
May 5: Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) reviews the renaming of Arastradero
Preserve and the naming of SOFA Park. PAHA forwards ranked suggestions to
the Parks and Recreation Commission.
June 22: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviews ranked PAHA suggestions at a
public hearing. The Commission refers its recommendations to Council.
July 12:City Council reviews Parks and Recreation Commission recommendations.
Park names are adopted by Council resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of policy on the naming or renaming of facilities is not considered a project
under the definitions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 2001 (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
PREPARED BY:
Revised Dl:aft Policy 1-15
Draft N~stion Form
GRE’
Supel Open Space & Science
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
~4~. ,~’JCP<_xD ~r e ct oy¢~ o,mmu, n lty ~_.~D ep artm entCITY MANAGER APPROVAL: EMIL~-I~~ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR 169:04 Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT A
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15~GR
Revised: ~ March 2004
NAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES
POLICY STATEMENT
This policy establishes uniform procedures for the naming of City-o~vned land and facilities as
set forth by Council Resolution No. 6211, approved on December 12, 1983, and by Council
Resolution No. xxxx, approved on April xx, 2004. The policy is applicable to new and existing
City-owned land and facilities.
The policy provides a mechanism for citizens to suggest names .which they believe should be
considered for new City facilities or land acquisitions and for the renamin~ of existin~ facilities
and lands. The policy also establishes criteria which will guide the Historical Association in
rece, mmen~ing suggesting names to the appropriate City Commission or Committee for review,
as well as criteria for commissions to use in recommendin~ names to the Council for approval.
Naming and renaming City-owned land and facilities shall be the responsibility of the City
Council. However, places within City-owned land or facilities, such as a room or patio within a
building or a trail or athletic field within a park, which do not require formal dedication by the
City Council, may be named by the City Manager or his/her designee.
This process does not apply to the namin~ of streets which will continue to be processed through
the Plannin~ and Community_ Environment Department.
PROCEDURE FOR NAMING NEW FACILITIES OR CITY-OWNED LANDS
A. Responsibility of the Project Manager
Implementation of this policy is the responsibility of the department in which the project to be
named is managed, in the instance of a new City-owned land or facility, the project manager
should incorporate the process for naming into the project schedule so the naming is
accomplished in a timely manner.
1. Requests concerning a name to be given to the City-owned land or facility shall be made in
writing on an approved suggestion form to the City Clerk.
a. The project manager should alert the City Clerk when to expect the submission of names and
the anticipated time frame for the naming process.
b. The project manager may submit suggested names on an approved suggestion form on behalf
of staff or citizens who have been involved in the project development.
c. In some instances, it may be appropriate to actively solicit suggestions and, in those cases, the
project manager should specify a time frame for submissions.
d. All submittals, whether from an individual or an organization, must include the name and
address of the submitter. No anonymous submittals will be accepted.
e. All suggestions will be given the same consideration without re2ard to the nomination source.
2. The project manager is responsible for conveyin~ the .......*~"~ ......~ o,~, .............name suggestion forms
from the City Clerk to the Palo Alto Historical Association and presenting the recommendation
ranked su.~estions from the Historical Association to the Cc, uncil appropriate commission or
committee whose sphere of influence is most closely associated with the faciliw in.question. The
Parks and Recreation Commission shall review name suggestions for acquired land to be
dedicated as a park, recreational facilities, communiW centers and interpretive centers. The
Libralw Advisory_ Commission shall review name suggestions for libralw facilities. The Public
Art Commission shal! review name suggestions for art facilities. The Policy and Services
Committee shall review name suggestions for police, fire or utility facilities as well as maior
civic complexes.
a. The Historical Association may also originate suggestions for names or provide su~_oestions
for appropriate alternatives.
b. The project manager shall assure that adequate time is allowed for the Historical Association
and appropriate commission or committee to evaluate the suggested names.
c. The Historical Association shall determine if the suggested names meet the criteria of
appropriate significance, shall rank its choices, and shall submit the ranked list with its
recommended name to the c,;~,~ ~.~,.~..~,..~;1 appropriate commission or committee to~ether with the
rationale for the suggestions. The response from the Historical Association shall acknowledge all
the names that are submitted, but rank only those which it feels meet the criteria and warrant
serious consideration.
