HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-04-12 City Council (3)TO:
City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:APRIL 12, 2004 CMR: 217:04
SUBJECT:POLICY AND SERVICES RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL TO REVISE CITY POLICY 1-15: NAMING AND
RENAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee and staff recommends that the City Council adopt
the attached revised Policy 1-15 for the naming and renaming of City-owned land and
facilities which:
a)
b)
c)
e)
Includes additional specific criteria for the naming of lands or facilities in
honor of individuals;
Includes a role in the recommendation process for the Parks and Recreation
Commission, or other appropriate commissions;
Creates a new name suggestion form and provides a process for transmitting
historical information on the facility to Council as part of the recommendation
process;
Establishes a process and evaluation criteria for renaming facilities or City-
owned lands; and
Revises the review process for names of facilities within parks, or rooms
within facilities that are suggested by the City Manager.
Further, the Policy and Services Committee recommends that the City Council direct
staff to explore alternative methods, other than naming of facilities or City-owned land,
for recognizing individuals who have made a significant contribution to the community.
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Policy and Services Committee (Committee) voted unanimously to accept staff’s
recommendation to revise Policy 1-15 with the following amendments:
Addition of a policy statement to clarify that when naming a facility in honor of a
person, the intent is to ensure that the individual has made significant and lasting
contributions to the community.
CMR:217:04 Page 1 of 3
Names for rooms within facilities and areas within parks, which are currently
designated by the City Manager, shall be formally confirmed by the City Council
via the Consent Calendar.
The role of the project manager was expanded to include notification of the Palo
Alto Historical Association (PAHA), appropriate commissions, neighborhood
associations, and persons who have submitted name suggestions.
The naming criteria, relating to names with geographic, environmental (relating to
natural or physical features), historic or landmark connotation, was expanded to
say that the name should either have orpreserve the connotation.
Names do not necessarily need to be in memoriam.
In addition to recognizing names associated with a property or facility’s former
name as a school, other types of property with names familiar to the qommunity
will be given consideration in preserving such familiar names.
Recommendations from PAHA should be submitted to the City Council as part of
the staff report, in addition to the recommendations of the reviewing Commission
or Committee.
The Policy and Services Committee agreed with comments from the Parks and
Recreation Commission, PAHA, and members of the public who spoke at the Committee
meeting that there should not be a stipulation that City-owned land and facilities be
named in memoriam for individuals, The Committee clarified that names honoring
individuals or families, other than those of recognized historic importance, must be
supported by compelling reasons.
The Committee discussed ways to recognize and honor individuals who have made
significant contributions to the community and deemed the naming of City streets (Policy
1-16, Naming of City Streets) as another appropriate way to honor distinguished citizens.
After considering comments made by the public, the Committee supported the
recommendation that a City policy should be established and that the name of any
existing facility or City-owned land, particularly one whose name has City or regional
significance, not be changed unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The
Committee removed the caveat recommended by staff that facilities or City-owned land
could only be renamed if there was no other new facility or portion of a park or facility
that could be named for the individual.
Wording changes suggested by the Committee were incorporated into the attached
revised policy (Attachment 2). The application for naming or renaming City-owned
lands or facilities (Attachment 3) was modified to reflect all of the outlined changes
recommended by the Policy and Services Committee.
CMR:217:04 Page 2 of 3
The Committee voted unanimously to accept staff’s recommendation that staff should be
directed to explore alternative methods, other than naming of parks, facilities or streets,
for recognizing individuals who have made significant contributions to the community.
Staff will gather detailed information on options for a ’Wall of Honor’ or ’Walk of
Honor,’ similar to the recognition programs conducted by the cities of Burlingame, San
Jose, Foster City and Rancho Palos Verdes. Staff will return to the Policy and Services
Committee in summer for the review of recommended new programs.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
PREPARED BY:
CMR 169:04
Draft Revised Policy 1-15
Draft Name Suggestion Form
Final Revised Policy 1-15
Final Name Suggestion Form
Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Sq~rintendent, Open Space & Science
DEPARTMENT APPROVAL:
RICHARD JAME
Director,
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager .....
CMR:217:04 Page 3 of 3
Attachment A
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
commissions. 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
o
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
community.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2004, Council considered a proposal to rename the Arastradero Preserve
in honor of former City Council member 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 diseuss 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 Services Committee for further review and recommendation to
Council.
Council directed staff to review and revise the current 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 community.
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 Naming 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 histo’ry of naming parks in honor of individuals, staffproposes
to amend the 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, ahnost 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
exc.eption in extraordinary circumstances, such as in honor of Mayor Mitchell’s
extraordinary service.
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 serve 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.
Role 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 serve.
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 geographical 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 propOSe/1 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 r6sum6 of the suggested name.
Criteria For Renaming 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 Comlnunity Center
was renamed the Lucie Stern Community 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 facilitiesincorporates 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 betterment 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 Honoring 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 comlnunity, 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 persgn honored have contributed ten or
more years of service 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 programs.
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 with Council direction. The recommendations presented
enhance and clarify existing policies and are not contrary to other City policies.
TIMELINE
March 9:
April 12:
May 5:
June 22:
July 12:
Policy and Services Committee review of draft revised policy.
Council review and approval of revised policy.
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.
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviews ranked PAHA suggestions at a
public hearing. The Commission refers its recommendations to Council.
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 Dx;aft Policy 1-15
Draft ~~stion Form
GRE~
Sut Open Space & Science
DEPARTMENT HEAD: f~-~
-RICHARDoJ@~MES
Director//’r(~omlnunity~_~Department
EMIL~I~A~ON
Assistant City Manager
CMR 169:04 Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT A
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR
Revised: gept~ab~Au~ March 2004
NAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES
POLICY STATEMENT
This policy establishes uniform procedures for the naming of City-owned 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 renaming of existing facilities
and lands. The policy also establishes criteria which will guide the Historical Association in
re~m~endi~g .suggesting names to the appropriate City Commission or Committee for review.
as well as criteria for commissions to use in recommending 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 donot 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 naming of streets which will continue to be processed through
the Planning and Community Environment Department.
