Flagstaff Heritage Commission Protects City Hall for 1972 AIM Protests

Commission Accepts Revised Study Finding Former City Hall Eligible for Protection; Rejects Demolition as Sole Mitigation, Demands Phase 2 and Indigenous Collaboration

On Wednesday, July 16, 2025, the Heritage Preservation Commission voted unanimously to accept a revised phase 1 cultural resource study for the former Flagstaff City Hall building (19 West Birch Avenue), determining it eligible for local and national register protection under criteria linked to the 1972 American Indian Movement civil rights protests and its architectural significance. The decision, which followed an earlier staff recommendation of ineligibility, imposes extensive conditions on any future demolition and effectively pauses the proposed Graduate Hotel development until a certificate of appropriateness covering both demolition and new design can be approved.

The reversal marks a notable shift in how the commission approaches historic preservation. Commissioners explicitly rejected the mitigation measures initially proposed by Cornerstone Environmental—a plaque, archival photographs, and a Malpai stone cornerstone in the lobby—as insufficient to address the loss of the building's historic fabric. Instead, they demanded a phase 2 cultural resource study with archival-grade photography and elevation drawings; collaborative development of interpretive materials with the city's Indigenous Commission; and exterior incorporation of salvaged Malpai stone if structurally feasible.

Key Speeches

"I could be completely off base with this because I can only study what I can study, but my understanding is that the property owner and the folks that want to go through with the building are also the people that hired the consultant. If there is any truth to that, it seems a little offbeat when it comes to ethics because obviously if you're hiring somebody, they're going to give you the product that you hired them to give you." — Councilmember Anthony Garcia, speaking as a private citizen

"I am with you 100%... I'm just getting tired of seeing us demolish buildings and putting up plaques and saying that's a mitigation. So, I would like to see more substantive mitigations that are applied to all of our buildings that are being demolished." — Commissioner Amy Horn

"I would hope that Mr. Okonnell with his personal history in Helena would understand the connections people feel to place. Flagstaff has that very strongly. We have many families that have been here for over hundred years like Anthony Garcia family and we all love our place... I'm someone who came here by choice and I love it and I don't want to see it continue to disappear." — Commissioner Duffy Westimer

"We care deeply about the history and built environment of Flagstaff. Historic preservation is an iterative and collaborative process of research, fieldwork, law and city code and implementation with many varied stakeholders and concerned parties and we always welcome constructive feedback." — Caitlyn Stewart, Cornerstone Environmental

Timeline

• Public comment: Anthony Garcia (councilmember, speaking as private citizen) raised ethical concerns about developer-hired consultant; Charles Zimmerman (resident, 30001 North Shaveen Boulevard) advocated for facade retention on north and west elevations.

• Consultant presentation: Cornerstone Environmental, represented by Caitlyn Stewart and Jack (last name not stated in transcript), presented revised research documenting 1972 American Indian Movement arrests at the Flagstaff All Indian Powow. Seven AIM members were arrested by Flagstaff Police, charged with rioting and inciting a riot (charges later dropped), and held on $20,000 bonds. The arrests triggered investigations by the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and ACLU into Flagstaff police and city procedures regarding Native American treatment. Two of the arrested individuals—Leroy Keems and Henry Beay—later became prominent in the Black Mesa environmental movement and AIM leadership. Cornerstone recommended the building eligible under Flagstaff criterion B and National Register criterion A for social history and government (the 1972 civil rights event) and under Flagstaff criterion D for architectural significance (international style with organic Flagstaff vernacular, Malpai stone, combination and scale distinctive among Flagstaff buildings).

• Staff and legal guidance: Lauren Tyson (City Staff), Sarah Prince (Neighborhood Services Manager), and Bill Collins (State Historic Preservation Office) clarified the relationship between phase 1 cultural resource studies, certificate of appropriateness process, and demolition permits. Collins confirmed SHIPO's concurrence with the building's eligibility under National Register criteria A and likely C, subject to additional exterior integrity documentation.

• Developer statement: Jim Okonnell (property representative, AJ Capital) presented via Zoom, recovering from surgery. He outlined the Graduate Hotel's design approach: five-story hotel with rooftop bar, incorporating Flagstaff themes (Lumberjack, Native American, Route 66, Observatory) into interior design. He stated the structure cannot support the new 5-story hotel without demolition due to flood mitigation requirements (building basement floods; new design must elevate first floor above flood zone per modern code). He committed to presenting full design in 2-3 months and acknowledged asbestos removal in progress.

