The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPackets - Historic Preservation Commission (95) *AMENDED (11/04/2021, 5:00 P.M.) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION AGENDA NOVEMBER 8, 2021 5:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CALL TO AUDIENCE - any member of the public is allowed to address the Commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Commission members may ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Commission may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS PRESENTATIONS 1.*Presentation and discussion regarding general board and commission member duties and responsibilities, how they may relate to the Oro Valley Historical Society, and conflict of interest CONSENT AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 4, 2021 MEETING MINUTES REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM FOUR TOWN HISTORY RECORDS AND REPORTS 2.PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND PROPOSED CHANGES TO STAFF REGARDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE 3.PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO: 3.PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO: RECOMMEND PROPOSED CHANGES TO STAFF REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM SIX HONEYBEE VILLAGE ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVE AS IT PERTAINS TO PRE-HISTORIC FEATURES AND USES; a. POSSIBLY RECOMMEND THAT STAFF REQUEST TOWN COUNCIL PURSUE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE PRE-HISTORIC FEATURES ARE LOCATED. b. DEPARTMENT UPDATE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - The Commission may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Commission may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H ADJOURNMENT POSTED: 11/01/2021 at 5:00 p.m. by pp *AMENDED AGENDA POSTED 11/04/2021 at 5:00 p.m. by pp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Commission meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Commission meeting at 229-4700. In accordance with the Pima County Health Department’s most recent health advisory, the Town respectfully asks all in-person meeting attendees, regardless of vaccination status, to please wear a mask while indoors. COVID-19 remains a fluid situation, and the Town will adjust its safety guidelines in accordance with any future health advisories from the Health Department. INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However, those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by the Commission during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. If you wish to address the Commission on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Recording Secretary. Please indicate on the blue speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during “Call to Audience,” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card. Please stand or step forward when the Chair announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested in addressing. For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident.1. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by the Commission. Please organize your speech, you will only be allowed to address the Commission once regarding the topic being discussed. 2. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.3. During “Call to Audience”, you may address the Commission on any issue you wish.4. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present.5. Thank you for your cooperation. “Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-4 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council, Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Stormwater Utility Commission, and Water Utility Commission may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only.” Historic Preservation Commission 1. Meeting Date:11/08/2021 Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: *Presentation and discussion regarding general board and commission member duties and responsibilities, how they may relate to the Oro Valley Historical Society, and conflict of interest RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director will lead this discussion. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A Historic Preservation Commission 1. Meeting Date:11/08/2021 Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 4, 2021 MEETING MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with changes) the October 4, 2021 meeting minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission. Attachments 2021 10 04 HPC Draft Minutes D R A F T TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 4, 2021 REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Biel called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Dan Biel, Chair Stephanie Krueger, Vice Chair Nicole Casaus, Commissioner Steve Hannestad, Commissioner Auvie Lee, Commissioner Michael Wilson, Commissioner Absent: Puntadeleste Bozeman, Commissioner Staff Present:Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Lynanne Dellerman-Silverthorn, Recreation & Cultural Resources Manager MaryAnne Tolmie, Senior Office Specialist CALL TO AUDIENCE Chair Biel opened Call to Audience. No one wished to speak. Chair Biel closed Call to Audience. COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS Councilmember Solomon was absent. PRESENTATIONS 1.PRESENTATION OF THE PLAQUE OF HISTORICAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE BLOCK PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 W SUFFOLK DRIVE Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn presented Mr. and Mrs. Block with a framed drawing and plaque of historical landmark designation that will be installed by Town Staff. CONSENT AGENDA 1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 MEETING MINUTES Motion by Chair Dan Biel, seconded by Commissioner Nicole Casaus to approve the September 7, 2021 meeting minutes. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried REGULAR SESSION AGENDA 1.DISCUSSION REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE Commissioner Lee presented a detailed PowerPoint with the following topics of conversation: 1. Terminology Webpages Oro Valley (OV) Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission (OVHPC) Parks and Recreation Department (Parks and Rec) 2. Executive Summary 3. General Explanation 4. Additional Details 5. Other Websites Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn indicated that the topic is open for discussion, but if there are action items, that would have to be added under Future Agenda Items. There was some discussion regarding the direction of the topic. Chair Biel thanked Commissioner Lee for his detailed presentation. 