PROCEDURE FOR NAMING NEW FACILITIES OR CITY-OWNED LANDS
A. Responsibility of the Proiect 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 regard to the nomination source.
2. The project manager is responsible for conveying the ......."~ .....o~,~,~ .............name suggestion forms
from the City Clerk to the Palo Alto Historical Association and presenting the recemmendatien
ranked suggestions from the Historical Association to the Cc, uncil appropriate commission or
¯ committee whose sphere of influence, is most closely associated with the facility in question. The
Parks and Recreation Commission shall review name suggestions for acquired land to be
dedicated as a park, recreational facilities, community centers and interpretive centers. The
Library_ Advisory_ Commission shall review name suggestions for library facilities. The Public
Art Commission shall review name suggestions for art facilities. The Policy and Services
Committee shall review name suggestions for police, fire or utility facilities as well as major
civic complexes.
a. The Historical Association may also originate suggestions for names or provide suggestions
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 City Council 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. Responsibility of the Reviewing Commission Or Committee
1.. The commission or committee shall conduct a public hearing, confirm that the suggested
names 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 City
Council. The report from the commission or committee shall acknowledge all of the suggested
names together 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 meeting 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
physical features), ~ historic or landmark connotation ~,~o.~,
of particular significance 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 shall not
constitute an obligation by the City to name the land or facility or any portion thereof, after an
individual or family. City-owned lands or parks shall not be named for benefactor organizations,
groups or businesses, but in special cases, may be considered for facilities.
3. Names honorin~ individuals or families; other than those of historic association, will generally
be in memoriam. Exceptions considered must be supported by com.pelling circumstances
~_. 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 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.
C-D. Council Action
1. The recommendation received from the Histerica! Asooeciatie, n 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.
t)E. 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 namin~ 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 an__~d
lap_lg__~, and to the Palo Alto Historical Association for its records.
F~F. Naming 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
(topography, ~eolo~y, 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
Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. Ci_ty policy is not to change the
name of any existing park or recreational facility, particularly one whose name has Ci_ty or
regional significance, unless there are extraordinalw circumstances, and no other new facility or
portion of an existing park or facility can be so designated. Further, the Ci_ty will modify existing
names to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have made maior,
overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecognized.
A. Renaming Suggestions
1. All requests concerning a new 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. The suggestion must detail
how the proposed name change is consistent with the criteria, the purpose of the name change,
and how the new name is directly associated with the land or faciliW.
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 renaming 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 initiate the renamin~ of lands or a facility without a public
request whenever deemed necessary_ or in the best interest of the City of Palo Alto, following
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 conveying the name suggestion form(s) to the Palo Alto
Historical Association and then transmitting the ranked suggestions from the Palo Alto Historical
Association to the appropriate commission or committee as outlined in Section A above.
2. The recognized neighborhood association in the vicinity of the land or facility will be notified
of the proposed name change at the time the reviewing commission or committee receives the
.report from the Historical Association.
C. Responsibility of the Reviewing Commission Or Committee
1. The commission or committee shall conduct a public hearing, confirm that the suggested
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 City
Council. The report from the commission or committee shall acknowledge any suggested names
together with its evaluation, but present only the name which it feels best meets the criteriaand
merits serious consideration by the 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 for.
the name, together with a copy of the name suggestion form.
D. Criteria
Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria in this policy, but
meeting all criteria does not ensure renaming.
City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed in memoriam for an individual(s) under the
following conditions. Where the individual:
t. 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
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 a~enda.
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. "
F. Follow-up to Selection of Name
1. Subsequent to approval by the City Council, the new name for the City-owned land or facilit3r
shall be conveyed to the Department of Public Works for incorporation in City official maps and
plans, and to the Palo Alto Historical Association for its records.
NOTE." Questions and/or clari)qcation 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~ obiectives:
1.Ensure that parks, recreational areas and facilities are easily identified and located
2.Ensur.e 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 geographic, 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 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. City-owned lands or parks sh’all 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 plg~. ,evpam~~ ~e.de, emed; t~r haye, 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 City Clerk:
Submitted to Palo Alto Historical Association:
Date scheduled for review by commission:
ATTACHMENT C
Comments 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 i’esources
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, groups 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 L0sch 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
"significant" 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).
Comlnissioner 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 historical 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. Betts 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 forwarded by the City
Clerk to PAHA for consideration.
Page 1 of 1
Larkin, Jennifer
From:Betts, Greg
Sent:Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:16 AM
To:Larkin, Jennifer
Subject: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@sbcglobal.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 commen~s 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_pA)2_Qpriate commission or commissions together with its rationale for
the suggestion." 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 greater 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
ATTACHMENT B - Final Revised Policy:
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1-15/MGR
Revised: April 2004
NAMING CITY-OWNED LAND AND FACILITIES
POLICY STATEMENT
The purpose of this policy is to ensure that City-owned land and facilities, when named
for individuals, are named for persons who have made significant contributions or
performed services deemed to have been of major importance to the community.
This policy establishes uniform procedures for the naming of City-owned 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 renaming of
existing facilities and lands. The policy also establishes criteria which will guide the
Historical Association and the appropriate City Commission or Committee in
recommending 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, subject to final approval by the City Council via the consent calendar.
This process does not apply to the naming of streets which will continue to be processed
through the Planning and Community Environment Department (Policy and Procedure 1-
16: Naming of City Streets). The naming of a street may be considered an appropriate
alternative means of honoring an individual.