• Commission discussion: Extensive debate over mitigation adequacy, phase 2 requirements, feasibility of facade retention, exterior vs. interior Malpai stone placement, the nature of certificate of appropriateness review, and the commission's legal authority to prevent demolition (clarified: commission cannot prevent demolition but can require economic hardship review and recommend a one-year delay, though this has never been implemented in Flagstaff since 2006).

• Public comment: Charles Zimmerman urged retention of north and west elevations, arguing preservation of historic fabric serves Flagstaff's economy and identity better than plaques and corner monuments. Multiple commissioners expressed emotional connection to the building and frustration with repeated decisions to demolish and memorialize rather than preserve.

• Rose Tohi, Indigenous Affairs Administrator: Offered to bring the Indigenous Commission into mitigation development, emphasizing community experience and lived perspective. Commissioners welcomed this approach as a way to address the AIM civil rights significance meaningfully.

• Vote: Moved by Commissioner Amy Horn, seconded by Emily Dale. All in favor (seven commissioners present: Emily Dale, Alicia Hayes, Abby Buckham, Amy Horn, Duffy Westimer, Bernardet Burch, Jesse Dominguez). No nays or abstentions.

Opposition

Speakers against demolition: 2 named commenters

• Charles Zimmerman (resident, 30001 North Shaveen Boulevard): Advocated preservation of north and west facades to maintain historic fabric and sense of place that drives Flagstaff tourism and resident satisfaction.

Main concerns:

1. Loss of distinctive Malpai stone masonry—identified as "very special to Northern Arizona and Flagstaff," distinctive in combination and scale, representing craftsmanship that should be documented and preserved.
2. Plaque-and-photo mitigation inadequate for loss of entire building and historic streetscape; "little homage to destruction" does not mitigate destruction.
3. Rapid loss of historic properties eroding Flagstaff's unique character, tourism value, and community identity.
4. Precedent of demolition-plus-memorial pattern across multiple recent projects; commissioners stated they are "getting tired" of this approach.
5. Sustainable and climate-friendly alternative of adaptive reuse available but rejected by developer; new construction wastes salvageable materials and contributes to landfill waste.
6. Developers' consultant hired by property owner raises ethical concerns about independence and objectivity of findings.
7. Downtown design compatibility: building's international style with Malpai stone distinctive enough to merit preservation or incorporation into new design.

Most compelling argument: Commissioner Amy Horn cited city code defining mitigation as avoidance, preservation in place, minimizing impacts, acquisition by others, or data recovery—noting that plaques and photos are not listed as mitigation measures, suggesting the commission may be exceeding authority in accepting insufficient mitigation. Commissioner Westimer reiterated that the code's conflicting provisions clause (heritage preservation provisions shall govern except for life safety) should elevate preservation above routine development, especially for newly determined eligible buildings.

Organized groups: None formally identified; however, commissioners aligned strongly with preservation advocacy, with at least three commissioners (Horn, Westimer, Buckham) vocal about demanding substantive mitigation and facial retention.

Support

Speakers in favor of demolition/hotel project: 1 named commenter

• Jim Okonnell (property representative, AJ Capital/Graduate Hotel developer): Presented design philosophy emphasizing Flagstaff themes, history, and quality; referenced his track record building the Eddie Hotel (Hilton Tapestry brand) in Tucson as proof of commitment to character-driven design. Stated structural and flood-mitigation realities make facade retention infeasible.

Main support arguments:

1. Developer has invested significant research into Flagstaff history, partnered with NAU, Museum of Northern Arizona, and local design resources to create authentic, character-driven interior and exterior design.
2. Building is structurally unsound for new use: basement floods regularly; modern code requires first floor above flood zone; historic structure cannot support five-story hotel load.
3. Parking demands of hotel and site constraints make relocation or alternative sites infeasible (proposed Laroo Street location occupied by parking garage).
4. Asbestos abatement and code compliance costs add to demolition case.
5. Hilton's rigorous design review process ensures high quality; developer's previous projects demonstrate commitment to authentic, locally-informed design.
6. Developer willing to incorporate Malpai stone, create interpretive plaques, and provide archival photographs as requested.

Most compelling argument: Jim Okonnell's reference to structural and hydrological constraints—the building's basement flooding and inability to meet modern code requirements for a 5-story structure—provided the primary practical justification for demolition. This was not seriously contested by the commission, though commissioners still expressed desire for facade retention as mitigation.

