Open Space Commission weighs renaming Observatory Mesa Natural Area; asks indigenous liaison input and consistent naming across preserves

The Flagstaff Open Space Commission discussed renaming the city‑managed property currently known as Observatory Mesa Natural Area, focusing on whether the name should use “preserve” language and how that would align with other protected sites such as Picture Canyon and McMillan Mesa.

Why it matters: commissioners said the label used for public lands signals management intent and public expectations. Several commissioners recommended consistency across city properties and asked staff to consult with the city’s indigenous liaison before bringing proposed names back for a formal recommendation.

Discussion highlights and options

Robert, Open Space staff, summarized the question: the commission had received council guidance about avoiding extensive tourism marketing of Observatory Mesa and whether a name change could better reflect management priorities. “We did change the name of the trail plan to the Greater Observatory Mesa Natural Area Plan … but we are talking about the naming of just our property,” Robert said, noting the city is not renaming private property or national forest land included in the multi‑jurisdictional trail plan.

Commissioners debated whether “preserve” better conveys conservation intent than “natural area.” Some argued that using “preserve” across multiple sites (Picture Canyon, Observatory Mesa, McMillan Mesa) would elevate protection and public expectations; others noted that legal protections differ by parcel. A staff clarification noted that Picture Canyon and Observatory Mesa have state conservation easements with restrictions, while McMillan Mesa does not have a state conservation easement but benefits from protections under local ballot measures (referred to in the meeting as Proposition 3 and Proposition 4). One commissioner stressed: “I would say they're not the same. Picture Canyon and Observatory Mesa have a state conservation easement … and McMillan Mesa does not have a conservation easement.”

Indigenous consultation and cultural resources

Several commissioners urged consulting the city’s indigenous liaison, Rose, and said Indigenous history should be included in the renaming conversation. A commissioner noted recent local renamings and indigenous consultation on other trail projects, and suggested staff seek input about whether terms such as “preserve” carry appropriate cultural meaning. Robert said he would consult the indigenous liaison and return with name options for Commission consideration.

Costs, implementation and consistency

Commissioners discussed implementation steps and costs—updating signs, the website and internal documents—but staff said that now is a practical time to consider changes because the city has not finished trail‑plan implementation or signage updates. “This does come, I think, at an okay time because we haven't implemented the trail plan. And we haven't, like, finished our maintenance signage,” Robert said. Staff also noted that current naming does not dictate management authority: “names don't really reflect how we manage our property. The founding documents do, and that is a conservation easement in the Prop … which also limits development.”

Next steps and decision timeline

The commission did not make a formal decision at the meeting. Staff said they would consult with the indigenous liaison (Rose), produce a set of recommended names and return the item to a future meeting for a formal recommendation to program staff and, if needed, to city council. Commissioners asked that staff include implementation impacts (signage, website, costs) in the follow‑up report.

No motions or votes were taken; the item remained a discussion to be revisited with staff recommendations and Indigenous liaison input.