PROCEDURE FOR NAMING NEW FACILITIES OR CITY-OWNED LANDS
A. Responsibility of the Proiect 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.
ATTACHMENT B - Final Revised Policy
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 and method of
notification.
d. All submittals, whether from an individual or an organization, must include the name
and address of thesubmitter. No anonymous submittals will be accepted.
e. All suggestions will be given the same consideration without regard to the nomination
source.
2. The project manager is responsible for conveying the name suggestion forms from the
City Clerk to the Palo Alto Historical Association and presenting the recommendations
from the Historical Association to the appropriate commission or committee whose
sphere of influence is most closely associated with the facility in question. The Parks and
Recreation Commission shall review name suggestions for acquired land to be dedicated
as a park, recreational facilities, community centers and interpretive centers. The Library
Advisory Commission shall review name suggestions for library facilities. The Public
Art Commission shall review name suggestions for art facilities. The Policy and Services
Committee shall review name suggestions for police, fire or utility facilities as well as
major civic complexes.
a. The Historical Association may also. originate suggestions for names or provide
suggestions for appropriate alternatives as part of its recommendations.
b. The project manager shall assure that adequate time is allowed for the Historical
Association and the appropriate commission or committee to evaluate the recommended
names.
c. The Historical Association shall determine if the suggested names meet the criteria of
appropriate significance, and shall submit the recommendations to the appropriate
commission or committee together with the rationale for the recommendations. The
response from the Historical Association shall acknowledge all the names that are
submitted, but recommend only those which it feels meet the criteria and warrant serious
consideration.
B. Responsibility of the Reviewing Commission Or Committee
1. The commission or committee shall conduct a hearing, confirm that the recommended
names meet the criteria of appropriate significance, select recommendation(s) provided
ATTACHMENT B - Final Revised Policy
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 recommended
names together 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 the Commission meeting when the
recommendation was discussed.
C. 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 or preserve the geographic, 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 City as a whole.
Either connotation is equally valid.
2. Acknowledgement of contributions: 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 shall not constitute an obligation by
the City to name the land or facility or any portion thereof, after an individual or family.
City-owned lands or parks shall not be named for benefactor organizations, groups or
businesses, but in special cases, may be considered for sub-facilities such as rooms or
playgrounds.
3. Names honoring individuals or families, other than those of recognized historic
importance, must be supported by compelling reasons.
4. In the event the City-owned land or facility was formerly school property or had other
ownership such that the name of the school, building or site has community significance
or community recognition, consideration may be given to preserving that name.
5. The City encourages naming which reflects the City’s ethnic and cultural diversity.
6. No City-owned land or facility shall be named after a seated elected or appointed
official.
ATTACHMENT B - Final Revised Policy-:
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.
D. Council Action
1. The recommendations received from the Historical Association and the commission or
committee shall be placed on the Council agenda for final approval.
2. Action by the Council shall be by Council Resolution.
E. Follow-up to Selection of the Name
1. The above-described process for selecting an .appropriate name should precede the
preparation of a park dedication ordinance.
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 plans, and to the Palo Alto Historical Association for its records.
F. Naming Places Within City-owned Land or Facilities
In the case of places within City-owned land or facilities, where the policy does not
require a Council resolution, responsibility for requesting Council approval of the new
name shall reside with the department head who manages the land or facility.
Ideally, the naming of features within a park and specific trails or facilities within open
space lands will occur during the master plan or site plan process.
Names within parks should be appropriate to the park by reflecting the expression of the
place (topography, geology, natural features), flora and fauna, or history of the area.
In advance of the naming, the department head shall send a memorandum to the City
Manager advising of the proposed action and requesting approval. The City Manager will
then seek approval of the name from the City Council via the consent calendar.
PROCEDURE FOR RENAMING EXISTING FACILITIESOR CITY-OWNED
LANDS
Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. City policy is not to
change the name of any existing facilities or City-owned land, particularly one whose
name has City or regional significance, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
ATTACHMENT B - Final Revised Policy
Further, the City will consider renaming 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. ~ ’
A. Renaming Suggestions
1. All requests concerning a new 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. The suggestion
must detail how the proposed name change is consistent with the criteria, the purpose of
the name change, 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 renaming 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 initiate the renaming of lands or
a facility without a public request whenever deemed necessary or in the best intei’est of
the City of Palo Alto, following 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 Proj ect Manager
1. The City Clerk is responsible for conveying the name suggestion form(s) received by
the deadline to the Project Manager, who will be responsible for forwarding to the Palo
Alto Historical Association and then transmitting the recommendation(s) from the Palo
Alto Historical Association to the appropriate commission or committee as outlined in
Section A above.
2. The recognized neighborhood association in the vicinity of the land or facility will be
notified of the proposed name change at the time the reviewing commission or committee
receives the report from the Historical Association.
C. Responsibility of the Reviewing Commission Or Committee
1. The commission or committee shall conduct a public hearing, confirm that the
suggested name(s) meet the criteria of appropriate significance, select recommendation(s)
from the names provided by the Historical Association, and shall forward its
recommendation to the City Council. The report from the commission or committee shall
acknowledge any recommended names together with its evaluation, but present only the
name or names which it feels best meets the criteria and merits serious consideration by
the Council.
ATTACHMENT B - Final Revised Policy
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
refer, ence for the name or names, together with a copy of the name suggestion form. ~
D. Criteria
Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria in this policy,
but meeting all criteria does not ensure renaming.
City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed 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..
E. Council Action
1. The recommendations received from the Palo Alto Historical
commission or committee shall be submitted for Council approval.
