Correspondence: Wilson correspondence received, 1973-1976.

              May 21, 197^
WASHINGTON, D.C. Z0B10
Mr. and Mrs. Richard F. Wilson
7326 Paseo del Norte
Tucson, Arizona 8570I+
Dear Jean and Dick:
Thank the Lord, the people of Flagstaff are finally getting to
work to do something to preserve those Peaks. If you want a
perfect example of what can happen through citizen neglect of
natural beauty, Just come to Phoenix and look around at the
mountains. We who were horn there never realized that the
mountains were slowly being purchased by individuals, and if
we hadn't gotten on the ball when we did in 1965, all of
Camelback Mountain would now be covered with homes with a
restaurant on the top, which was planned.
It is good to know that you feel as I do on this, and I'll do
anything I can to help.
With best wishes,
OVERVIEW
USA
Mr. Richard F. Wilson
7326 Paseo del Norte
Tucson, Arizona 85704
6400 GOLDSBORO ROAD, BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20034
ALAN M U , NEV,
PRANK CHURCH, IDAHO
L I S METGALF. MONT.
J. UNNXTT JOHMT0N, JA,f LA,
JAMES AHUHXK, S. DAK.
FLOYD K» HASKELL, COLO*
M. JACKSON, WAiH^ CHAIRMAN
PAUL J. FANNIN, ARIZ.
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, WYO.
MARK O. HATFIELD, OHO,
JAMES L. BUCKLEY, N.Y.
JAMES A. MOOUJRE, IDAHO
DEWEY F. BARTLETT, OKLA*
JVHV T* VERKLER, STAFF DIHOTDII
Mr. and Mrs. Richard F. Wilson
7326 PASCO Bel Norte
Tucson, Arizona 85704
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wilson:
Thank you for your courtesy In sending that
excellent record. Mr. Dunklee and Mr, Hunt have
done a fine job.
Certainly I share the sane concerns with
my fellow Arizonans regarding development of
our land. Presently the Interior Committee is
considering the question of land development
and in particular the development of our public
lands. It Is our hope that these questions can
be handled on an equitable basis with participation
between local, state and federal government.
Because of your interest I will see that you are
sent the hearing record regarding this legislation.
(SB-268)
Warmest personal regards,
Cordially,
Paul Fannin
United States Senator
May 22, 1973
PJF:pc
H. KARL MANOUM
DOUOLAB J. WALL
RICHARD K. MANOUM
DANIEL J. STOOPS
JOYCE O. MANOUM
JOHN a. VIRKAMP
Richard F. Wilson
7326 Paseo Del Norte
Tucson, Arizona 85704
Dear Dick:
Last week I spent about an hour visiting with
Don Seaman, Forest Service Supervisor, regarding the
requested easement and your land exchange,
i
With respect to the requested easement, I
informed Don that you really did not want to $ive the
easement, but if it was absolutely necessary and would
further the land trade, that we would give it serious
consideration,
Don Seaman and I agreed that we would not at
this time give the easement, but also we would not
attempt to put any type of barricade across the road to
stop Forest Service travel in the area. Don felt that
he could use the absence of receiving the easement as
some leverage to speed up the land exchange.
With respect to the land exchange itself, Don
informed me that it had top priority in his office so
far as land exchanges went -and that hopefully we would
be getting some finalized figures on it in the very
near future, and hopefully we could expect to have some­thing
confirmed by early spring.
Also, Don is going to give me a list of the
properties which have top priority for acquisition by
the Forest Service and it might be possible that if we
could acquire these properties at a reasonable price that
we can exchange the land which the Forest Service wants
to acquire for other lands in the Verde Valley to your
advantage both in getting lands to the Forest Service
and without your sustaining a loss, but in fact making
a profit.
MANGUM, WALL A N D STOOPS
Richard F. Wilson
November 8, 1973
Page Two
Jack Rice and his wife were up, as you know,
last weekend and we had a very successful hunting weekend/
and Mary and I are looking forward to putting together a
trip to Mexico some time after the first of the year.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Very truly yours^
MANGUM, WALL AND STOOPS
Douglas J. Wali^
DJW/paw
cc: Jack Rice
H KARL MAMQUM
DOUOLAS J, WALL
RICHARD K.MANOUM
DANIEL J. STOOPS
JOYCE O, MANOUM
JOHN d. VERKAMP
MAILINO ADDRESS: P. O BOX IO
TELEPHONE 774-0604
Richard F. Wilson
7326 Paseo Del Norte
Tucson, Arizona 85704
RE: Summit Properties
Dear Dick:
I spent approximately an hour talking to Don Seamon today
regarding the proposed development by Summit Properties In Hart Prairie.
Don Seamen told me that Warren Ridge had been in to see him last
week to discuss the same thing. The main point of discussion between Seamen and
Ridge centered on the Hart Prairie Road. Ridge wanted to know what position
the Forest Service was going to take with respect to the road on the proposed
development by Summit Properties. Seamen told me that he informed Ridge that
the Forest Service was going to consider the road as being a private road and
before the Forest Service would agree to the use of the road by the general public
that the road would have to be dedicated to the county and upgraded and paved;
that this development of the road would require an environmental Impact study
to be done. Seamen also stated that he told Ridge that the Forest Service was opposed
to this development.
Don Seamen also advised me that Warren Ridge and Bruce Ledbetter
had been to Washington, D.C., attempting to locate funds for the development of the
Hart Prairie Road. To date, they have not met with any success.
We discussed the water well situation and Don Seamen has not been
furnished with information that would give him any basis to determine that they did,
in fact, find water and in what amount.
Don Seamen is also extremely concerned over what plans Summit
Properties has for the discharge of their effluent.
I informed Don that we are preparing our objections to the zoning
of the Summit Properties and wanted to use the Information that he was giving
me, which he agreed I could do.
Mr. Richard F. Wilson
December 17, 1973
Page Two.
With your permission, we are going to prepare a rather extensive
formalized statement setting forth the basis of our objections to the zoning of
Summit Properties' property, and will submit a copy to you In time to receive
your comments and incorporate them into this document.
Very truly yours,
MANCUM, WALL AND STOOPS
Douglas J. Wafl
DJW/paw
cc: Mr. John Rice
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE
FOREST SKRV1CE
Coconino National Forest
P. 0. Box 1268
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 1560
January 23, 1974
Mr. Douglas J. Wall
Attorney at Law
P. 0. Box 10
Flagstaff, Arizona 86001
Dear Doug:
In response to your request of January 15, 1974, we furnish the
fol1owing:
Easements for road purposes can be issued for almost any standard
of road. We have, for example, Issued easements to such entities as
American Telephone and Telegraph for access to microwave stations
where a very low standard road is sufficient to carry the anticipated
traffic.
In the case of the Hart Prairie Road, an easement issued to the County
would stipulate construction standards adequate to handle anticipated
traffic. Coconino County has developed standards which apply for
access roads to subdivisions. Minimums for Coconino County roads are
24-feet wide running surface and asphalt paving. Should the proposed
development come to pass, we believe the anticipated traffic would
necessitate a road of substantially higher than these minimum County
standards.
Me have developed a Forest Service Position Statement concerning the
proposal to develop the Hart Prairie tract. A copy of our Statement
is enclosed for your Information.
If we can furnish you additional information for clarification,
please contact us.
