Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Space Naming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reconsiders Rancho Santa Fe interchange renaming; amends motion to require private funding
Summary
After a motion to reconsider, the council removed city funding from an earlier action about renaming the Rancho Santa Fe traffic interchange and directed a public selection process with only privately raised funds to cover costs.
The City Council reconsidered a February motion about renaming the Rancho Santa Fe traffic interchange and voted March 18 to allow the public to choose a name from a short list provided the name change is funded by private donations rather than city funds.
Background and action: At the Feb. 4 council meeting the council had approved a motion to let the public choose the interchange name from a slate of options and allowed fundraising with the city to contribute if needed. Council Member Dikens asked March 18 to reconsider that vote, saying he had intended to support only privately funded name changes and had voted differently in February due to confusion.
The council voted to reconsider and then adopted an amendment removing the phrase “and the city if needed” from the February motion. The final motion—approved by voice vote—directed staff to allow a public vote from a set of 5–6 names and to require that the cost of any renaming be covered by fundraising (private) rather than by city funds.
Public comment: Several residents spoke during the meeting. Lori Bartholow said some alumni had supported candidate Gary Byrd (Byrd spelled in public comment) and challenged how the city handled the earlier public vote. Paul Gaines told the council a private group had pledged to pay for the name “Flying Fortress,” arguing the name honored Kingman’s World War II B‑17 training history. Gary Waters, who said he had donated already, asked for clarity on how donated funds would be used if the community’s choice did not match donors’ preferred names.
What the amendment does: The amendment keeps the public‑selection process while clarifying the city will not use public funds to pay for signs or related costs if a new name is selected; council discussion also flagged that at least some candidate names already had private funding commitments.
Ending: Council preserved the public‑selection process but limited the city’s financial exposure to zero; staff will return with process details and any sponsorship or donation rules.