2. Action by the Council shall be by Council Resolution.
F. Follow-up to Selection of Name
Association and
1. Subsequent to approval by the City Council, the new name for the City-owned land or
facility shall be conveyed to the Department of Public Works for incorporation in City
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 C - Final Name Suggestion Form
APPLICATION FOR NAMING OR RENAMING ......
CITY-OWNED LANDS OR FACILITIES
Naming objectives:
1.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 naming 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 or preserve the geographic, 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 City as a whole. Either connotation is
equally valid.
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 shall not constitute an obligation by the City to name the land or facility
or any portion thereof, after an individual or family. City-owned lands or parks shall not
be named for benefactor organizations, groups or businesses, but in special cases, may be
considered for sub-facilities such as rooms or playgrounds.
3. Names honoring individuals or families, other than those of recognized historic
importance, must be supported by compelling reasons.
4. In the event the City-owned land or facility was formerly school property or had other
ownership such that the name of the school, building or site has community significance
or community recognition, consideration may be given to preserving that name.
5. The City encourages naming which reflects the City’s ethnic and cultural diversity.
6. No City-owned land or facility 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.
ATTACHMENT C - Final Name Suggestion Form
Criteria for renaming existing facilities of parks:
Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria listed above,
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 facilities or City-owned land, particularly one whose
name has City or regional significance, unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
Further, the City will consider renaming 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 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 or renaming 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)
ATTACHMENT C - Final Name Suggestion Form
Civic involvement: (Explain)
Connection to the facility: (Please explain in depth)
Reason for Nomination (required):
Additional Comments (additional information may be attached):
ATTACHMENT C - Final Name Suggestion Form
Date Received by the City Clerk:
Submitted to Palo Alto Historical Association:
Date scheduled for review by~ commission:
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Regular Meeting
March 9, 2004
Chairperson Burch called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council
Conference Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California.
Present: Burch, Cordell, Kishimoto, Morton
1. Oral Communications
None.
Criteria and Process for Naming and Renaming City-Owned Land and
FacilitiesmRevision of Current Policy 1-15
Open Space and Sciences Superintendent Gregg Betts said he looked at other
city’s, county’s, and district’s naming policies. There were four objectives to a
naming policy: 1) to ensure that parks, recreational areas, and facilities were
easily identified and located; 2) to ensure that names designated for parks,
recreational areas, and facilities were consistent with the values and character
of the area or neighborhood served; 3) to encourage public participation in the
naming, renaming, or dedication of parks, recreational areas, and facilities; and
4) to encourage the donation of lands, funds for lands acquisition for
development by individuals and groups. The Council’s direction to staff included
five points: 1) include additional specific criteria for the naming of lands or
facilities in honor of individuals; 2) include a role in the name recommendation
process for the Parks and Recreation Commission, or other appropriate
commissions; 3) provide a process for transmitting historical information on the
facility to Council as part of the recommendation process; 4) determine criteria
that should be used for naming or renaming land and facilities; and 5) provide
an alternate method besides the naming of lands or facilities for honoring
individuals who have made a significant contribution to the community. Most of
Palo AIto’s Parks were named for people. Most community centers were named
for the school it used to be or more geographically in association with a
neighborhood. ApproXimately one third of the policies had specific guidelines
for renaming. In most cases, renaming facilities was discouraged if the park or
facility were a regional facility. The City Manager currently had the authority to
name subfacilities, such as the Pat Briggs Theatre at the Children’s Theatre. The
Park and Recreation Commission (PARC) minutes of February 24, 2004,
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
included two motions as Attachment A to the staff report (CMR:169:04).
Commissioner Hagan made a motion that suggested that the Council should
ratify subfacility names approved by the City Manager. A second motion made
by Chairman Keating was that under, "Renaming," there was no clause for
exceptions to "In memoriam" naming as there was for renaming of general park
facilities. The recommendation was that the wording be identical for both
naming and renaming and that there be an exception provided for naming "In
memoriam" for individuals. Comments were made at .the February 24, 2004,
PARC meeting on the question of naming parks or facilities for businesses or
organizations. Paid Alto did not have a history of naming facilities after
businesses or organizations. The policy allowed for the naming of a subfacility
within a park or facility. The minutes of the Paid Alto Historical Association
(PAHA), included as Attachment D to the staff report (CMR: 169:04), discussed
differences of the words "suggestion" versus "recommended." The intent of
having two different terms was to try to create a hierarchy in the process where
the PAHA looked at a name for its historical context and appropriateness. PARC
Commissioner ,C, ribbs expressed concern by words such as "significantcontribution" or lasting contribution." The policies did not reflect a way clarify
the words more definitively.
Michael CIosson, Acterra, 354 Poe Street, referred to a letter he sent to the
Council on February 17, 2004. Acterra strongly supported the naming of the
Arastradero Preserve in honor of Enid Pearson. Initially, Acterra did not feel it
had been consulted by the proponents and was shocked that the Preserve
would be renamed. Acterra was now comfortable with the proposed name
change of "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve."
Edie Keating, 3553 Alma Street, #5, said the PARC thought the draft
procedures were sensible recommendations to use as guidelines for naming
parks. Paid Alto would not have many parks to name in the future. Renaming
the boulevard the "Ellen Fletcher Bicycle Boulevard" was appropriate. A change
to the draft policy was suggested: to allow renaming for people who were still
alive.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, said the item was referred to the Policy and
Services (P&S) Committee from Council in conjunction with an agenda item
regarding renaming the Arastradero Preserve for Enid Pearson. The P&S
Committee had to make a decision about whether the Preserve could be named
for Enid Pearson based upon recommendations. The policy should not be
changed.