Sincerely,
DON D."'SOMAN *-••• 0^
Forest Supervisor
Enclosure"
MOO-11 (t/«l)
THE DEVELOPMENT OF HART PRAIRIE
A POSITION STATEMENT
The United States Forest Service 1s opposed to, and recommends against,
the development of Hart Prairie more specifically designated as the private
tract in Section 26, T23N, R6E, identified as Snow Bowl Village Tract 1093.
This conforms to the attitude of the Forest Service generally toward
development of scattered, Isolated parcels of private land within larger
areas of predominantly wildlands administered by the U. S. Forest Service.
Opposition to this specific development is based on the following:
1. Development of such tracts for residential and commercial purposes
creates disproportionate demands on tax supported public services and
public resources.
2. National Forest lands adjacent to the development will be subjected
to Increased risk from wildfire, littering, and soil erosion.
3. Much of the demand to accommodate facilities such as access roads,
electric, telephone, and gas lines to support the development would, by
necessity, fall on National Forest land. There would be pressure to
provide sites for disposal of sewage and solid waste on National Forest
land. Such uses remove wildland acres from full resource production
and impair scenic quality.
4. The insertion of a high density residential and commercial develop­ment
within a wildland area would impede management of surrounding lands
through necessary concessions in timber harvesting, fire hazard reduction
projects, livestock grazing, and general public recreation due to the
demand of the occupants.
5. Development of this tract to a high standard would certainly
stimulate development of surrounding lands of other ownerships. There is
no assurance that subsequent developments would maintain the same high
quality, thereby increasing and intensifying the problems on surrounding
National Forest lands as mentioned above.
6. Subdivision of this tract resulting in multiple ownerships would
forever preclude acquisition of the lands by the Forest Service through
land exchange as 1s now proposed by the San Francisco Peaks Land Use Plan.
Acquisition of isolated tracts within the Forest before development and
resale is a general Forest Service objective aimed at prevention of the
aforementioned problems.
7. The Forest Service suspects there may be other more subtle effects
on the environment which could accrue from development. Such elements as
the ultimate effect on ground water flow, disruption of normal
activities and the impacts of human use that would radiate from the develop­ment
onto National Forest land cannot be positively identified or assessed
at this time. To do so would require an intensive Environmental Analysis.
If and when the development appears inevitable and plans for facilties
on the private land and all support facilities on National Forest land
are final and submitted for review, the Forest Service would make such a
detailed analysis.
MEMO
TO: Doug
FROM: Joyce Mangum
RE: Richard ilson - Summitt Properties
As you know I am on the Board of Directors of the Flagstaff
Chamber of Commerce. At the meeting of the Board on the evening of
January 8, one of the items on the agenda was "discussion and action on a
request from the Arizona Snow Bowl to reaffirm our support for its
recreation housing complex in Hart P r a i r i e " . Dick Mample, representing
Summitt, appeared at the meeting and gave about a half hour presentation
I ,,
on the plans which Summitt has for the development of Hart Prairie for the
purpose of obtaining support from the Chamber of Commerce, It was not
unexpected that the Chamber of Commerce Board vigorously approved the
plans and determined to send a letter showing their support to Tio
Tachias as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Stuart Houston of the
County Planning and Zoning Commission and a copy of one of these or both of
these letters to Don Seaman. The letters will be submitted prior to the planning
and zoning commission hearing which is set for later this month.
I am attaching copies of the materials which were included with
the agenda relating to the Hart Prairie development. I assume that the
letters which would be submitted would be somewhat similiar to that dated
October 6, 1971 and signed by James S. Lee who was then president of the
Chamber of Commerce.
I do not know whether or not Mr. Mample knew who I was and my
involvement with the case,. I did not ask any questions nor did I make any comments,
I did not even go so far as to abstain from voting. I did make some notes and will
review them here,
Apparently the new plat was filed with the planning and zoning
commission on January 7. They feel that it complies with the change in the
zoning ordinance which came about during the time of the litigation. Mr. Maniple
did state that they were appealing the lawsuit and were also filing a new application
for zoning under the new ordinance. The new plat reduces the number of lots
proposed from something over 400 to 327 lots. Each lot will contain approximately
10,000 square feet. I understood that there were to be condominiums in addition
but this may be erroneous thinking on my part. They anticipate a population of
two to three thousand and Mample stated that the condominiums would be for
sale for prices between $20,000 and $80,000.
Mample stated that on Monday the 14th the well would be tested.
One of the members inquired as to getting the people to test the well over the
road and Mample s.tated that he kept the road clear at all times and had plowed
it on January 8th. On the evening of January 8th we had 23 inches of snow on
the ground in town.
The pump for the well apparently has been tested and is being
brought to Flagstaff, Mample stated that the well is approximately 1170 feet
deep, starting with a 40 inch bit and cased to 26 inches for 250 feet, then with
a 26 ^ bit (but I did not get the cased measurement nor the length that it runs
at this diameter) and the final drilling was with an 8 3/4 inch bit to 1170 feet
cased with 7inch pipe .
The plan is to put a pump which has a capacity of 100 to 110 gallons
per minute in the bottom of the well. Apparently there is some degree of water
standing in the well. This pump will them be run at full capacity until they
determine that the water supply is sufficient for that pumping, and then they
propose to install a second pump just below the water level which results after
the first pump has been pumping and will utilize both of the pumps in order to
establish their supposedly fabulous amount of water. Mample made other statements
- 2 —
relating to the fact that the water find which they located will be very beneficial
to Flagstaff and northern Arizona generally as it establishes the existence of
water not heretofore known to exist.
In response to inquiry about the roadway, Mample stated that they
had been surprised in April and May to discover that an easement which
everybody had assumed had been given by the forest service had not been given
but that they were prepared to pave the road to county standards for an all weather
road but did not yet know what these county standards were or the type of
construction that would be required. He did state that they did expect to
receive a tax break in order to somewhat off set the expense of the paving,
They are attempting to secure a use permit from the U.S.F.S. for
6 acres of land adjoining their property at the southeasterly point for parking for
the "public facilities" which they plan to put in. If they are not able to obtain
permission from the forest service to put public parking in this area then they
will have to decrease the development size in order to provide for parking.
They probably will charge for parking as they will have a capital
investment for the parking. A question relating to whether the existing Snow
Bowl road would continue to be utilized was fielded. Mample stated that he
felt it would be a good idea because people would be able to drive up there
instead of having to park down at the lower portion of the lift and pay for parking
and pay for the use of the lift from the Hart Prairie area up to where it joins the
present lift.
I hope this is helpful to you. My notes were sketchy but this does
give you the basic ideas which Mr. Mample presented to the Chamber.
Joyce Mangum
- 3 -
By CHRISS KULP
A proposed land exchange between Summit Properties and the U.S.
Forest Service- has met at least a temporary setback.
Jack Smith, county manager, was Informed by letter last week that
the Forest Service could not consider the offer to trade with Summit,
owner of 327 acres of Hart-Prairie land, because of a pending law suit.
Summit has filed a suit claiming conspiracy by the Forest Service,
and others to prevent development of the land into a residential-recreational
area.-
" "Upon the advice of our attorneys, we have ceased further
negotiations on a land exchange with Summit Properties, Inc., until
their suit against the Forest Service Is resolved," a letter from William
Holmes, acting Coconino National Forest Supervisor, stated.
Mert Leadbetter, vice-president of Summit, said the Forest Service is
"the only one who is refusing to cooperate now."
He said his firm has offered to enter negotiations concerning the land
and to withdraw the Forest Service from the suit if a trade Is effected.