Project Details

• Case number: Not stated in transcript.
• Applicant / developer: AJ Capital; Jim Okonnell (property representative); Hilton/Graduate Hotel brand (Hilton Tapestry collection).
• Consultant: Cornerstone Environmental (cultural resource study); architect and design team not named but stated to be retained by developer.
• Attorney: Not stated in transcript.
• Location / address: 19 West Birch Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona. Building sits at the corner of Birch and Beaver Streets in downtown Flagstaff, in the downtown historic overlay zone.
• APN: Not stated in transcript.
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Not stated; building is in downtown historic overlay zone subject to certificate of appropriateness requirements.
• Building description: Five-story proposed hotel with rooftop bar. Former city hall, constructed 1959, international style architecture with Malpai stone exterior, designed as civic municipal building. Interior extensively remodeled; exterior modified with removal of fire horn tower and fire department bay doors. Building includes basement (flood-prone) and jail facility (operational through early 1970s, used only for temporary holding by mid-1970s).
• Density / units / square footage: Hotel size, room count, and parking garage square footage not stated in transcript.
• Changes from previous version: First phase 1 cultural resource study (not detailed in transcript) recommended building not significant. Commission requested re-evaluation. Revised study now recommends building eligible under Flagstaff criteria B and D, and National Register criteria A and likely C.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 7-0-0 (unanimous)
• Yes: Emily Dale, Alicia Hayes, Abby Buckham, Amy Horn, Duffy Westimer, Bernardet Burch, Jesse Dominguez
• No: None
• Abstentions / absences: None

(Nancy [name not fully stated] conducted roll call at meeting start. Vice Mayor Miranda Sweet was absent, not replaced in chair role; Acting Chair Emily Dale chaired portions; transition to Vice Chair Alicia Hayes noted.)

Outcome & Next Steps

The Heritage Preservation Commission accepted the phase 1 cultural resource study with the following conditions:

Required revisions to study:

• Grammatical and spelling corrections identified by Commissioner Westimer (Babbot, proc [not fully spelled in transcript], north facade photograph to be retaken in better daylight).
• Pat Madden (former police chief, interviewed by Cornerstone) to be properly cited in sources.
• City of Flagstaff criterion A to be noted (consultant recommendation format clarified; determination of eligibility is SHIPO's role, consultant role is recommendation).

Required mitigation measures:

1. Phase 2 cultural resource study focusing on architectural documentation: measured/as-built drawings, archival-grade photography (with better lighting of facade than current photos), and elevation drawings—to be reviewed and approved by the Heritage Preservation Commission.
2. Interpretive mitigation for National Register criterion A and Flagstaff criterion B (American Indian Movement civil rights significance): to be developed in collaboration with the Indigenous Commission and the city's Indigenous Affairs Administrator (Rose Tohi), addressing the 1972 arrests, AIM movement, ACLU and U.S. Commission of Civil Rights investigations, and policy changes. Content and design to be reviewed and approved by the commission.
3. Malpai stone incorporation: Preferably salvaged stone from the building's exterior, preferably incorporated into the building's exterior design (commissioners expressed strong preference for exterior placement, though interior inclusion is acceptable). If salvage is not feasible, similar Malpai stone may be used. Proposal to be reviewed during certificate of appropriateness process.
4. Public archiving: Both phase 1 and phase 2 cultural resource studies to be archived in publicly accessible location(s), preferably the City of Flagstaff library website and/or city website.

Process going forward:

• Developer must submit phase 2 study for commission review.
• Developer's architect must prepare site plan and certificate of appropriateness application, which will trigger the first review cycle with city staff (site plan comments, potentially substantial revisions before resubmission).
• Certificate of appropriateness application, once deemed complete, will include both demolition and new hotel design, to be reviewed in a public hearing before the Heritage Preservation Commission.
• Building cannot be demolished and no demolition permit can be issued until certificate of appropriateness is approved.
• Staff to schedule work session (separate from this case) to review certificate of appropriateness procedures, development review process, and demolition authority (whether commission can deny demolition and what economic hardship and one-year delay provisions entail).

Timeline: Jim Okonnell stated design and concept plan work ongoing; site plan and certificate of appropriateness application expected in "a couple of months" (likely fall 2025). Phase 2 study review likely several months after submission. No demolition expected until spring 2026 at earliest, pending approvals.