2
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said staff did a good job researching what
other communities did. Many communities named parks for people who were
living. The true value was the test of time. A timely identification or
accommodation was appropriate. "In memoriam" was not necessary. Renaming
might cause confusion at first, but did not pose a problem on in the long term.
There were many parks in communities that had nothing to do with a locale, but
a park was a great way to identify and recognize someone who made significant
contributions. The C. 1. Policy in Attachment A of the staff report (CMR: 169: 04)
was good. The procedures did not indicate that PAHA would be notified when an
item went to any particular commission meeting, at which PAHA should send a
representative to answer questions. Suggestions came from the public, and
recommendations came from PAHA. PAHA was the historical record keeper. A
written recommendation report from PAHA should go to any review board or
commission:.
Beth Bunnenberg, 2351 Ramona Street, preferred the word "recommend" in
reference to PAHA’s action. The name should be passed on to a board or
commission as a recommendation to Council. The board or commission could
decide to agree or disagree. In the past, the practice of PAHA was to sometimes
pass more than one recommendation to Council.
Tom Wyman, 546 Washington Street, said standards should be the same for a
person living or not living when making a determination to name a park after a
person. A living person would enjoy the recognition. Wording was suggested
under Policy Statement, Attachment A to the staff report (CMR: 169:04), such
as "The purpose of this policy is to assure the City-owned land and facilities are
named for individuals who have made a significant contribution or performed
some service, which is deemed to have been of major importance to the
community."
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, said staff did a good job pulling together a
lot of information. The wording, "major overriding contributions to the City and
whose distinctions are as yet unrecognized," was a strong statement and an
overarching goal. of the policy. The new renaming policy incorporated three
additional criteria, which she assumed were to be considered in the alternative.
The policy should be explicit that the criteria were alternatives. The term
"compelling circumstances" was used in the proposed policy. The wording
"compelling reasons" or "extraordinary reasons" were recommended because
circumstances were not usually used in the context of naming something.
Accomplishments or civic contributions of a person should have served the test
of time for 25, 30, or 40 years. It would be obvious after that period of time
whether or not the contribution was meaningful.Item C.3. of Attachment A of
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
the staff report (CMR:169:04), "Names honoring individuals or families, other
than those of historic association, will generally be in memoriam" should be
deleted. Section 1 of Item E, Follow-up to Selection of Name, was confusing and
needed rewording. Under Procedure for Renaming Existing Facilities or City-
Owned Lands~ a notation should be added that at least one of the criteria
needed to be met.
Tom Jordan, 474 Churchill Avenue, said naming "in memoriam" was a bad idea.
The idea of a test of time was good. Twenty-five years was suggested. The first
sentence of the staff report (CMR: 169:04), "The current City policy for naming
City-owned lands and facilities does not address the process for renaming
facilities or parks," was incorrect. Paid Alto had 32 parks, of which 12 were
renamed. Two were renamed for living people. The fact the parks were
renamed showed there was a policy. The renaming of Arastradero Park for Enid
Pearson should be grandfathered.
Betsy Allyn, 4186 Willmar Drive, said revision of the process for naming and
renaming City-owned land and facilities was clearly a prospectus only for future
use. Consideration of projects already under the review of previous policies and
precedents should be based on their merits; otherwise, rules were changed
midstream. In 1965, when the Council refused to listen to the citizens to protect
parks from future developments, Enid Pearson had the courage and vision to
step forward, do legal research, and write the Park Dedication Ordinance.
Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, said she looked at the naming objectives but felt it was
too late to establish the objectives at the current time. Knowing the location of
parks being discussed was useful. Concern was expressed in the case where a
facility was named after a corporation and then the corporation changed its
name.
Council Member Morton suggested the P&S Committee approve the policy and
introduce a series of amendments to policy to be discussed.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Cordell, to approve the
policy for the naming and renaming of City-owned land and facilities with
amendments, as noted By Consensus of Council.
Council Member Cordell suggested the Committee might discuss policy issues.
Council Member Morton said the main motion was the last adopted, but
amendments would be made prior to the final vote. Referring to Attachment A
of the staff report (CMR: 169:04), the word "recommending" should remain. The
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
PAHA should recommend the names it felt were appropriate. Recommendations
could be received from a number of different sources..
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Change sentence in second paragraph of
Attachment A of the staff report, first page, to "The policy also establishes
criteria which will guide the Historical Association in recommending names to
the appropriate City Commission or Committee for review, as well as criteria for
commissions to use in their recommendation of names to the Council for
approval."
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Change sentence in third paragraph of
Attachment A of the staff report, first page, to "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 Manger or his/her designee, subject to final
confirmation by the Council on the Consent Calendar."
Council Member Cordell referred to a speaker’s suggested language to
strengthen the policy statement.
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL." Add the wording, "The purpose of this policy
is to ensure that city owned land and facilities when named for individuals, are
persons who have made significant contributions or performed services which
are deemed to have been of major importance to the community."
Council Member Morton suggested an additional phrase regarding naming of
streets, The current wording implied that the naming of streets was not a way
of honoring people.
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Add the wording, "But the naming or
renaming of a street may be considered an appropriate alternative means of
honoring an individual."
Assistant to the City Manager Chris Mogensen said there was a separate policy
for the naming of streets.
Council Member Morton said the amendment did not override the policy, but
said "in the consideration of honoring." Staff was asked to check to see if there
was a conflict in the original policy prior to going before the Council.
Council Member Morton said procedures for naming new facilities or city owned
lands was clear.
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Chairperson Kishimoto asked about notification and suggested adding "and
method of notification." to Item 1.c.
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Change wording in Item 1.c. to "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 and
method of notification."
Council Member Cordell noted the PAHA made recommendations but questioned
the PAHA ranking of recommendations.
Council Member Morton said he intended that "ranked suggestions" would be
replaced with "recommendations."