The trade, proposed by Bruce Lead bettor, president of Summit,
would be accomplished by trading the land to the State of Arizona. The
state would then trade It to the Forest Service, with prior approval of the
Forest Service.
The land is now subject to a one-year moratorium on development,
following almost five years of controversial rulings concerlng Its future.
A rejection last April by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.
of Summit's request for rezonlng to allow for commercial development
has prevented action until another rezonlng request can be filed this
spring.
A proposal cosponsored by three of Northern Arizona's legislators
allowing for a land trade crossing county lines will be Introduced In the
state legislature next week, according to state Senator Tony Qabaldon,
D-Flagstaff.
Cosponsors of the bill are Republican Representatives John Wettaw
and Sam McConnell. o
The legislation will take at least a month to be passed If there are no
serious objections, Qabaldon said. "We are anticipating no problems."
The bill was drafted In response to a request by the Coconino
Citizens Association (CCA).
Dr. Andrew Wallace, CCA Board of Directors member, said, "The
proposal in Itself will not effect a solution to the question of what should
be done with the land.
"If It gets through the legislature before May there Is a strong
possibility the State of Arizona and Summit can reach an agreement
on an exchange."
Others charged in Summit's suit were Tlo A. Tachlas, the Museum of
Northern Arizona, Richard Wilson, a property owner In the Hart Prairie
area, and Don Seaman, Coconino Forest supervisor.
The Coconino County Board of Super­visors
is considering the draft of a letter
asking U. S. Sen. Barry M- Ooldwater, R-Arlz.,
to intervene with the U. S. Forest
Service to facilitate a trade for privately-owned
land on Hart' Prairie,' at the
western base of the San Francisco Peaks,
', The land is owned by Summit'Proper­ties,
Inc., who have attempted for almost
five years to use it in development of a ski
village resort. /
The development' effort is currently
blocked by a moratorium on all develop­ment
above the. 8,000-foot level In the
Peaks area which ends on April 27. Sum­mit
has offered to trade the land into the
public domain, but the Forest Service has
declined to take part in the complicated
exchange, which would also involve the
Arizona State Land Department, until
Summit dismisses a pending- lawsuit
which names the Forest Service and
Coconino National Forest Supervisor Don
Seaman among the defendants. >
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court,
Phoenix, alleges that all the defendants
conspired to prevent Summit from
developing the property.
The draft letter Was presented to the
supervisors today by County Manager
Jack Smith and, if approved, will call on
Goldwater, who has already taken a stand
against development in the Peaks area, to
intervene with the Forest Service on
behalf of the proposed trade.
"The trade negotiations," the draft
reads, "are now at a standstill. This im­passe
is caused by the position taken by
the Forest Service that It will not
negotiate for a land trade while under
litigation.
"The State Land Department, which has
available land for trade which is suitable ,
for development, has stated it would be
willing to trade with the Forest Service to
assist in this matter, but is stifled since
the Forest Service has taken the position
of not considering a trade at this time due
to a legal opinion from their counsellor."
\ The Coconino County Board of Super*
visors has approved a letter to U.S. Sen.
Barry M. Goldwater, R-Arii., seeking
assistance in facilitating a land trade in­volving
a controversial 327-acre plot on
Hart Prairie.
The land is owned by Summit Proper­ties,
Inc., and has been the target of con­troversy
since Summit announced its in­tention
of developing a ski resort village
on the site.
Development is barred for approximate­ly
two more months by a moratorium im­posed
on all development above the 8,000
foot level in the area of the San Francisco
Peaks and Summit has offered to trade the
land into the public domain.
The trade is being blocked by the U.S.
Forest Service's refusal to become a party
to the negotiations because of a pending
suit filed by Summit which names the ser­vice
arid Coconino National Forest Super­visor
Don C. Seaman as defendants.
The supervisors' letter to Goldwater
presented Tuesday in draft from, asks the
Arizona Republican to intervene with the
Forest Service in Washington in an effort
to change the agency's stand.
An attorney for Summit Properties,
owners of 327 acres of land on Hart Prairie
at the western base of the San Francisco
Peaks, has requested the Coconino County
Board of Supervisors to lift a development
moratorium in the area immediately. .
1 In « letter dated Feb. 12, Phoenix at­torney
John FJynn says Summit has made
sincere efforts to effect an exchange of the
land into the public domain and has been
thwarted by official U. 5.. Forest Service
attitude on the matter, /
On Jan. 13, Summit offered to trade the
land, in a complicated three-way deal In­volving
itself, the Arizona Land Depart­ment,
and the Forest Service, provided all
values were established by an independent
appraiser. ^
The Forest Service has formally notified
the Board of Supervisors It will not par­ticipate
in the trade until action in a Sum­mit
lawsuit, which names the service and
Coconino National Forest Supervisor Don
Seaman' among the defendants, Is
somehow resolved.
f The suit charges all the defedants con­spired
to prevent development- of the
property as a ski resort village.
'On April 27, 1974, the supervisors, after
A 15-hour public hearing on the issue, up­held
a County Planning and Zoning Com­mission
denial of a necessary zoning
change on the property and also placed the
year-long moratorium on all development
to Uje area.
*: "We sincerely believe that Summit has
made every possible effort to resolve the
problems which exist in the matter,"
Flynn wrote, "and as you know, those ef­forts
have been met in each and every in­stance
with either resistance or inaction.
Meanwhile, the damages being Incurred
by Summit continue to mount on a daily
basis, and it is now abundantly clear that
even the efforts of the elected officials of
Coconino County to get action from the
forest Service have been unfruitful.
"We therefore respectfully request that
the Coconino County Board of Supervisors
Immediately cause the termination of the
moratorium imposed on April 27, 1974. It
is submitted that It no longer serve any
useful purpose, and that the opponents of
development in the Hart Prairte area, in­cluding
the Forest Service, have no viable
alternative or proposal of any kind to sub­mit
to your board. They have had more
than ample time to Initiate some action
toward this end, and the,record,1s devoid
of any such action on their part."
In the meantime, The Daily SUN
learned, U. S. Sen. Barry M. Gbldwater,
R-Ariz., has written a high official in the
U. S. Department of Agriculture asking
that the Forest Service work actively ta
help effect the land trade. ']
Goldwater's letter, addressed to Assis­tant
Secretary of Agriculture Robert W.
Long, was dated Feb. 7, almost 10 days".
before supervisors filed a formal request;
ior such action with the Arizona senator^
By CHRISS KULP
Summit Properties notified its attorney Mon­day
to drop the U.S. Forest Service from its
conspiracy suit, thereby removing a major
Mock to land trade negotiations between Sum­mit
and the Forest Service.
Summit attorney Donald W. Lindholm said
he was instructed by Bruce Leadbetter, presi­dent
of Summit, to remove the United States
and the Forest Service from a conspiracy suit
fifed by Summit last May.
The suit was filed following a denial by the *
Coconino County Board of Supervisors of a
rezoning request by Summit. It claims the
Forest Service and others conspired to prevent
development of-Summits 327 acres of Hart
Prairie land located at the western base of the
San Francisco Peaks. -
The Forest Service formally notified the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors earlier
that a three-way land trade proposed by
Leadbetter between Summit the Forest Ser­vice
and the state land department could not be
discussed until the suit against the Forest Ser­vice
was resolved.
Undholm said Tuesday he had not yet of­ficially
informed U.S. Attorney Richard S.