2.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM SIX HONEYBEE VILLAGE ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVE Commissioner Casaus provided a detailed report for discussion that included: Grand Opening About the Preserve History Implementation Requirements Future Needs Modifications from the Honey Bee Village Archeological Preserve Implementation Plan She made several recommendations for items of further discussion or possible future agenda items. Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn added some details and clarity. There was a great deal of discussion surrounding the likelihood of obtaining the property, its benefits and drawbacks. Chair Biel thanked Commissioner Casaus for an excellent presentation and everyone for their additional input. 3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO STAFF THAT THEY CREATE AN HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT SCAVENGER HUNT FOR YOUTH IN ORO VALLEY Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn defined art as culture and cultural resources as culture. The Commission is Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn defined art as culture and cultural resources as culture. The Commission is only responsible for cultural resources not art, all items should have to do with history and what is in the purview of the Commission. Commissioner Hannestad added to the conversation, pieces of artwork can be tied to historic locations. Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn added that there are a lot of resources for children within Town limits and that there is a page on the Town’s website dedicated to this with extensive information. Vice Chair Krueger wondered if this information can be made available for visitors or at locations such as the library, so they might discover what is in Oro Valley. It was discussed getting this program finalized before April to coincide with Celebrate Oro Valley. Commissioner Hannestad added that anything that is not a building is becoming increasingly more difficult to designate as historic, and jurisdiction needs to be considered and that generally many agencies are involved. Vice Chair Krueger mentioned the National Parks Jr. Ranger program would be a good model for the Town’s program. Commissioner Wilson suggested a workbook of sorts. Commissioner Casaus added it would be cost-effective to tie into technology and QR codes. She and Vice Chair Krueger added some type of reward would be a good idea. Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn will work with staff regarding QR codes. Commissioner Wilson brought up the topic of photos, and it was further discussed. Chair Biel thanked everyone for their input. DEPARTMENT UPDATE Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn indicated she made the corrections to the essay questions and they have been sent to all fourth grade teachers in the school district. She asked if anyone had leads on homeschool groups, private or charter schools to please contact her. The Garage rennovation and Pusch House alarm and fire supression projects have been awarded to Sellers and Sons. Mold and asbestos abatement is complete. Construction is scheduled to be finished before April 11 just in time for Celebrate Oro Valley where the official ribbon cutting will take place. October is very busy on the Ranch with concerts; hayrides every Saturday evening related to Arizona history; the Monster Mash Festival on the 8th will include kids games, booths, jumping castles, etc.; the return of second Saturdays during the daytime with music, art, Historical Society tours, children’s art project, and Archeology Southwest presentations. So many events is just one reason Steam Pump Ranch was designated the most visited park in Oro Valley. November 5th will be the last concert of the fall and 11/13 is the next Second Saturday. Rentals of the Ranch included 2 in September, one in October in conjunction with Farmer’s Market, 3 in November and 1 in December. She concluded that the November 1, 2021 meeting will need moved due to staff attending the Annual APRA Conference in Phoenix. November 8th was selected. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Motion by Commissioner Steve Hannestad, seconded by Vice Chair Stephanie Krueger to add to the agenda for November discussion and possible action regarding the Town History Records and Reports. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried Motion by Chair Dan Biel, seconded by Commissioner Steve Hannestad to continue discussion of the Oro Valley History on the Town's website with emphasis on implementation, additionally, each member will research and report on a different website providing recommendations of implementation and action. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried Motion by Commissioner Nicole Casaus, seconded by Commissioner Michael Wilson to add to the Motion by Commissioner Nicole Casaus, seconded by Commissioner Michael Wilson to add to the agenda for November discussion and possible action regarding Honeybee Village. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried ADJOURNMENT Motion by Chair Dan Biel, seconded by Commissioner Steve Hannestad to adjourn the meeting at 6:08 p.m. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 4th day of October 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. ___________________________ MaryAnne Tolmie Senior Office Specialist Historic Preservation Commission 1. Meeting Date:11/08/2021 Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM FOUR TOWN HISTORY RECORDS AND REPORTS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A motion was made at the October 4, 2021 meeting by Commissioner Steve Hannestad, seconded by Vice Chair Stephanie Krueger to add to the agenda for November discussion and possible action regarding the Town History Records and Reports. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Commissioner Hannestad will lead the discussion. