Stanton council directs staff to draft formal policy for naming and renaming city parks and facilities

At its June 24 meeting the Stanton City Council asked staff to draft a formal policy to guide how the city names and renames parks and public facilities, after a staff presentation and council discussion.

The policy request stems from a January 28 council directive and aims to create criteria and a transparent process that “reflect Stanton’s values, history, and identity,” Community Services Director Zania Babadilla told the council. Staff said it reviewed sample policies from other California cities, including San Diego, San Jose and Alameda, and identified common elements such as historical significance, geographic relevance and community impact.

Council members discussed four core issues staff flagged for direction: naming criteria, scope (parks/buildings/amenities), eligibility (living officials), public engagement and renaming conditions. Council Member Warren, who brought the item forward, said the city has inconsistent park names and supported giving the Community Services Commission an opportunity to review the draft policy. “Thank you, director Bobadilla for putting this together,” Warren said.

Council debated whether to allow names for living people and current elected officials. Multiple members favored excluding current sitting elected officials from naming consideration; council members discussed a waiting period after a person’s death and suggested five years as a starting point, with a council-level exception if a person’s contribution is judged to be “substantial.” Staff said those exception mechanisms can be defined in the draft policy.

Members also discussed scope and naming rights. Staff noted that parks and buildings are typical inclusions, while smaller amenities (benches, rooms, community gardens) are often connected to sponsorship or monetary contributions. A council member suggested tying naming rights to a contribution threshold — for example, a percentage of a project’s cost — and another council member said commissions and surveys should vet candidate names but cautioned against resolving final names via unmoderated online polls.

Council members asked staff to return with a draft policy incorporating tonight’s direction; one member suggested the policy could set a nominal lifespan for a park name (10–20 years) and schedule periodic reviews. Council approved a motion to have staff prepare a draft policy for a future meeting; the motion passed on a voice vote.

Next steps: staff will prepare a draft naming and renaming policy that incorporates the council’s guidance, route the draft for commission review as directed, and return to the council for consideration and possible adoption at a subsequent meeting.