Allemann of the intent to drop the Forest Ser­vice
from the suit
Whether the suit will be dropped without
prejudice, allowing for a refiling of the suit at a
later date, has not yet been determined, he
said
" W e ' r e making every effort to make It possi­ble
for the Forest Service to trade us. They
were using this as an obstacle, so we have
removed the obstacle at least temporarily,**
said Mert Leadbetter, vice-president of Sum­mit
'The thing that Is really important is the
public apparently wants this land in the public
domain, and we want to recover our Invest­ment
that we feel we've been unfairly deprived
of," he said.
Coconino Forest Service supervisor Don
Seaman, also named in the suit is in Phoenix
and could not be reached for comment
- Lindholm said Seaman was named in* the
suit as an individual, and not in his official
capacity, and therefore would not be dropped
from the suit.
Dr. Ray R. Berman, Coconino Citizens
Association board member, said his organiza­tion
had been instrumental In arranging com-'
munication between^ Summit and the Forest
Service. ;.
Berman said CCA "stepped in" and en­couraged
negotiations between the two, and
"assured each party of the good will of the
other party.
Berman is awaiting official notmcatfon by
tetter from Bruce Leadbetter regarding the
legal action, but said he was assured by phone
that a letter to that effect was forthcoming.
. Berman announced Leadbetter's intent to
drop the Forest Service from the suit at last
.Sunday night's "Save the Peaks"benefit con-
' c e r t
A letter to the Board of Supervisors dated
February 12 from another Summit attorney,
John Flynn, requested an immediate lifting of
the one-year development moratorium im­posed
on the area on April 27,1974, at the time
of the rezoning denial.
Peter J. Ltndemann Jr., chairman of the
Supervisors, could not be reached for com­ment
;.,-; J
Others named in Summit's suit were Tio A.
Tachias, the Museum of Northern Arizona, and
Richard Wilson, a property owner In the Hart
Prairie area.
moves
By Paul Sweitzer
of the Daily SUN ' :
The major barrier to trading 327 acres
of land on Hart Prairie at the western base
I of the San Francisco Peaks was formally
removed today.
Summit Properties, Inc., owner of the
land, has instructed its attorney to
eliminate the U.S. Forest Service and the
United States from a massive conspiracy r'ii)
suit filed in Federal Court In Phoenix. The
[ suit, filed in July 1974, accuses the Ser­vice,
the U.S. government and nine other
defendants of conspiring to block a
proposed Summit development on the
land.
Last Jan-. 13, Summit offered to trade
the controversial parcel of land into the
: public domain but was formally told by the
Forest Service it could not participate In
: the trade because of the pending lawsuit.
i Phoenix attorney Donald Llndholm said
today he had received a letter from Sum­mit
President Bruce Leadbetter Instruc­ting
him to drop the Forest Service and
the government from the suit without
prejudice. "
Llndholm said the instruction did not
apply for Coconino National Forest Super-
' visor Don Seaman who Is named in the suit
as an Individual rather than in any official
capacity.
At the same time, Leadbetter's office In
Dallas, Tex., confirmed that It had
notified Ray Berman, a director of the
Coconino Citizens' Association, of the
firm's Intentions and has asked the group
to serve as an Impartial participant in any
future negotiations involving the land.
"To demonstrate our good faith, I have,
by copy of this letter," Leadbetter wrote
to Berman, "asked our attorney to dismiss
the suit against the Forest Service without
prejudice, as it is my understanding that
the present suit is the only impediment.
"I am taking this step with the un­derstanding
that the Forest Service and
the State Land Department are prepared
to exchange land with Summit Properties
on a 'value for value' basis determined by
Impartial appralsors; that the agencies
will take prompt action; and that the CCA
will actively participate in future
' • * I - , " •!'""' • ; » * ' - ' •
A-M-'1*'
Hurdle
{ negotiations to assure a fair solution to the
I Hart Prairie situation."
v Berman told The SUN today he had
•' made the offer to Leadbetter to act as an
i impartial referee in the matter in a letter
; dated Feb. 17,""'
r He said he had assured Summit's presi-
; dent the association would work to assure
"that all parties directly involved in the
j ^rade acted in good faith.
k\> Last Sunday, at a rock concert featuring
A Jackson Browne and the Nitty Gritty Dirt
l Band, with proceeds going into a "Save
: the Peaks" fund, Berman told a cheering
, crowd of almost 6,000 about Leadbetter's
J offer to dismiss the suit and also outlined
(the CCA role n bringing about that offer.
"As a native of Flagstaff," Leadbetter
wrote, "I am deeply concerned about The
Peaks and although I believe what we
originally proposed for the Snow Bowl
Village was beneficial I am willing to pur­sue
your suggestions as a viable alter­native
if something can be concluded
promptly.
"Obviously, If we cannot conclude
something promptly, then we will have to
again pursue our alternate routes and
reinstate the "litigation.") <
"Again, 1 appreciate your offer of
assistance and we will 'turn the other
cheek' to demonstrate our good faith." ,
Lindholm said today he has already
notified the U.S. Attorney's office,
Phoenix, that the; Forest Service and
• ' •, - ' i i ' - i i ' " ' " ' . '•'•' "••!•:. :•':'< • • • ' : . ''
government*will be dropped from the suit.
The actual documents moving for the
dismissal are now under preparation, he
said, and will be filed soon.
The Hart Prairie land 'has been the
target of controversy for almost five years
since Summit first announced its intention
of developing the ski village resort. '•
Last April 27, after 15 hours of con­tinuous
public hearing on the matter, the
, Coconino County Board of Supervisors
voted to deny Summit a zoning change
necessary for the development.
Simultaneously, the supervisors also voted
to impose a year-long moratorium on any
development above the 8,000-foot .level in
the Peaks area. •• *
•Tftjf'-r
ftV Flagstaff officials of the U.S. Forest
i\' Service will begin talks next week with
1 S1/
3-/0-16"
of Hart Prairie
''"•'': Coconino County officials met today to
1 discuss a future planning policy for the
"•"Hart Prairie area at the western base of
the San Francisco Peaks.
''"' A proposal to zone the entire area, in-
. eluding all private land except already
granted subdivisions, as recreatJonal-
'.' scenic landran head-on Into stiff opposl-jj'tion.
• • : « " - ' V ; ' '
•' The Board of Supervisors and County
!' Planning and Zoning Commission held a
joint meeting early today to hear County
' Planner Scott McClcllan make the
I proposal concerning the recreational-scenic
area.
Members of the zoning commission and
also the supervisors expressed Immediate
doubts about the proposal.
"'"• The main concern, voiced by members
of both bodies, was the fact a large
'amount of land in the 81-square mile area
in question was under private ownership
and most of the private owners had bought <-i
the land for development of single family '•-<
dwellings rather than for subdivisional
purposes. >••'•)•-
•' McClellan. In a three page report, n6ted
^ that the county's proposed general plan, '
^covering the next 15 years, calls for the
'area to be retained in permanent
;,recreation-open space status.
fJ^The planner then goes on to .recommend
• • • % > • , ' ! • •
that zoning In the area be changed from its
present "A" General status to RSC,
recreation-scenic and conservation.
The exceptions to that. McClellan notes,
would be Snow Bowl Estates. White Horse
Park Subdivision, and Kendrick Park
Estates Subdivision, all granted several
years ago.
"Should the Planning and Zoning Com­mission
and Board of Supervisors adopt
RSC zoning for this region," McClellan
writes, "then all existing residential uses
In that zone would become 'non­conforming'
uses, but would be allowed to
remain."