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: Any action items will need a motion and a second, followed by a vote. I MOVE to approve.... Attachments CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN 2021 11 08 Item 1 Presentation Oro Valley Cultural Heritage Preservation Plan: Developing and Sustaining a Community Sense of Place Revised 2015 Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission Ellen Guyer, Chair Marilyn Lane, Vice Chair Dan Huff Dean Strandskov Jenni Sunshine Eric Thomae Connie Trail Town of Oro Valley Mayor Satish I. Hiremath, D.D.S Vice Mayor Lou Waters Council Member Brendan Burns Council Member William Garner Council Member Joe Hornat Council Member Mary Snider Council Member Mike Zinkin Revised 2014 Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission Ellen Guyer, Chair Dean Strandskov, Vice Chair Ed Hannon Marilyn Lane Eric Thomae Connie Trail Town of Oro Valley Mayor Satish I. Hiremath, D.D.S Vice Mayor Lou Waters Council Member Brendan Burns Council Member William Garner Council Member Joe Hornat Council Member Mary Snider Council Member Mike Zinkin Originally Prepared in 2011 Prepared by John C. Ravesloot, Ph.D., Scott O’Mack, M.A., and Patricia Spoerl, Ph.D. Submitted by John C. Ravesloot, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission Daniel Zwiener, Chair Lois Nagy, Vice Chair Barbara Campbell Ellen Guyer Ed Hannon Sam McClung, Ph.D. Valerie Pullara Town of Oro Valley Mayor Satish Hiremath Vice Mayor Mary Snider Council Member Bill Garner Council Member Barry Gillaspie Council Member Joe Hornat Council Member Steve Solomon Council Member Lou Waters WSA Technical Report No. 2011-18 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 A Guide for Implementation: Oro Valley Cultural Heritage Preservation Planning ........................ 2 1. Public Participation and Heritage Education .......................................................................... 2 2. Historic Steam Pump Ranch .................................................................................................... 3 3. Historic Neighborhoods .......................................................................................................... 3 4. Town History Records and Reports ....................................................................................... 4 5. Undeveloped Areas of the Town .......................................................................................................... 5 6. Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve ............................................................................ 5 Appendix A: The Legal Context for Historic Preservation ............................................................... 7 National Legislation, Guidance, and Support for Preservation Planning .................................... 7 State of Arizona Preservation Planning ....................................................................................... 8 Category 1, Toward Effective Management of Historic Resources ......................................... 9 Category 2, Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency ............................................. 9 Local Preservation Planning ........................................................................................................ 10 Appendix B: Status of Oro Valley Cultural Resources and Tools for their Management ............... 12 Archaeological Inventories ............................................................................................................ 12 Residential Neighborhood Surveys ........................................................................................... 13 National Register Nominations ................................................................................................. 16 Protection of Historic Properties............................................................................................... 17 Preservation Incentives ............................................................................................................. 17 Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Program ........................................................................................ 17 State Historic Property Tax Reclassification (SPT) for Owner-Occupied Homes .................... 18 Appendix C: References for Oro Valley Cultural Heritage Preservation Planning........................... 19 Appendix D: Helpful Online Historic Preservation References ...................................................... 20 This page intentionally left blank 1 INTRODUCTION Among the most important aspects of historic preservation today is ensuring that it is relevant to a community and will attract visitors—to learn about special places of the past, and to contribute to the overall economic sustainability of a community. Oro Valley holds unique and authentic cultural resources that can make places of the past come alive. In collaboration with partners, the Town can develop an exceptional cultural heritage program. This is a plan for preserving the special historic places of Oro Valley, and for maintaining an awareness and appreciation of its heritage within the community. This plan is a statement of the community’s goals for its historic properties and programs, and provides guidance to reach those goals. This plan provides a guide for moving forward in developing and maintaining historic properties and programs. Six components are identified, each of which contains suggested action items. The components are: public participation and heritage education; Historic Steam Pump Ranch; historic neighborhoods, Town history and records, undeveloped areas of the Town, and Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve. This plan emphasizes the importance of having preservation programs that are educational, operate at maximum efficiency, and take advantage of diverse funding and volunteer opportunities. A preservation plan is most effective when it is integrated with related local and regional plans and policies. This plan is flexible in bringing together citizens, interest groups, and local government to collaborate in preserving their shared heritage. The key to successful implementation is having informed policy makers who integrate Oro Valley’s cultural heritage in its social and economic development. 