Council Member Cordell suggested when rankings went to the next level, which
was the commissions, there was an implied message about what was
important. Latitude needed to be given to commissions.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested giving weighted recommendations in
order to give an indication of a strong feeling.
Council Member Morton said the word "recommendation" allowed ranking.
Council Member Cordell said she did not want to take away the Commission’s
ability to look at the recommendations.
Council Member Morton suggested adding as part of the commission’s
deliberative process that the commissions can originate suggested names or
provide alternatives, as part of the recommendations.
Council Member Kishimoto suggested taking out the word "ranking" to state
that PAHA "could provide recommendations."
Council Member Cordell concurred with removing "ranking."
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL; Add to section 2, page 2 of Attachment A to
the staff report (CMR:169:04) "The Project Manager is responsible for
conveying the name suggestion forms from the City Clerk to the Palo Alto
Historical Association and presenting the recommendations from the Historical
Association." Section 2.a. changed to read, "The Historical Association may also
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
originate suggestions for names or provide suggestions for appropriate
alternatives as part of their recommendation."
Council Member Cordell referred to the third page of Attachment A to the staff
report (CMR:169:04), Paragraph c. and suggested deleting "...shall rank its
choices" and change "submit the ranked list" to "submit the recommendations."
BY CONSENSUS OI= COUNCIL: Change wording in Section c on third page of
Attachment A to the staff report (CMR: 169:04), "The Historical Association shall
determine if the suggested names meet the criteria of appropriate significance,
and shall submit the recommendations to the appropriate commission or
committee together with the rationale. The response from the Historical
Association shall acknowledge all the names that are submitted, but
recommend only the names which it feels meet the criteria and warrant serious
consideration."
Council Member Cordell referred to B,1. and said the word "rank" needed to be
removed.
Council Member Morton suggested Criteria 1 on page 3 be changed to read,
"The name should, if possible, have or preserve geographic, environmental,
historic or landmark connotation." For many people in Paid Alto, names such as
Rinconada, Foothills, and Baylands had a long sense of identity.
Chairperson Kishimoto talked about "meeting the criteria," and noted there was
a point made about whether 100 percent of the criteria were expected to be
met or whether it meant most of the criteria.
Council Member Cordell disagreed with saying, "meet most of it."The criteria in
renaming listed doing something or doing something else. The criteria had to be
met.
Council Member Morton said the word "used" did not mean something was
required.
Council Member Cordell said the word "shall" meant "must."
Chairperson Kishimoto referred to Item 3 on page 3 of Attachment A of the
staff report (CMF: 169:04) and suggested adding "in memoriam or 25 years or
more after the events for which the person is being honored."
7
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Council Member Burch disagreed and did not want tO resti~ict the name honoring
to only the living or force it to be in memoriam.
Council Member Morton suggested removing "generally be in memoriam" and
add "must be supported by compelling circumstances."
Mr. Mogensen said staff would work on the wording.
Council Member Cordell asked whether the Committee was clear with
wording "25 years."the
Council Member Morton said compelling circumstances should include time,
which was up to the Historical Commission.
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Section 3 on page 3 of Attachment A of the
staff report (CMR: 169:04) was changed to read, "Names honoring individuals or
families, other than those of historical association, must be supported by
compelling reasons."
Council Member Morton suggested the following change to Item 4 on page 3 of
Attachment A of the staff report (CMR: 169:04): "In the event the City owned
land or facility was formerly school property or had other ownership for which
the name has community significance or community recognition, consideration
may be given to preserving that name."
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Change Item 4 on page 3 of Attachment A of
the staff report (CMR: 169:04) to "In the event the City owned land or facility
was formerly school property, or had other ownership for which the name has
community significance or community recognition, consideration may be given
to preserving that name."
Council Member Morton recommended a change to Item 1 under Council Action,
"The recommendation received from the Historical Association and commission
or committee shall be placed on the consent calendar of the Council agenda."
Council Member Cordell said the Council put items on the consent calendar, for
example what the City Manager was naming. The naming of other more
significant facilities should not follow the same route but should go to Council.
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Change to Item 1, under Council Action, in
Attachment A of the staff Fe OFt CMR 169 04 "P ( : : ), The recommendation received
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Poliey and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
from the Historical Association and commission or committee shall be forwarded
to the Council for final approval." ~,
Council Member Burch said Item 3 would no longer apply.
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Eliminate Item 3 under Council Action in
Attachment A of the staff report (CHR:16g:04).
Council Member Burch asked for an explanation of Item 1 under Follow-up to
Selection of Name.
Mr. Betts explained when a park was dedicated parkland, there should be a
name with it. The exception for SOFA Park was for a public process to solicit
names and to dedicate the park to comply with stipulations of the developer but
to still provide more time for the naming process.
Council Member Cordell suggested the wording should be as Mr. Betts
explained.
Mr. Betts responded the word "shall" could be changed to "should."
BY CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL: Change Item 1 under Follow-up to Selection
of Name, "The above-described process for selecting an appropriate name
should precede the preparation of a park dedication ordinance."
Council Member Burch suggested Item 2, under Naming Places Within City-
owned Land or Faci!ities, should be "put on consent for approval by Council.",
Council Member Morton suggested changing the first paragraph, under Naming
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 resolution ..."
Council Member Burch said the policy required Council action, so the intent was
changed.
Chairperson Kishimoto asked staff to rewrite the paragraph.
Council Member Morton suggested saying, "City policy is to respect the name of
any existing park or recreation facility particularly one whose name has City or
regional significance, unless there are extraordinary circumstances and no other
new facility or portion of an existing park or facility can be so designated."
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Council Member.Cordell said the tenor of the i3aragraph had to do with changing
something.