Among the reasons McClellan cited for
making his recommendation were the fact
that there is an absence of "adequate
quantities of water and other public ser­vices
and facilities necessary for com­munity
living." and that there is, present­ly.
limited road access to the area and
only a remote possibility the U.S. Forest
Service would allow development of a suf­ficient
road system, J
Further. McClellan's report notes, the
area could conceivably have a population
as high as 20.000 persons and it could not
support such growth.
The planning director did note that
changing the zoning would not preclude
development In the area.
A property owner, he said, could go
ahead with plans for development, present
them to the planning and zoning commis­sion.
and then ask for a change In zoning,
at a fee of |75. This would also apply to any
individual property owner desiring to
build a single family dwelling and an­cillary
facilities in the area.
The burden, however, he said, would not
be on the county for encouraging develop­ment,
The burden of proof would be on a
developer to show his development was a
worthwhile one.
Supervisors Chairman Peter J.
Lindemann, Jr.. questioned the legal
ramifications of zoning such a large area,
including the private property, for
recreational-conservation pruposes.
He was told by Deputy County Attorney.-
William Flick that the matter was a "good
legal question."
Flick said he thought the area was large
to be included in one blanket zoning action.
Planning commission members took a
general view that such action would be ar­bitrary.
Commissioner Joe Riordan said. "What
I don't like about this is that we're setting
ourselves up as gods."
Riordan also said establishing such a
blanket zoning in the Peaks area would es­tablish
dangerous precedents for other
areas In the county.
Commissioner Henry Macias said he
felt property owners in the area should be
given ample notice before any such
change is undertaken and Commissioner
Dixon Fagerberg. Jr., who owns property
in the area, said he feels the land does not
lend itself to any kind of urban develop­ment
but that careful study should be
made to determine exactly what type of
zoning should be placed on It.
Commissioner John Hughes said the
area was too big for such a comprehensive
zoning and Commissioner Bob James.
r Williams, also expressed doubt about the
proposal.
Supervisor Tlo A. Tachlas said he felt
the land in the area, much of which came
into private ownership by means of the
Homestead Act. should be used' for the
purpose Intended, agriculture.
The land should be protected for that
purpose. Tachlas emphasized.
«#:' SUNview •,<j%
• » , ' • •
\ ' l
!•.,:-.-.;
THE OFFER to turn the other
cheek by the owners of 327 acres of
Hart Prairie west of the San Fran­cisco
Peaks is a significant step
toward resolving a controversy,over
land use in the area.
What happens now depends mainly
on the U.S. Forest Service. In past
months the Forest Service has
refused to pursue any of the proposals
aimed at resolving the controversy.'
But this attitude appears to be
changing, now that Summit Proper-lies
—owners of the land — has In­structed
its attorneys to drop the
Forest Service from the list of defen­dants
in a suit alleging a conspiracy to
keep Summit from developing a
winter sports-residential community
on its property.
BRUCE LEADBETTER, Summit
president, ordered the Forest Service
eliminated as a defendant in hopes
that this would be the key toward.
effecting an exchange of Summit's
land with the State Land Department
and eventuallyiwith the.Forest Ser­vice.,
- •
He took the action with the un­derstanding
the state and Forest Ser­vice
are prepared to exchange Sum-ce
. mit's land on a value for value basis
• set by impartial appraisors.
What has been the Forest Service's
response?
So far, Coconino National Forest
^Service officials have said they will
discuss — at the regional level — the
possibility of beginning negotiations
with Summit. How long this discus­sion
stage will continue isn't certain.
VWe hope it isn't long. Time is of the
essence. The year's moratorium
proclaimed by the County Super­visors,
aimed at providing time for
negotiations and settlement, is
nearing its close.
' SUMMIT'S DISMISSAL of the
forest Service and the Federal
government as defendants in its suit is
a major breakthrough in the often
bitter five-year controversy over
Summit's development plans for its
Hart Prairie holdings.
Now — maybe — a resolution is in
sight.
Right now the monkey is on the
back of the Forest Service, to say,
"Yes, we'll negotiate." Unless this
occurs, and soon, the controversy will
again be on dead center and even
more involved., ,v
Thursday, March 6, 1975 THE LUMBERJACK
Agreement must be made
before land trade possible
By CHRISS KULP
Negotiations concerning the proposed
lend trade between the U.S. Forest Ser-.
vice and Summit Properties, Inc. will be
possible following a preliminary agree­ment
in principle, according to Dr. Ray R.
Berman, board member of the Coconino
Citizens Association.
Berman said an agreement between
• the parties expressing their desire to
exchange Summit's 327 acres of Hart
Prairie land for state land of equivalent
value would be "major progress." This
agreement would Include an understan­ding
that the value will be determined In
an Impartial way.
William Holmes, acting supervisor of ,
. the Coconino National Forest, will consult,'
with Regional Forester William Hurst and "
Forest Service attorneys concerning the
trade while attending a supervisor's
meeting in Albuquerque this week.
Berman said he hoped a meeting
between Summit and the Forest Service
could be arranged for next week.
Don Freeman, Recreation and Land ';
staff officer for the Forest Service, said It
was necessary to get their attorney's opi­nion
on how to proceed on the matter. ;
Although Summit's attorney Donald W.
Llndholm instructed the U.S. Attorney to
drop the Forest Service from Summit's
conspiracy suit last week, it Is being
dropped without prejudice.
Therefore, the suit could be reinstated
If Summit so desires. The suit claims the
Forest Service and others conspired to
prevent development of Summit's Hart
Prairie property.
Bruce Leadbetter, president of Summit,
denied rumors that others named in the
suit mlyht also be dropped.
"After seeing the depositions it Is much
more likely that we will add (defendants)
than subtract," he said.
Others named in the suit are Tio A.
'Tachlas, the Museum of Northern
Arizona, Don Seaman, and Richard
Wilson, a property owner In the Hart
Prairie area.
Leadbetter has proposed a three-way
land trade between Summit, the Forest
Service and the state land department.
Last April a re-zonlng request to allow
for construction of a residential-recreational
development was denied by
the Coconino County Board of Super­visors.
. .
MAV 19, 1975
MR. RICHARD F, WILSON
7326 PASEO DEL NORTE
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85704-
DEAR DICK:
I SINCERELY REGRET THE DELAY IN GETTING BACK TO YOU
ON THE ACAPULCO SITUATION, BUT I HAVE BEEN AWAITING
INFORMATION FROM MY SOURCES IN MEXICO CLTY AND FROM
ACAPULCO, I HAVE NOW HEARD FROM MY CONTACT, A SENOR
RLOJAS, BUT I DO NOT HAVE TOO MUCH MORE THAN I GAVE
YOU OVER THE TELEPHONE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. HOWEVER,
FOR WHATEVER IT MAY BE WORTH, HE RE IS THE CURRENT
SITUATION.
THE "TRES VIDAS EN LA PLAYA" DEVELOPMENT IS OWNED
BY THE TROY POST COMPANY AND HAS BEEN FINANCED, ON
A FIRST MORTGAGE BASIS, TO THE EXTENT OF $5,000,000
BY THE BANCO DE COMMERCIO, THE LARGEST BANK IN MEX­ICO.
THE TROY POST COMPANY IS IN SEPIOUS FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTY WITH "TRES VIDAS" BUT IT APPEARS THAT
BANCO DE COMMERCIO PREFEPS TO CARRY THE SITUATION
RATHER THAN FORECLOSE, WHICH THEY WILL no ONLY AS
A LAST RESORT. THE SITUATION IS NOT IMPROVING AND
MAY BE WORSENING, BUT SLOWLY.