Controversies & Context

Consultant Conflict of Interest

Councilmember Anthony Garcia, speaking as a private citizen, raised a procedural and ethical concern: the property owner hired the consultant (Cornerstone Environmental) to conduct the cultural resource study, which Anthony Garcia characterized as creating a conflict of interest. He argued that the consultant, being paid by the developer, has an incentive to deliver findings favorable to the project.

Staff response: Lauren Tyson and Sarah Prince explained that it is industry standard nationwide for the developer/applicant to pay for and hire the consultant. If the city were to hire consultants centrally, the city would bear all costs. This would require budget allocation and is not immediately implementable. The process is deemed fair because both applicant and public have opportunity to challenge findings.

Outcome: No procedural change implemented; industry standard upheld. However, the commission's decision to require a phase 2 study and additional mitigation could be seen as commissioners' way of ensuring rigor beyond the initial consultant recommendation, particularly since the first study recommended no eligibility and the commission requested re-evaluation.

Building Significance Reversal

The building was not included in the National Register of Historic Places or local significant buildings inventories. In fact, the initial phase 1 study (conducted by the same consultant) recommended the building not eligible for significance. The commission, dissatisfied with this finding, voted to request Cornerstone re-evaluate under two specific Flagstaff criteria. Additionally, a concerned citizen submitted the previous report to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHIPO) and requested a national register eligibility determination.

Cornerstone's revised study pivoted on discovery and substantiation of the 1972 American Indian Movement civil rights event. The arrests, excessive bonds, and resulting investigations by the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and ACLU—which led to policy changes in Flagstaff police procedures and bail practices—were newly documented through interviews with former Police Chief Pat Madden and archival newspaper research. Two of the arrested individuals became prominent national figures in the AIM and environmental movements.

Historical significance: The 1972 Flagstaff All Indian Powow protest and resulting civil rights investigations mark an early, formative moment in the American Indian Movement's legal and policy victories in border towns. The arrests occurred at the city hall building; the city's response and investigations into police and municipal procedures represent a turning point in Flagstaff's relationship with Native American communities.

Outcome: Building now eligible for protection under local and national criteria. The commission's request for re-evaluation and the citizen's SHIPO submission effectively elevated the building's status from "not significant" to "significant and eligible."

Mitigation Adequacy Debate

Commissioners Amy Horn and Duffy Westimer, along with public commenter Charles Zimmerman, strongly objected to the mitigation measures proposed by Cornerstone: a plaque, archival photographs, and a Malpai stone cornerstone in the lobby. They characterized these as insufficient and noted that the city code's mitigation definition (avoidance, preservation in place, minimizing impacts, acquisition by others, or data recovery) does not list plaques or photos as qualifying measures.

Commissioner Horn stated: "I'm just getting tired of seeing us demolish buildings and putting up plaques and saying that's a mitigation. So, I would like to see more substantive mitigations that are applied to all of our buildings that are being demolished because I just see us demolishing buildings and putting up plaques and we're going to be left with parking lots and new buildings and plaques and photos of what used to be there."

Commissioners also expressed frustration with the pattern of recent demolitions and the loss of Flagstaff's historic character. Commissioner Westimer read the city code's purpose clause, emphasizing that heritage preservation is "in the interest of the health, economic prosperity, education, cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the public."

Outcome: Commission rejected plaque-only mitigation and demanded phase 2 documentation (data recovery), exterior Malpai stone incorporation (preservation of materials in new design), and collaborative interpretive mitigation with the Indigenous Commission. This represents a harder line than Cornerstone proposed and signals commissioners' intent to require substantive mitigation moving forward.

Facade Retention Request

Both Commissioner Westimer and public commenter Charles Zimmerman requested that the developer consider retaining the building's north and west facades—or at least the facade on the Birch and Beaver Street frontages—as part of the new hotel design, either as a preserved historic shell or as a design element incorporated into the new structure.

Jim Okonnell responded that facade retention is not feasible due to structural limitations: the new five-story hotel cannot be built around the historic structure given the building's condition, foundation, and flood mitigation requirements (the basement floods; modern code requires the first floor above the flood zone). He stated the current site constraints, parking garage placement on Laroo Street, and the need for the hotel footprint to occupy the former city hall site make relocation or alternative configurations impractical.

Outcome: Facade retention was not mandated as a condition. However, commissioners requested that exterior Malpai stone be incorporated into the new design as a compromise—preserving the distinctive material and craftmanship while allowing demolition to proceed. This will be reviewed at the certificate of appropriateness stage.