Council Member Morton suggested saying, "City policy is not to change."
Council Member Burch said the policy was not to change unless there were
compelling reasons to do so.
Chairperson Kishimoto suggested saying "to discourage the renaming."
Council Member Cordell said things were named and the idea was not to change
names unless there were compelling reasons.
Council Member Burch said the policy was to not change unless there were
compelling reasons.
BY I~OI~ISEi~ISUS Oi= t~OUl~lCIL: Change to the first paragraph .under
Procedure for Renaming Existing Facilities or City-Owned Lands: "City policy is
not to change the name of any existing facilities or city-owned lands,
particularly one whose name has City or regional significance unless there are
compelling reasons." And, "Further, the City will consider renaming 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."
Council Member Cordell referred to Item 1 under C,. Responsibility of the
Reviewing Commission or Committee, and removed "ranked list."
Council Member Cordell recommended "name or names" in place of"name" in
Items 1 and 2 under C, Responsibility of the Reviewing Commission or
Committee."
Council Member Morton suggested removing "in memoriam" under the second
paragraph of Item D, Criteria.
Council Member Butch referred to Item 1 under E, Council Action, and
suggested the wording, "The recommendation received from the commission or
committee shall be submitted for Council approval" and to delete Item 3.
MOTIOI~I: Council Member Morton moved, seconded by Cordell, that the
Policy and Services Committee recommend the City Council accept the revised
policy attached to CMR:169:04 with the changes as noted above. Also, direct
10
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
staff to explore alternative methods, other than naming of facilities, for
recognizing individuals who have made a significant contribution to the
community.
MOTION PASSED 4-0.
Mr. Betts reported that Attachment B should conform to the policy.
Council Member Cordell asked about the request regarding renaming the
Arastradero Preserve.
Mr. Betts explained the policy went to the Council on April 12i 2004. If
approved, the process for Arastradero and SOFA Park would be taken to PAHA
with the new policy. On June 22, 2004, the policy would go to the PARC for
recommendations, and then back to Council on July 12, 2004.
Council Member Cordell questioned why the request for renaming Arastradero
had to go through the whole process because it went to PAHA.
Mr. Betts said there were two timelines: one for Arastradero Preserve renaming
and one for SOFA Park naming.
Mr. Mogensen said staff understood a decision would not be made until a policy
was in effect. Staff thought it had to wait until Council approved the policy.
Council Member Burch said PARC already made a recommendation. When the
policy went to the Council, a Council Member could raise the issue to have the
recommendation return to Council as soon as possible.
RECESS: 8:30 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.
3. Proposed New Recycling and Solid Waste Services
Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said staff believed it was time to
implement a single stream recycling program. The community had
demonstrated success with the recycling program, and Palo Alto exceeded the
State requirements. The argument for source separation was no longer
important. The program would let staff move forward to take advantage of
efficiencies, both for the consumer and City operations. The consumer was able
to have a single container with wheels, which would improve the efficiency
operations for PASCO.
11
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Deputy Director of Public Works Michael Jackson said there were four items for
recommendation: 1) Implement a single stream recycling program; 2) Change
the collection of yard trimmings to cart service; 3) Supply optional curbside cart
service for garbage; and 4) Approve compressed natural gas as an alternative
fuel for the collector’s recycling collection vehicles.
Council Member Morton clarified Items 1 and 2 meant there were two carts:
one cart for recycling and one cart for yard waste.
Mr. Jackson said there would be an insert for the 32 gallon cart that made it a
20 gallon container. The first cart was free.
Council Member Morton clarified residents gave up a garbage can and, in
exchange, got a wheel cart.
Mr. Jackson explained there were three sizes of containers: 32 gallon, 64
gallon, and 96 gallon.
Council Member Burch said there were three elements: consumer’s point of
view, operations point of view, and recycling of materials. His concern was with
maximum recycling and post use of materials. People wanted something to
dump everything into.
Mr. Roberts responded staff agreed with the third priority and should have
stated it more explicitly in the report. Taking advantage of current technology
and programs enabled staff to make the change to sort materials.
Mr. Jackson said labor costs were involved with sorting materials. PASCO had a
seven-year replacement schedule for vehicles, whereas other communities had
ten-year replacement schedules. Many vehicles were sold as scrap after their
useful life. The single stream program was not dependent upon whether or not
there was an environmental services center (ESC) at the landfill.
Mr. Roberts said the program stood alone on its own merits and was viably
independent. Staff believed there were additional benefits to be obtained, either
by working with the cities of Mt. View and Sunnyvale and the SMART station, if
they chose to go to single stream, or by the potential for the ESC project
further enhancing the City’s current operations.
Chairperson Kishimoto clarified the contract with the SMART station was not
until 2021.
12
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Mr. Roberts said that was correct.
Chairperson Kishimoto said costs and benefits averaged out to a ten percent
rate increase.
Mr. Jackson said, in considering the capital expense in the first year, the impact
rate was nearly 11 percent. The ongoing costs in future fiscal years were
approximately three percent.
Chairperson Kishimoto said she assumed residential use had a high compliance
rate and asked about the compliance rate in terms of overall diversions.
Mr. Jackson said the amount was less than the residential sector. Staff
anticipated an increase in business participation.
Chairperson Kishimoto asked about the possibility of tiering.
Mr.. Jackson said the City did not charge separately for recycling but had a
variable can rate. It would cost less if a smaller number of cans were used.
Mr. Roberts said staff believed there was incentive to reduce the tiered rate,
which was combined for refuse and recycling. Proposing a separate rate
structure for recycling was not recommended.
Council Member Morton suggested a system be designed whereby the sorting
was done without deterioration in the pick up. A way to sort recycling during
pick up should be looked at.