A DISCREET INOUIRY THROUGH CHASE MANHATTAN TO BANCO
OE COMMERCIO MAY TURN U P ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON
POST COMPANY AND "TRES VIOAS". IF YOU APPROVE, I WILL
MAKE THE CONTACT WITH CHASE ANO SEE WHAT I CAN FIND
OUT FOR YOU. _
MY COSTS FOR TELEPHONE EXPENSES FOR MARCH AND APRIL
WERE $38.90.
WITH KINDEST PERSONAL REGARDS TO JEAN AND THE FAMILY,
AND THE RICES* AND, OF COURSE TO YOURSELF.
Planning & Zoning Commission
County Courthouse, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001 Phone 774-5011 Ext. 61,62
May 19, 1975
Richard Wilson
7326 Paseo Del Norte
Tucson, AZ 85704
Dear Mr. Wilson:
As a Coconino County property owner in the San Francisco Peaks area would
you please complete the attached questionnaire and return as soon as
possible in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.
If you are the owner of a subdivided lot(s) in Snow Bowl Estates Subdivi­sions
Numbers #1 and #2, White Horse Park Subdivision, or Kendrick Park
Estates Subdivision, please answer only questions numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7
and 8 on the attached questionnaire.
The purpose of the questionnaire is to aid the Planning and Zoning Com­mission
in zoning the San Francisco Peaks area. The entire region is
presently in the County's open holding zone, termed "A" General zoning,
which allows a one acre minimum lot size per dwelling unit. The Com­mission
may decide to increase the minimum lot size depending on the out­come
of the public hearings in the matter.
The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission will mostly likely be
holding public hearings with regard to these matters in the near future,
and notification of same will appear by legal notice in the Arizona Daily
Sun and by posting of the properties involved. Such hearings are held in
the Coconino County Courthouse Building.
We invite your participation and suggestions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
H. Stuart Houston, Chairman
County Planning and Z.oning Commission
H. KARL MANGUM
DOUOLA3 J. WALL
RICHARD K. MANOUM
DANIEL J. 3TOOP3
OERALD W. NABOURS
MANGUM, WALL A N D STOOPS
ATTORNEY* AT LAW
212 CAST BIRCH AVENUE
FLAGSTAFF. ARIZONA OOOOI
May 30, 1975
Mr. Richard Wilson
7326 Paseo Del Norte
Tucson, Arizona 85704
Dear Dick:
On Tuesday May 27, I received a telephone call
from Bill Flick at about 6:30 p.m. He informed me that
Warren Ridge and Bruce Leadbetter intended to appear at
the planning and zoning meeting which was to be held at 8:00
that night. He had tried to contact Doug but Doug had already
left for Phoenix. I decided that it might be a good idea
to have someone from our office attend, so I went to the
meeting.
The reason that Bruce showed up was that there
was an item before the commission which was to discuss a
questionnaire which had recently been sent to all of the land
owners in the Hart Prairie area.
As it turned out, there was absolutely no action
taken on this. The letters have been recently sent and there
were only 24 replies. It was decided that there would be a
full discussion of the questionnaire and their implications
at the June meeting which will be the last Tuesday in June,
June 24.
The commission did ask Bruce and Warren about the
progress of their discussions with the Forest Service. They
indicated that the Forest Service was likely to make an offer
but that it would probably be considered too low because they
would be evaluating the land as agricultural property on the
idea that it would be impossible for Summitt to obtain commercial
or high density residential zoning.
Bruce indicated that he was having a comprehensive
report prepared by his engineers to substantiate their
recommendations as to how the land should be used. It is his
feeling that the land is best used by concentrating the living
facilities in one area. For instance, if the commission were
to decide that each parcel should be a minimum of one acre in
size, then Bruce would argue that there would be less environ­mental
impact by concentrating all 100 families in a cluster
MANGUM, WALL A N D STOOPS
Mr. Richard Wilson
May 30, 1975
Page Two
in the center of a 100 acre tract and thereby reducing the
number of roads etc.
It seems obvious that Bruce will try to use the June
meeting and the discussion of the questionnaires as a means of
presenting his concept for development of his own property.
I am putting a copy of this letter on Doug's desk
so he can consider it when he returns and decide what action,
if any, should be taken.
Very truly yours,
MANGUM, WALL AND STOOPS
Richard K. Mangum
RKMLjrw
H. KARL MANGUM
DOUGLAS J. WALL
RICHARD K. MANOUM
DANIEL J. STOOPS
GERALD W. NABOURS
Dr. Richard F. Wilson
7326 Paseo del Norte
Tucson, AZ 85704
Re: Coconino County General Plan
Hart Prairie
Dear Dick:
Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the minutes
of the Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission for
July 29, 1975. I draw your attention to Pages 9 and 10 where
it is noted that the P&Z has, as yet, not formulated any
strong opinions regarding the Peaks.
Very truly yours,
MANGUM, WALL AND STOOPS
Douglas J . wAi
Enclosure
DJW:bw/kf
MEMORANDUM
DJW
BW
June 25, 1975
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1975
Yesterday evening between the hours of 8:00 p.m.
and 11:00 p.m. I attended a meeting of the Coconino County
Planning and Zoning Commission held in the Board of Super­visors
Room, Coconino County Courthouse. Persons present
included Scott McClellan, Coconino County Planner; Bill
Flick, Deputy County Attorney; Ray Berman, President, Coco­nino
Citizens Association; Don Freeman, United States Forest
Service Land Trade Officer; Pete Michelbach; Mert Leadbetter;
and Chairman Sekaquaptewa of the Hopi Tribe. Also present
was one Rick Black, a Phoenix attorney. Mr. Black is with
the firm of Black, Robertshaw, Frederick, Copple and Wright.
The first item on the agenda was an extension of a
use permit for some cabins located down in the southern part
of the state and was taken care of in a brief 4 0 minute period.
The second item on the agenda was an open discussion
of the County General Plan with emphasis upon the San Francisco
Peaks area. Previously, when Scott McClellan prepared the
plan he intentionally left no mention of the Peaks in it.
Subsequently Ben Hufford, on behalf of the Coconino Citizens
Association and other persons, requested that the Plan actually
make a statement regarding the San Francisco Peaks area. In
the past, Stewart Houston, Chairman of the Commission, suggested
that a series of open meetings would be the best way to get
some feedback into the Commission. Additionally, they had
presented the property owners with a series of questionnaires,
one of which Richard F. Wilson obtained and did return.
Scott opened the discussion with an analysis of this
questionnaire not giving any names but rather only percentages
as to those who had replied. A total of 168 questionnaires
had been mailed out. These have been briefly divided between
113 lot owners of designated subdivisions and 55 acreage
owners. A total of 101 questionnaires have been returned, 26
unopened and 75 completed. Of the 75 questionnaires returned
completed, 55 were by lot owners subdivision and 20 were by
acreage owners. The breakdown per question is as follows.
For subdivision owners: Question 1, The best use
of the land--60% replied that they felt it would be residential
recreational. For Question 2, Plans to subdivide—this answer
was not pertinent to subdivided lot owners. Question 3, Do
you have a residence on your property—only one answered yes.
Question 4, Do you believe subdividers should be allowed to
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
construct apartments, condominiums or to commercially develop
the San Francisco Peaks area or any other areas around the
mountain--87% replied yes. Question 5, omitted for subdivision
lot owners. Question 6, Do you have an operational water well
on your property--there were no affirmative responses.