B. Responsibili _ty of the Reviewin~ Commission Or Committee
1. The commission or committee shall conduct a public hearing, confirm that the suggested
names meet the criteria of appropriate sig-nificance, select a recommendation from the ranked list
provided by the Historical Association, and shall forward its recommendation to the City
Council. The report from the commission or committee shall acknowledge all of the su~aested
names to~ether with their evaluation but present only the name(s) which it feels best meets the
criteria and merits serious consideration by the City Council.
2. Once approved, a transmittal and resolution will be prepared by staff for consideration and
approval by the City Council. The transmittal shall include a narrative of historic reference
prepared by the Palo Alto Historical Association for the name, a copy of the name suggestion
form, and minutes of Commission meetin~ when the recommendation was discussed.
BC. Criteria
The following criteria shall be used in selecting an appropriate name for City-owned land and
facilities.
1. The name ~ should, if possible, have geographic~ environmental (relating to natural or
s cal atures ,~stor c or an mar connota on o~., ......................,a
of particular sianificance to the area in which the land or facility is located or for the City as a
whole.
2. Consideration may be given to naming the City-owned land or facility after an individual
when the land or facility, or the money for its purchase, has been donated by the individual, or
when otherwise warranted by some contribution or service which is deemed to be of major and
lasting significance to the acquisition of that piece of land, or planning, development,
construction or renovation of that particular facility. Donation of land or resources shal! not
constitute an obligation by the City to name the land or faciliW or any portion thereof, after an
individual or family. ~ity-owned lands or parks shall not be named for benefactor organizations,
~oups or businesses, but in special cases, may be considered for facilities.
3. Names honorin~ individuals or families, other than those of historic association, will ~enerally
be in memoriam. Exceptions considered must be supported b~’ com.pellin~ circumstances.
g4_. In the event the City-owned land or facility was formerly school property, and the name of
the school has community significance or community recognition, consideration may be given to
the school name.
5. The City_ encourages namin~ which reflects the City’s ethnic and cultural diversitw.
6. No Citw-owned land or facili _ty shall be named after a seated elected or appointed official.
7. No City-owned land or facility shall be named after a person whose contribution to the City of
Palo Alto was or is a part of that individual’s normal duties as an employee of the City. An
exception may be made for former such employees who have contributed volunteer services of
an exceptional nature beyond their normal duties.
GD. Council Action
1. The recommendation received from the Historica! Aso~ociation commission or committee shall
be placed on the consent calendar of the Council agenda.
2. Action by the Council shall be by Council Resolution.
3. In the event the naming is removed from the consent calendar, it may be referred to the Policy
and Services Committee.
Follow-up to Selection of Name
1. The above-described process for selecting an appropriate name shall precede the preparation
of a park dedication ordinance, unless there is due cause for delaying the naming of the park and
the delay is approved by Council.
2. Subsequent to approval by the City Council, the name for the City-owned land or facility shall
be conveyed to the Department of Public Works for incorporation in City official maps and
lap_!_g_~, and to the Palo Alto Historical Association for its records.
F=F_. Namin~ Places Within City-owned Land or Facilities
In the case of places within City-owned land or facilities, where the policy does not require
Council action, responsibility for implementing the requested naming shall reside with the head
of the Department which manages the land or facility.
Ideally, the namin~ of features within a park and specific trails or facilities within open space
lands will occur durin~ the master plan or site plan process.
Names within parks should be appropriate to the park by reflecting the expression of the place
(topo~aphy, ~eology, natural features), flora and fauna, or history of the area.
1. In advance of the naming, the department head shall send a memorandum to the City Manager
advising of the proposed action and requesting approval.