2 A GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION: ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLANNING The context for implementing this cultural heritage program plan includes six major components. It also incorporates the goals of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan described in Appendix A. Residential neighborhood surveys and future preservation incentives are included below because they apply directly to residents. As with all plans, this one should be seen as a flexible document that can be updated as warranted based on recommendations and involvement of the historic preservation commission, Town staff, Town council, and citizens. The six components are: public participation and heritage education; historic Steam Pump Ranch; historic neighborhoods, Town history and records, undeveloped areas of the town, and Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve. General responsibilities are identified below as Town staff (includes the Parks & Recreation Department, Development and Infrastructure Services, Communications Department, and the Town Manager’s staff), Historic Preservation Commission (seven member volunteer advisory board), and volunteers (individuals and organizations). These responsibilities may shift among staff and volunteers depending upon a specific program or project and are intended here only to provide general guidelines for implementation. The Historic Preservation Commission should review this plan annually. Based on this review, the Commission may make recommendations to Town staff and will coordinate this plan with the annual Historic Preservation Commission work plan. Town staff can review the plan and the commission’s recommendations and provide a summary to the Town Council. Many of the following components can be implemented in phases within the overall context of the Town’s cultural heritage program. Most are designed to require minimal expenditure of funds and maximum potential for partnerships. 1. Public Participation and Heritage Education Ongoing preservation education among a wide variety of audiences is essential to a successful historic preservation program and can be integrated and implemented, in most cases, with limited funds, into the Town’s existing programs and facilities. Literature describing the Town’s cultural resources in the form of a brochure has been designed and distributed to inform Oro Valley residents of the Town’s inventory and to encourage public participation in preservation. Information has also been made available on the Town’s website, which should be continuously updated. Public outreach should be considered as well and could include a lecture series, classroom curricula, special events and submission of stories in various publications. On site tours of Steam Pump Ranch are currently available and plan to continue. Public tours of Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve, the Cañada Del Oro trail and historic neighborhoods should be developed. A special collections section of the Town’s historic documents, records and reports, made available at the Pima County Public Library – Oro Valley Branch could also be considered. 3 The Historic Preservation Commission should work diligently to establish and foster relationships with the Oro Valley Historical Society, consultants, educators and other historic preservation organizations throughout southern Arizona to implement strategies to increase public participation and heritage education. 2. Historic Steam Pump Ranch The historic Steam Pump Ranch is an important part of the Town’s heritage. It is recognized nationally through a listing in the National Register of Historic Places; it is recognized locally in that Pima County voters approved expenditure in 2004 of $5 million for its acquisition for historic preservation and public use. Successful development of the Ranch is dependent on the citizens of Oro Valley becoming aware of and supporting the vital role the site can play in the community with an emphasis on local involvement and public access. The property provides an excellent locale for developing a “sense of place” for Oro Valley and holds economic viability as an educational facility, special event venue and heritage park. Partnerships will be a key element in maintenance of the property and providing public access. Documents pertaining to preservation and maintenance of the property include the Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley for Implementation of the 2004 Bond Issue Project for the Steam Pump Ranch Acquisition (2006), Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan (2007), and the Deed of Preservation Easement between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County (2008) (all in Appendix C). Of primary concern in the future is the protection of the historic core (as noted in the Master Plan) at the ranch. Town staff will coordinate with the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure that the integrity of the historic core is preserved at all times in accordance with state and national guidelines. Town staff should review the Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan periodically to ensure that it reflects current planning and should annually review the progress made on carrying out the recommendations in the Master Plan and report to the Town Council and the Historic Preservation Commission. Town staff will annually review the progress being made on carrying out the recommendations of the Master Plan and report to the Town Council and Historic Preservation Commission. 3. Historic Neighborhoods The Town of Oro Valley was incorporated in 1974. The first subdivision was platted in 1930. Construction of residential neighborhoods generally did not occur until the late 1950’s. Nineteen subdivisions were platted before 1974. (Actual development is not always associated with the plat date). Subdivisions that have reached or will be reaching the 50 year old threshold for consideration as historically significant are identified in Rock Art, Ranch and Residence. Individual buildings with possible historical significance are also noted. The Oro Valley Historic Preservation Ordinance (Article 6-10) outlines the process for local landmarks and neighborhood district designations. 4 A. The Historic Preservation Commission will concentrate some of its’ educational outreach on the Town’s historic neighborhoods. These neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, Oro Valley estates, Suffolk Hills, Campo Bello, and Shadow Mountain Estates. B. The Historic Preservation Commission and Town staff will participate in outreach to highlight historic districts, neighborhood and individual properties and explain the process/benefits of designation. The Commission and Town, including the Planning and Zoning department, will encourage Oro Valley residents to contact them regarding properties they may own or have knowledge of that need to be preserved. C. The Historic Preservation Commission (and other interested community members) will pursue inventory of neighborhood historic districts/structures as identified in Rock Art, Ranch and Residence. “Windshield surveys” could be a first step in identifying such districts/structures. D. Town staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, volunteers and consultants (as appropriate) should consider developing tours of historic neighborhoods/areas of the Town to focus attention on community heritage. An example would be walking tours of James D. Kriegh Park, Canyon Del Oro High School or Catalina Shadows development and their role in establishing the Town of Oro Valley. E. The Town will consider financial incentives related to historic preservation, heritage tourism and education as part of the annual budget process. 