Question 7, Do you believe the road into Hart Prairie is
adequate or should it be widened and improved to allow for
more cars and people—70% said the road should be improved.
Question 8, Assuming someone was willing to construct a tramway
system from Hart Prairie to the Arizona Snow Bowl for the
transporting of skiiers and others up and down the mountain,
what would be your position? Would you support or oppose such
a project? — 87% would support. Question 9, omitted for subdivision
lot owners.
Of the acreage owners replying, the response was as
follows: Question 1, The best use of the land--61% indicated
residential recreational. Question 2, Do you have any intention
of subdividing your property--three replied in the affirmative.
Question 3, Do you have a residence on your property—60% replied
in the affirmative. Question 4, Do you believe that subdividers
should be allowed to construct apartments, condominiums or to
commercially develop the San Francisco Peaks area--50% replied
in the affirmative. Question 5, What do you think the minimum
lot size should be for your property and similar properties in
the San Francisco Peaks area--the overall average of those
replying was 2 1/2 acres; 50% indicated lot sizes as small as
1 acre. Question 6, Do you have an operational water well on
your property-three replied yes. Question 7, Should the Hart
Prairie road be improved—50% replied yes improve it, 55%
indicated pave it or cinder it and 50% indicated have the county
pay for it. Question 8, regarding the tramway from Hart Prairie
to the Snow Bowl--55% supported the project. Question 9, Other
factors--there were a myriad of answers.
Scott McClellan then presented a map to the Commission
members, a rather large topographical map which was unavailable
for viewing by the audience. There was no easel in the meeting
room. The Commission members did offer an invitation to the
members of the audience to come and examine it if they desire.
I did so after the meeting and it was the same map we have seen
so many times in the past.
The next item which Scott presented to the Commission
was a letter from Jefferson Begay, Urban Planner, Navajo Nation.
This letter was in reference to the San Francisco Peaks and
Mr. Begay proposed that the Planning and Zoning Commission zone
the area in a manner where it would be managed for maximum
wildlife and minimum development. At that point Stewart Houston,
Chairman of the Commission, inquired if Mr. Begay was present.
An Indian rose from the audience.
Mr. Houston inquired if this was Mr. Begay and the
individual replied no that he was Chairman Sekaquaptewa of the
Hopi Tribe. A general discussion arose regarding the importance
of the Peaks to the Hopi Nation. A brief summary of the Chair­man's
comments are that (1) they do not desire to take anybody's
property away from them in any manner which is not fair and
equitable; (2) they do desire the topmost portion of the San
Francisco Peaks to be observed as their most sacred grounds; and
{3) they do desire some area on the Peaks to be set aside for
their gathering of fir branches.
Stewart Houston replied saying that he knew two Hopi
(unnamed) and that they also had informed him of what the
Chairman had stated. However, these two Hopi indicated that
there was no way the mountain was sacred to the Navajo.
A question was then posed to the Hopi Chairman by Joe
Riordan as to how far down the mountain or how far up the
mountain. The Chairman's reply was basically that practical
use would be "determined by the timberline or where the Douglas
fir grows."
At this point Mert Leadbetter, with a tape recorder
in hand, indicated to the Commission that there was no private
land above the 9/000 foot elevation and there were no fir trees
below the 9,500 foot elevation.
A second question was posed to the Chairman as to what
type of compensation would be "in a fair and equitable manner."
The Chairman advised the Commission that the Hopi would like to
acquire all of the private land, however, they were in no
position to buy it.
At this point, Chairman Houston recognized Pete
Michelbach, Mr. Michelbach appeared to be somewhat intoxicated
and had nothing affirmative to add to the meeting other than
insult the Chairman of the Hopi Tribe.
At this point Rick Black requested recognition. He
was so recognized and indicated to the Commission that he had
received no questionnaire for the property which he owned in
the area. He went on to describe that he presently owns in
joint tenancy the Hockderfer property, a parcel of approximately
35 acres. Some concern was immediately expressed to why
Mr. Black had not received a questionnaire and Scott McClellan
replied that the questionnaires which were mailed to the title
companies were all returned. Joe Riordan suggested that Scott
contact John Overton of Transamerica Title and Ernie Phillips
of Arizona Title and request them to specifically forward the
questionnaires to the property owners. Jean Riordan expressed
concern that the individuals might not desire the knowledge
of their ownership to become open and Scott replied that there
was no requirement for signature on the questionnaire. (I
subsequently observed Phil Sipes of Planning and Zoning in the
Courthouse Wednesday working on it.)
Mr. Black continued his discussion expressing approval
of the Hopi's position and indicated that they (Black) would like
to be able to develop their property in a way not harmful to
any neighbors. They are holding their property waiting for the
Planning and Zoning, however, they do have the financial ability
to develop. He indicated that at the present time they are
contemplating cabin sites in the range of 2 or 2 1/2 acres.
Mert Leadbetter was then recognized by Stewart Houston.
He emphatically stated that the Hopi interest did not extend
down past the 9,000 foot level. Mr. Leadbetter also indicated
that numerous Hopi have ridden the lift to the top of the Peaks
- 3 -
to engage in their religious activities. Mr. Leadbetter
emphatically stated that the Navajo Nation boundaries, according
to their own map, do not include Summit Properties' land. Mert
then left the meeting.
At this point Scott McClellan advised the Commission
that Dr. Berman desired to make a presentation on behalf of
the Citizens Association. Dr. Berman briefly stated that it
was the position of the Coconino Citizens Association that they
were opposed to any development whatsoever above the 8,000 foot
level. He then presented a paper to the members of the
Commission and briefly summarized from it. This paper included
a recommendation that the Planning and Zoning Commission postpone
any public hearing on the San Francisco Peaks area until certain
events have taken place. In support of this recommendation, he
indicated five reasons as follows: (1) The proposed General
Plan should be adopted first. It is the position of the Citizens
Association that zoning hearings at this time might later find
themselves in contradiction with a General Plan. [A personal
observation—this hearing last night was for input to the General
Plan.] Dr. Berman also indicated that the Board of Supervisors
(with a corrective remark from Chairman Lindemann, a member of
the audience, that only he) would be traveling to Tuba City next
week. (2) The rezoning should be delayed until all attempts to
place the private property in the public domain have ended.
Dr. Berman indicated that activities with the Forest Service and
Summit Property are progressing favorably. He also submitted
two letters from conservation groups announcing that they did
have funds to acquire the private property. I believe the names
of the groups were Trust the Public Lands and Nature Conservative.
(3) Dr. Berman announced to the Commission that the 76 square
miles of the San Francisco Peaks area are being considered as a
National Landmark. He also indicated attempts were being made
to designate it an historical landmark. He predicted that within
a period of three to six months the 76 square miles will be a
National Landmark. (4) Dr. Berman suggested that the views of
all the members of the public should be observed. He requested
the Planning and Zoning Commission "solicit" views of other
people actively. He intimated that individuals did not desire
to attend such meetings as last night and "force" their opinions
upon the Commission. (5) Dr. Berman suggested that it appeared
to him impossible to develop any land in the area and conform to
subdivision regulations. He entered into a discussion that
subdivision regulations required 350 gallons per minute of water
(which Scott McClellan did not comment upon) and that Bruce
Leadbetter had quite recently during conversations with the Forest
Service indicated that his well was capable at a maximum of 100
gallons per minute. This well is only enough water to develop
approximately one-third of Summit's land. Dr. Berman then
announced that he had received a $750,000 estimate from the
County Engineer for Road Improvement and that such.road improve­ment
would, subject to Forest Service regulations, require an
environmental impact study. Dr. Berman then attempted to sit
down.