2. The Council shall be notified of the action which is taken.
PROCEDURE FOR RENAMING EXISTING FACILITIES OR CITY-OWNED LANDS
Existin~ place names are deemed to have historic reco_o-nition. Ci_ty policy is not to chan,~e the
name of any existing park or recreational facility, particularly one whose name has City or
regional si~ificance, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, and no other new facility or
portion of an existin~ park or faciliw can be so desi,onated. Further. the City will modify existin~
names to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have made ma_ior,
overridin~ contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecoa-nized.
A. Renaming Suggestions
1. All requests concerning a new name to be given to the City-owned land or facility shall be
made in writin~ on an approved su~oestion form to the City Clerk. The suggestion must detail
how the proposed name chan~e is consistent with the criteria, the purpose of the name chan~oe,
and how the new name is directly associated with the land or facility.
2. All submittals, whether from an individual, organization or City staff, must include the name
and address or the submitter. No anonymous submittals will be accepted.
3. The City Council shall initiate the renamin~ process by referral of the public or staff request to
the commission or committee whose sphere of influence is most closely associated with the
facility in question. Council can also initiatethe renaming of lands or a facility without a public
request whenever deemed necessary or in the best interest of the City of Palo Alto fol!owin~
established criteria. Once the referral is made by the City Council to a specific commission or
committee, the commission or committee will await comment and evaluation of the new name
from the Palo Alto Historical Association.
B. Responsibility of the City Clerk
1. The City Clerk is responsible for convevin~ the name suggestion form(s) to the Palo Alto
Historical Association and then transmittin~ the ranked suggestions from the Palo Alto Historical
Association to the appropriate commission or committee as outlined in Section A above.
2. The recognized nei.~hborhood association in the vicinity of the land or facility will be notified
of the proposed name chan~e at the time the reviewin~ commission or committee receives the
report from the Historical Association.
C. Responsibili _ty of the Reviewin~ Commission Or Committee
1. The commission or committee shall conduct a public hearing, confirm that the su__,2ested
name(s) meet the criteria of appropriate significance, select a recommendation from the ranked
list provided by the Historical Association, and shall forward its recommendation to the Ci_ty
Council. The report from the commission or committee shall acknowledge any suggested names
to2ether with its evaluation, but present only the name which it feels best meets the criteria and
merits serious consideration by the Council.
2. Once approved, a transmittal and resolution will be prepared by staff for consideration and
approval by the Ci_ty Council. The transmittal shall include a narrative of historic reference for
the name, together with a copy of the name suggestion form.
D. Criteria
Each application for renaming a ci_ty park or facili _ty must meet the criteria in this policy, but
meetin~ all criteria does not ensure renaming.
City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed in memoriam for an individual(s) under the
followin2 conditions. Where the individual:
1. Has made lastin~ and si.~nificant contributions to the protection of natural or cultural resources
of the Citw of Palo Alto, or
2. Has made substantial contributions to the betterment of a specific facility or park, consistent
with the established standards for the facility, or
1.Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of commensurate _types of recreational
opportunities within the City of Palo Alto.
E. Council Action
1. The recommendation received from the commission or committee shall be placed on the
consent calendar of the Council agenda.
2. Action by the Council shall be by Council Resolution.
3. In the event the namin~ is removed from the consent calendar, it may be referred to the Policy
and Services Committee.
F. Follow-up to Selection of Name
1. Subsequent to approval by the City Council, the new name for the City-owned land or facili _ty
shall be conveyed to the Department of Public Works for incorporation in Ci_ty official maps and
plans, and to the Palo Alto Historical Association for its records.
NOTE: Questions and/or clarification of this policy should be directed to the City Manager’s
Office.
ATTACHMENT B
APPLICATION FOR NAMING OR RENAMING
CITY-OWNED LANDS OR FACILITIES
Namin~ objectives:
l.Ensure that parks, recreational areas and facilities are easily identified and located.
2.Ensure that names designated for parks, recreational areas and facilities are consistent with the
values and character of the area or neighborhood served.
3. Encourage public participation in the naming, renaming and dedication of parks, recreation
areas and facilities.
4.Encourage the donation of land, funds for land acquisition or development by individuals and
groups.
Criteria for namin~ new facilities or parks:
The following criteria shall be used in selecting an appropriate name for City-owned land and facilities.