Commission Authority to Prevent Demolition

Commissioner Buckham asked whether the commission can actually prevent demolition or whether it is merely required to mitigate for a predetermined demolition. Staff clarified that:

1. The commission is not preventing demolition by approving the phase 1 study; approval of the study identifies the building as significant and establishes mitigation requirements.
2. The commission will review the demolition as part of the certificate of appropriateness process, alongside the new design.
3. If the commission denies the certificate of appropriateness for the design, the developer can apply for a certificate of economic hardship, which would require showing the property is not economically feasible to preserve or operate.
4. If the commission also denies the economic hardship certificate, the code provides for a one-year delay in demolition during which a third party may attempt to purchase the property for preservation.
5. This one-year delay has never been implemented in Flagstaff since 2006; in practice, demolition eventually proceeds.

Outcome: The commission recognized the limits of its authority but expressed intent to use the certificate of appropriateness process to negotiate the best possible design outcome, including material retention and interpretive elements.

Historic Preservation Capacity and Budget

Sarah Prince (Neighborhood Services Manager) noted that the Heritage Preservation Commission has repeatedly submitted budget requests to the city council for funding to conduct proactive historic surveys and inventories. These requests have been denied for five years. The current heritage preservation budget consists of approximately half of Lauren Tyson's (staff) salary, with no funds allocated for brochures, surveys, or proactive preservation work.

Staff explained that the current model places the cost of cultural resource studies on developers project-by-project, rather than centralizing this work and funding it citywide. This creates delays and inconsistencies, as buildings are only evaluated when a development project triggers the requirement.

Commissioners indicated interest in advocating for budget allocation and writing letters of support for future requests, noting that proactive inventories would benefit both the community and developers (who could know in advance whether a property is eligible, allowing for better planning).

Outcome: No immediate budget change; staff to work with commission on future advocacy and budget support letters.

NAU and Flagstaff Identity

Jim Okonnell noted that the Graduate Hotel brand requires design tied to a nearby university but is not exclusively university-focused. He stated that the design will incorporate NAU elements, Route 66, the Observatory, Lumberjack history, Native American themes, and pioneering women's contributions to Flagstaff.

Commissioner Westimer and others expressed concern that the name "Graduate" (tied to NAU) might not adequately represent Flagstaff's broader identity and multi-generational community history. Westimer suggested an alternative: "City Hall Hotel," which would more directly honor the site's civic and community heritage.

Okonnell explained that "Graduate" is the Hilton brand name; the developer's interior and exterior design philosophy is flexible and Flagstaff-centric, but the brand name is fixed as part of the Hilton Tapestry collection agreement.

Outcome: No change to hotel branding; commissioners' preference for "City Hall Hotel" noted in minutes but not imposed as a condition.

Duration

• This item (19 West Birch Avenue / Former City Hall): Approximately 2 hours 20 minutes (started after public comment on the topic at ~4:30 p.m., continued through Cornerstone presentation, extended discussion of process and mitigation, and vote; concluded around 6:39 p.m. with a break).
• Total meeting: Approximately 2 hours 45 minutes (from 4:02 p.m. to ~6:46 p.m., including five-minute break).

Other Notable Items

May 21 meeting minutes approval: Approved unanimously with correction of "cardboard siding" to "clapboard siding" (autocorrect error).

123 South Beaver Street historic signs and facades grant (Level 1, $10,000): Flagstaff Christian Fellowship window replacement project approved unanimously. Applicant unable to attend; staff presented application materials. Church replacing deteriorated yellow textured glass with clear glass, same light pattern and paint color, switching from hopper-style opening to casement-style due to vendor unavailability. Commission satisfied with in-kind replacement approach; grant deemed appropriate for the scope of work.

NAU Faculty Curriculum Partnership Proposal: English lecturer at Northern Arizona University presented a project in which her 60 freshman students (per semester) propose and develop solutions to community issues in Flagstaff, beginning spring 2026. The lecturer requests potential collaboration with city commissions, including the Heritage Preservation Commission, whereby students might email questions, request advice, or attend commission meetings as part of their learning. The lecturer emphasized low time commitment and flexibility; she will limit the number of student groups contacting any single commission and coordinate with multiple city boards to spread requests. Commissioners expressed interest and welcomed student engagement, with Commissioner Westimer noting the coincidence of May 2026 preservation month and potential student project contributions. No formal action taken; presenter asked to reconnect early 2026 with more specific student project proposals.