Peter Lindemann then announced that he would be the
only member of the Board of Supervisors going to Tuba City and
suggested that if the Navajos have not come up with a plan for
their land "we might have to do it for them."
- 4 -
A short general discussion rippled through the
audience and Joe Riordan posed a question to Dr. Berman, In
reply Dr. Berman suggested that it would be "historic justice
if the Indians took away somebody's elses property."
Dixon Faberburg, a member of the Commission, then
suggested that what they were attempting to do was a "big job."
It was his feeling that certain areas should have no development,
some areas at the lower elevations would be suitable for one or
two acre development and some areas would be suitable for five
or ten acre development. He indicated that he was inclined to
agree with the proposal of Dr. Berman to postpone any public
hearing.
Paul Sorenson, a member of the Commission, then stated
that he was quite upset with Dr. Berman, he did not appreciate
Dr. Berman intimating that members of the public were not able
to be heard and generally ripped Dr. Berman apart. Subsequently,
the meeting was for all practical purposes adjourned.
A brief election of officers was held and Stewart
Houston was reelected Chairman with Dixon Faberburg being Vice
Chairman.
After the meeting was adjourned, I heard a few comments
which generally relate to the fact that the members of the Planning
and Zoning Commission are quite upset with Dr. Berman, I then
departed and ran into Don Freeman of the Forest Service on the
sidewalk.
During my discussions with Mr, Freeman, he indicated
some amazement at Dr. Berman's having totally alienated Planning
and Zoning Inasmuch as Dr. Berman is the one man who is able to
negotiate between Summit and the Forest Service. He also
indicated that the Forest Service would be in a position to
announce their appraisal to Bruce Leadbetter the first week in
July. He then personally indicated that within three minutes
the dollar figures would be public knowledge because Bruce would
say that that wasn't enough.
During the course of the meeting, Scott McClellan
handed to Stewart Houston a five page letter from Bruce Leadbetter
in answer to the questionnaire.
BW:kf
cc: Dick Wilson 6/26/75
- 5 -
H, KARL MANOUM
OOUGLAS J. WALL
RICHARD K. MANOUM
DANIEL J, STOOPS
MANGUM,WALL A N D STOOPS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
222 CAST BIRCH AVENUE
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA OfflOOl
February 3rd, 1976
GERALD W. NABOURS
TONY 5. CULLUM
Dr. Richard F. Wilson
7326 Paseo del Norte
Tucson, Arizona 85704
Dear Dick:
My office has been approached by two students,
Bill Williams and Susie Teetor, who are members of the Coco­nino
Citizens Association and the Sierra Club. They have
advised me that they are interested in working with setting
the Peaks area (boundaries as yet undetermined) aside as an
area to be designated in the National Registry of Parks.
Mr. Williams advised me that he had talked with
you in Tucson over the Christmas vacation and that you had
recommended that he contact our office. We furnished him with
a copy of the large brochure for his review within the office
and with copies of a couple of newspaper articles which we
thought might relate to the history of the area. Mr. Williams
then asked regarding the history of your family and we remembered
the extensive letter which we prepared addressed to the Forest
Service regarding the problem with the fences several years
ago. We did not allow Mr. Williams to examine that letter,
and that is the purpose of this letter. Quite honestly, I
do not feel that the contents of the letter would be beneficial
to Mr. Williams, however you may wish that we disclose the con­tents
to him. If so, please advise.
Very truly yours,
MANGUM, WALL AND STOOPS
Douglas J. W^l
DJW/bw/sl
Ulifc 01 LltC .joulIiViCSl £ liitijui
scientific and cultural es­tablishments
is the Museum of
Northern Arizona, which in 1378 will
observe its golden anniversary with,
we hope and expect, community-wide
support and enthusiasm.
At a very early time, perhaps even
in the 1880s, local citizens were
aware of the value of having^ a
museum here to retain at least part
of the specimens and artifacts being
collected in northern Arizona each
year by various expeditions.
At least as early as 1922 Dr.
sylvania, a frequent visitor (the
Coltons would move here per­manently
in 1926) offered to furnish
display cases for archeological and
other specimens to be installed in
the Woman's Club building oirWest
Aspen, if the townspeople would
cooperate. As there was no local
resident with the necessary museum
experience, the project stayed more
or less on dead center.
Then at a luncheon meeting of the
Chamber of Commerce in 1927, Dr.
Frank Lockwood of the English
Berry's World
iuiioiia poiiueu urn urn value to the
community of a real museum. The
proposal was received with
enthusiasm by the chamber, which
had played significant parts in es:
tablishment of Lowell Observatory,
and the normal school which has
become Northern Arizona Universi­ty.
After many meetings the Northern
Arizona Society of Science and Art
was organized and the museum
opened its doors in two donated
rooms in the Woman's Club building.
The 18-member board included dis­tinguished
figures in science and
education, and many local men and
women.
Dr. Colton took the lead; and his
maxim then and always was, "go
slow." He made sure at every step
that he had the community with
him; as he pointed out 25 years later,
the museum here was the only one of
three institutions in the Southwest
started with such promise in 1928
that survived. {Gila Pueblo at Globe
was absorbed by the U of A, and the
Laboratory of Anthropology at Santa
Fe became a part of the Museum of
New Mexico.)
When the museum outgrew the
Woman's Club quarters, the Monte
Vista Hotel offered free the use of a
large storeroom. The museum con­tinued
to grow; the entire communi­ty
was involved, and took pride in it.
In due time the institution became
the complex of land and buildings on
Fort Valley Road which we see
today.
At every step during Dr. Colton's
directorship the policy was to build
slowly and wisely; to avoid con­troversy;
to maintain a free and
open attitude toward the entire com­munity,
and to keep in mind always
the real goal — building a fine'
cultural and scientific center, not a
haven for ego-trippers or arrogant
advocates of personal causes.
Board members were selected for
their common sense and dedication,
munity, not for amenability to
manipulation. While the Coltons had
distinguished backgrounds and per­sonal
records of achievement, they
were far from being snobs. They
were respected and admired, and in
time their association with a
proposal or program was usually
assurance of its success.
The Coltons' exemplary qualities
became even more apparent in re­cent
years, following their deaths.
The Coltons would have been ap­palled
at board and staff members
involving themselves in elaborately
staged, "and in some phases
elaborately financed, controversies,
and the use of the museum's prestige
for personal ends, whatever the
Tightness or desirability of the
causes, apparently unaware of or in­different
to the fact that their iden­tification
with the museum was
generating antagonism and eroding
support for that institution. The
museum would have been infinitely
better served if those persons con­nected
with it who involved
themselves in displays of arrogance
has chosen instead to give a second's
thought to the welfare of the
museum, and then limited their ac­tivities
to igneous and sedimentary
petrology, for instance.
Yes, many of us sadly missed the
Coltons' wisdom, dignity and good
sense.
Now with some beneficial
changes, the museum is moving
back to the path set by its wise
founders and supporters — building
a center in which the community can
wholeheartedly take pride, and
support. Judicious use of the pruning
shears might expedite the revitaliza-tion
process. We predict that when
the 50th anniversary rolls around,
the spirit of the Coltons will again
pervade every building, laboratory,
corridor, book stack and office on
that 200 acres at Ford Valley Road.
We'll support any and every effort
to bring that about .