1. The name shall have geo~aphic, environmental (relating to natural or physical features), historic or
landmark connotation of particular significance to the area in which the land or facility is located or for
the Ciu as a whole.
2. Consideration may be given to naming the City-owned land or facili~ after an individual when the land
or facility, or the money for its purchase, has been donated by the individual, or when otherwise
warranted by some contribution or service which is deemed to be of major and lasting significance to the
acquisition of that piece of land or planning, development, construction or renovation of that particular
facility. City-owned lands or parks shall not be named for benefactor organizations or businesses.
3. Names honoring individuals or families, other than those of historic association, will generally be in
memoriam. Exceptions considered must be supported by compelling circumstances.
4. In the event the City-owned land or facility was formerly school property., and the name of the school
has community significance or community recognition, consideration may be given to the school name.
5. The City encourages naming which reflects the City’s ethnic and cultural diversity.
6. No City-owned land or facility shall be names after a seated, elected or appointed official.
Criteria for renamin~ existin~ facilities of parks:
Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria in this policy, but meeting all
criteria does not ensure renaming.
Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. City policy is not to change the name of
any existing park or recreational facility, particularly one whose name has City or regional significance,
unless there are extraordinary circumstances of City or national interest, and no other new facility or
portion of an existing park or facility can be so designated. Further, the City will modify existing names
to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have made major, overriding
contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecognized.
City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed in memoriam for an individual(s) under the following
conditions. Where the individual:
1. Has made lasting and significant contributions to the protection of natural or cultural resources of the
City of Palo Alto, or
2. Has made substantial contributions to the betterment of a specific facility or park, consistent with the
established standards for the facility, or
3. Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of commensurate types of recreational
opportunities within the City., of Palo Alto.
Suggestions for naming City-owned lands or facilities shall be evaluated on the basis of the above criteria
and upon appropriate documentation.
Person making the name suggestion (required):
Address (required):
Contact phone number (required):,
E-mail (not required):
Location of site or facility to be named:
Suggested name (required):
Biographical information: (Explain)
Civic involvement: (Explain)
Connection to the facility: (Please explain in depth)
Reason for Nomination (required):
Additional Comments (additional information may be attached):
Date Received by the Cit), Clerk:
Submitted to Palo Alto Historical Association:
Date scheduled for review by commission:
ATTACHMENT C
Comanents from the Parks and Recreation Commission
Draft Revised Policy on Park and Facility Naming and Renaming
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Under Section C-2 (naming criteria) Commissioner Cribbs asked for a clarification on the
circumstances for naming a park or facility for an individual. Open Space Superintendent
Greg Betts explained that parks and facilities could be named for persons who had
contributed the land or resources to purchase, plan or develop a park or facility, but that
the City was not obligated to name the facility for the benefactor. He went on to explain
that if a park or facility was named for a person who did not contribute funds or resources
towards the acquisition of the facility, there should be some historical, association
between the person and that particular facility. Mr. Betts further explained that it was
recommended that, in keeping with the tradition of naming parks and facilities in Palo
Alto, facilities not be named for businesses, ~oups or organizations. He noted that the
policy still allowed for a room within a facility or a playground or field within a park to
be named for an organization, such as the ’Roche Bioscience Learning Laboratory’ at the
Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Center or the ’Rotary Playground’ at Mitchell Park.
Commissioner Losch said that he felt that if a business provided funds for a facility or the
acquisition of land, it should be permissible for the park or facility to be named for that
organization. He used as an example the naming of PacBell Park in San Francisco for
Pacific Bell Telephone Company (the park’s principle sponsor). Commission liaison
(Council member) Jim Burch noted that unlike the city-owned parks and facilities this
policy pertains to, PacBell Park is a privately owned and financed facility, and not a
public facility. Commissioner Losch also commented that he did not feel it was
appropriate for the City Manag.er to have the unilateral authority to name a subfacility or
an area with a park without public input. He felt that names for all facilities and
subfacilities should be reviewed with an appropriate commission. The Commission
discussed the process for the review of names approved by the City Manager for
subfacilities and areas within parks, and suggested that the policy be clarified to say that
recommendations from the City Manager should be formally approved on the consent
calendar by Council before being adopted. In this way, there would be an opportunity for
the public to comment on the recommended name. This would also allow for the option
of Council members to pull the item from the consent calendar if there was disagreement
with the appropriateness of the name.
