At its October meeting, the Parks Commission spent significant time on the citys renaming policy and commission governance procedures, including how petitions are vetted and what constitutes grounds for removing a commissioner for absences.

Why it matters: Rules for park renaming and commissioner removal affect public participation and oversight. Commissioners pressed staff on the 100-signature threshold for renaming petitions, how staff verifies the significance of proposed names, and whether the January-only submission window restricts community engagement.

Director (Parks Department) told the commission that name-change petitions for historically significant sites should first be reviewed by the Arts and Historical Commission, then by the Parks Commission, and finally by City Council. The director said: "If they were to submit again in January 2026, the signatures they received would still be valid," and that staff and the city clerks office are working to clarify vetting procedures.

Several commissioners questioned the 100-signature minimum. One commissioner said, "I just have a hard time with accepting a 100 signatures in a city of hundreds of thousands of people," and asked how staff validates the identity and justification behind a submitted name. The director responded that the application must include a significant justification and accompanying evidence and that staff reviews the application and attached signatures for completeness before passing an item to the commission.

On commissioner attendance and possible removal, staff distributed the board and commission bylaws and said they would return with the specific bylaw language about consecutive absences. Commissioners emphasized that any removal or other formal action should be agendized with proper public notice under the Brown Act; one commissioner urged that removal be handled with the same public notice and process used by City Council.

What comes next: Staff agreed to research and bring back the exact bylaw language about consecutive absences and to include the renaming-policy questions on a future agenda for more detailed review. Commissioners voted to add a discussion of meeting cancellations and standards to the November agenda so policy recommendations can be developed and routed appropriately.