Bob Wenzlau, 1409 Dana Street, said he worked with others in 1977 to begin a
recycling program. The mission when curbside recycling began was to look at a
true economic model that reflected and internalized the external costs
associated with the environment. The loss of open space at that time was not
valued. The wisdom of the Council at that time was to allow an experiment with
curbside recycling. The motivation for this was to try to create institutionalized
environmental good behavior without creating an inordinate burden. The
environmental footprint of the current recycling envelope was unclear. The staff
report (CMR: 165:04) lacked the emphasis on the environmental component.
Ellie Gioumousis, 992 Loma Verde, said energy was necessary for recycling, and
a big, noisy facility was necessary to recycle. Other cities had two streams: one
for glass and bottles and one for paper. A large facility that used more energy
and created pollution was not supported.
13
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Joy..Ogawa, Yale Street, clarified the pilot program involved single-family
residences. The experiences of single family residences to multiple residences
could not be extrapolated. Recycling issues were a concern in the fourplex
where she lived. Neighbors did not remove their recycling bins after recycling
was picked up. There was no financial incentive to recycle if the City made it
difficult.
Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, was concerned that PASCO was ready to
change over recycling trucks two years in a row, the SMART station currently
only accepted split cans, and the alternative with the single stream was that
recyclables were moved to Castroville or Oakland. The combined fiber plus cans
and bottles resulted in a degraded material which reduced its value by
approximately two thirds. Asingle can precluded, until further notice from the
SMART station, the ability to use the SMART station, which wasthe combined
regional facility currently used. The split can was suggested, as it was the most
flexible for the future in terms of where the material could be delivered. The
can that was selected would dictate the trucks bought over the next several
years. Split cans allowed the City to use the SMART station.
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, said there were environmental and financial
concerns. The more reusable recyclables were a good idea. Energy and costs
were necessary to re-sort materials. Rates of garbage collections could be
raised, and a lower rate for a smaller can was an incentive. Providing an
incentive for businesses to reduce the amount of garbage and recyclables could
be considered.
Monica Devincenzi, PASCO, 2000 Geng Road, said material was not degraded
but labor costs were higher. Sorters were necessary to do more of the work.
More issues were .involved with a split cart than with a single stream.
Contamination was as high or higher on a split cart. The single stream tended
to be more user friendly as well as a cleaner program.
Council Member Cordell left the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Council Member Burch asked whether there was an option to do nothing.
Mr. Jackson said that was an alternative. A significant investment
necessary in order to replace the crates.was
Council Member Burch asked how many people used one or more 30 gallon
cans.
14
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Mr. Jackson said mini-cans represented approximately ten percent and one can
service represented approximately 25 percent of the customers.
Council Member Burch was concerned about large recycling bins.
MOTION: Council Member Morton moved approval of the single stream
recycling program with a condition that the Council receive a report back
confirming that the single stream recycling led to a greater amount of plastic
recycled.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Butch clarified a major investment in trucks was necessary.
Mr. Roberts said the City needed to make a major investment in trucks and a
reinvestment in the containers.
MOTION: Council Member Kishimoto moved, seconded by Burch, to postpone
the decision regarding implementing a single stream recycling program until an
integrated decision regarding the Environmental Service Center and purchase of
new trucks was made.
Mr. Roberts said there was a limited window of time to make a decision on the
single stream or alternative method of recycling. Resources needed to be
included in the budget for PASCO for the next year. This budget item went to
the Council as an element of the Refuse Fund. The Environmental Services
Center issue did not hinge on single stream versus split containers.
Council Member Burch asked whether the possibility existed to offer single
stream to some people and split to others.
Mr. Jackson said staff could continue with the pilot as it existed in five
neighborhoods. The City had an obligation to order new vehicles in fiscal year
2004-05, which were scheduled to be delivered in October-November 2004.
Mr. Roberts asked for guidance as soon as possible regarding the new vehicles.
Council Member Burch wanted more assurance that single stream recycling
would be successful.
15
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
Mr. Jackson said the contract with PASCO specified that recycled materials were
not-only processed in the landfill.
Russell Reiserer, PASCO employee, said at the current time, materials were
marketed to waste management regionally. The materials at the SMART station
were marketed.
Chairperson Kishimoto asked whether PASCO guaranteed the materials to the
factory that did the actual recycling processing.
Monica Devincenzi said PASCO dealt directly with brokers and directly with
markets. Letters were received from the markets or consultants that material
sent to them would be recycled.
Chairperson Kishimoto clarified dual stream and single stream were virtually the
same.
Mr. Reiserer said the difference was approximately one dollar per ton.
AIfredo Romo, PASCO, said Palo Alto and its residents needed to be commended
for their recycling efforts.
Chairperson Kishimoto asked about the costs related to yard trimmings.
Mr. Jackson responded the capital expense for the first year was approximately
$943,000, with ongoing expenses of $94,000 per year.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Morton moved, Burch seconded, to
recommend that Council approve Items 2-4, as noted below, with Item No. 1.
"Implement a single stream, recycling program," returning to Council with a
split vote.
2.
3.
4.
Change the collection of yard trimmings to cart service.
Supply optional curbside cart service for garbage.
Approve compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel for the
collector’s recycling collection vehicles.
MOTION PASSED 3-0, Cordell absent.
4. Discussion for Future Meeting Schedules and Agendas
Mr. Mogensen Said the next meeting was Tuesday, April 13, 2004, regarding
the Environmental Services Center. A special meeting might be held on March
16
ATTACHMENT D- Draft Policy and Services Committee Minutes, March 9, 2004
30, 2004, to discuss the first Council meeting in January and the Construction
and. Demolition ordinance.
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 10.:00 p.m.
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto
Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the
preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing
Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting.
The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
17