Commissioner Hagan made a motion that under section F, that the City Council has to
approve the action of the City Manager. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Gioumousis. FOR: 5 (Cribbs, Keating, Hagan, Gioumousis, and Marquess). AGAINST:
1 (Losch)
The Commission then discussed the recommendation that names for parks and facilities
generally be in memoriam of the person being honored. Mr. Betts explained that cities
differed in their approach to naming parks and facilities for living persons. He noted that
Menlo Park and Mountain View, for example, require that a person be dead five years
before a facility is named after an individual.
Commissioner Hagen said she was troubled by the vague term "compelling" justification
to name a facility for a person who was still living. Greg explained that in studying other
policies, the definition of subjective terms such as "compelling" justification or
"si~ificant" contribution were left to the discretion of the Parks and Recreation
Commission or Historical Association to interpret on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Keating noted that the criteria for re-naming a park or facility for a living
person were more stringent than for the original naming of a park or facility. She
suggested that the criteria for renaming a park or facility for a living person follow the
exact same criteria as for new names, and that the criteria for both naming and renaming
allow for exceptions in compelling circumstances. Commissioner Marquess said that if
the park or facility was to be named for an individual who had made a "lasting"
contribution to the City, the passage of time after the death of’the individual would be the
best test for the lasting significance of the deeds and contributions to society.
Commissioner Cribbs said that she personally felt that there should be alternative ways to
honor individuals besides renaming the park or facility for the person.
Commissioner Keating made a motion that the wording "exceptions may be considered"
be used in both the naming and renaming sections and that as the general
rule, both sections have the same flexibility regarding "in memorium." Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Gioumousis. FOR: 6 (Cribbs, Gioumousis, Hagan, Keating,
Losch, and Marquess).
Commissioner Hagen asked Mr. Betts of the 42 naming policies that were studied, how
many policies specifically discussed renaming of parks and facilities. Mr. Betts
estimated approximately a third of the policies had specific rules for renaming facilities.
ATTACHMENT D
Comments from the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA)
Draft Revised Policy on Park and Facility Naming and Renaming
Wednesday, March 3, 2004
City Historian Steve Staiger noted that the review process under the revised policy for the
merit of suggested names for parks and facilities by the Historical Association is
essentially the same as the existing policy.
Question: What if the name suggestion has a geographic or ecological connotation
instead of a historic connotation: would PAHA still comment on the appropriateness of
the suggested name?
Answer: Yes, PAHA can comment on all names, regardless of their connotation.
Comment: In section A2 and B 1, the revised policy says that PAHA "suggests" names in
ranked order, while the Commission "recommends" names to" the City Council. Some felt
that "suggestion" sounded less important than "recommendation" and that the weight of
the PAHA recommendation should be equal with that of the Parks and Recreation or
other appropriate commission.
Mr. Betts explained that names were reviewed in a linear fashion from the public, to
PAHA, to the appropriate Commission, and then to the City Council. To avoid
conflicting recommendations from two separate panels to the City Council, the intent of
the proposed two-tier system is for PAHA to have the responsibility for evaluating the
historical appropriateness of the name, while the Commission has the responsibility for
conducting a public hearing on the review of the names and advising the Council on what
name would best serve the community.
Question: If PAHA and the Commission disagreed on the recommended name, would
both recommendations be presented to the City Council?
Answer: Yes, under Section B2, staff would have the responsibility of transmitting all
comments from PAHA, the Commission and the public to the City Council with its staff
report. Since the proposed policy grants the Commission a role of reviewing the name,
the name recommended by the Commission would be carried forward to the Council by
way of the prepared resolution. Council has the prerogative to refer the review of the
name to the Policy and Services Committee if there is a dispute about the name between
PAHA and the Commission, or may elect to return the matter to the Commission to
resolve the dispute with PAHA.
Question: If the Commission selects a name other than the name suggested by PAHA,
does the matter automatically come back to PAHA for additional review?
Answer: No. The recommended name will be carried forward to the City Council for
final approval. Staff would be responsible for ensuring that PAHA was informed about
the timeline for the review of the name by both the appropriate commission and the City
Council and the time and place of those meetings.
Comment: It is important that PAHA be kept informed by staff throughout the entire
course of the naming process. Staff agreed.
Question: Does there have to be a historical connection between a person and the land or
facility that is being named for the person?
Answer: This revised policy recommends that there be a nexus between the person and
the land or facility. If multiple name recommendations are considered, a person who has
a strong historica! association with the land or facility would have preference over a
person who was associated with the entire community. If a historical name is not
suggested, however, then any name of significant community importance would be
considered.
Question: What if new names are suggested during the public hearing process of the
Parks and Recreation Commission meeting: would the new names come back to PAHA
for comment and recommendation?
Answer: The policy provides for an established process by which staff would inform the
City Clerk of when name suggestions would have to be submitted in order to be
considered (Section A1 (a)). The use of the new name suggestion form will discourage
impromptu or last minute name suggestions. Because the form asks for detailed
information on the background and qualifications of the name, it is highly unlikely that a
person would be able to provide all of the information required by the form at the spur of
the moment.
Comment: It should be made clearer in the policy that parks and facilities can be named
for living persons.
Mr. Bet~s clarified that although there is a preference for naming facilities in memoriam,
the policy does provide for exceptions in ."compelling circumstances." It is left to PAHA
to interpret on a case-by-case basis what circumstances would qualify as ~compelling.’
Question:Will PAHA see all name suggestion forms?
Answer: Yes. Section A2 directs that all name suggestions be fo~,arde~t by the City
Clerk to PAHA for consideration.
Page 1 of 1
Larkin, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Betts, Greg
Thursday. March 04, 2004 10:16 AM
Larkin, Jennifer
Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities - Comments by Tom Wyman
Importance: High
Please attach these comments from Palo Alto Historical Association Chairman Tom Wyman to CMR 169:04.
..... Original Message .....
From: Wyman [mailto:ellenandtom@sbcg!obal.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 9:25 AM
To: Betts, Greg
Cc: Betty Gerard; Peggy McKee; Staiger, Steve; Judy Leahy; Karen Holman; Dick Rosenbaum; Susan Winn
Subject: Naming City-Owned Land and Facilities
Greg,
With reference to our discussion during yesterday’s meeting of the PAHA board, my comments on your
draft document are as follows:
¯Page 1, 2nd para, I agree with the suggestion that the word "recommending" not be replaced with
"suggesting." Suggestions are received from the public and the various boards, commissions and
committees along with PAHA develop their recommendations. Section 2.c. on page 2 confirms
this in stating, "The Historical Association shall determine if the suggested names meet the criteria
of appropriate significance, shall rank its choices, and shall submit the ranked list with its
recommended name to the a~_propriate commission or commissions together with its rationale for
the g~ " "su~;,estlon. Note the use of the term "recommended."
¯Under C. Criteria, suggest deleting or rephrasing. Given the precedents to date, including
Mitchell Park, Emily Renzel Wetlands and the Ellen Fletcher Bicycle Lane, no ~eater burden of
proof should be imposed on naming a park or other facility for a living person than for a dead
person. There is no justification for such a distinction.
¯In D. Criteria suggest revising the second sentence to read, City-owned lands and facilities may be
renamed for either a living person(s) or in memoriam for an individual(s) where the
individual: ...." As presently drafted, it could be interpreted that renaming could only be done in
memoriam.
As an overall comment, this appears to be an unnecessarily cumbersome exercise in selecting a name for
a park or facility and serves as yet another example of over-exuberance in developing a time-
consuming, complex process. Little wonder people ridicule "the Palo Alto process." Nevertheless,
having said that, thanks for all your work and effort.
Tom Wyman
3/4/2004