4. Town History Records and Reports A Town’s archives contain primary source documents that have accumulated over the course of time and are kept to show the function of the town. Archives are records that have been naturally and necessarily generated as a product of regular legal, commercial, administrative or social activities. Archives provide a basis for the proper understanding of the past that is important to inform as the town develops. Archives are a special resource for dealing with the social memory of the town. Town Historian Marjorie Kriegh maintained records of the Town’s incorporation in 1974 through 1977. These records reflect the fight for annexation and Oro Valley’s ultimate success. The Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission encourages development and maintenance of a record archive. All documented history is now being housed at Town facilities. A centralized archive for cultural resources reports and maps acquired from individual development projects that are currently scattered in specific project files should be created. Due to sensitive site information, this archive may only be made available for public use only on a case‐by case basis. The Historic Preservation Commission with the assistance of Town staff should prepare an annual report on accomplishments for the prior year to be included in the archive. This report should also serve as the required annual report to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office to maintain certified local government status. As part of the archive maintenance process, the Historic Preservation Commission should update the Town’s inventory on a yearly basis. 5 The Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance states that the Historic Preservation Commission shall maintain a list of known significant cultural resources for consideration in planning of current and future development. The Town was to develop this list, based on the Cultural Resources Inventory, in 2012. The Historic Preservation Commission, as part of the centralized archive, must ensure that the list was developed and is being maintained. In cooperation with the Historic Preservation Commission, the Town needs to develop and maintain a list based on the Cultural Resources Inventory. 5. Undeveloped Areas of the Town The Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance applies to cultural resources in undeveloped areas and to all developments that require a rezoning, preliminary plat, development plan or amendment to these items. It provides for the conservation of significant cultural resources in concert with other sensitive resources. Some areas available for development contain known archaeological sites as identified in Rock Art, Ranch and Residence. The ordinance provides a sound basis for identification, evaluation, and treatment of known sites as well as ones that may be discovered in the future. Using the standard cultural review process, Town of Oro Valley staff should review existing cultural resources data compiled in the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Inventory report to provide a preliminary knowledge base when stipulations are proposed for future developments. The Town will review cultural resources information obtained during the process of future site development within Town boundaries to determine the potential for public interpretation and education. The Town will also consider the value of prehistoric and historic resources in potential annexations. The Historic Preservation Commission may review cultural resources reports and may provide information and recommendations to Town staff. 6. Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve The 13-acre Honey Bee Village Archeological preserve was donated to Pima County in 2008 with the intent it be transferred to the Town when an agreement on management is reached. At publication Pima County was the owner of this property. The Preserve was part of the 2004 Pima County Bond. The main area of this Hohokam site is to be preserved for public use. The Tohono O’odham Nation and Oro Valley funded construction of a protective wall around the Preserve. The area remains inaccessible and unused for walking, education and observation of past cultural traditions. A. In cooperation with Pima County, the Town will maintain a regular program of inspection of the Preserve by Arizona Site Stewards. B. The Historic Preservation Commission will monitor ongoing developments at Honey Bee Village Archeological Preserve. C. Future actions at the Preserve will include ongoing clean-up of the site by the appropriate responsible entities. 6 Linking tourism and preservation can do more for local economies, tourism and preservation than promoting them separately. Heritage tourism saves and preserves your heritage. Share it with visitors and reap the economic benefits. As noted in the introduction, Oro Valley holds unique and authentic cultural resources which make places of the past come alive. This Guide for Implementation sets the stage to make Oro Valley’s history “come alive”. 7 APPENDIX A: THE LEGAL CONTEXT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION National Legislation, Guidance, and Support for Preservation Planning The National Historic Preservation Act (Act) of 1966, as amended, is the basis of historic preservation in the United States. The Act established the value of historic properties to the public. Its major provisions apply at the local, state, tribal, and national levels and guide historic preservation and cultural resources management today. The Act encouraged the establishment of state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) in each state, and partnerships among federal, tribal, state, and local governments. Today all 50 states have a state historic preservation office that serves as the primary contact for local governments and through which federal funding for state and local partnerships passes. The Act established a Certified Local Government (CLG) program. The main purpose was to provide a mechanism for local governments to carry out the purposes of the Act. Certification is delegated to the SHPOs along with the responsibility for transferring federal and state grant funds to local certified governments. The Town of Oro Valley (Town) was granted CLG status by the Arizona SHPO and U.S. Department of Interior in May 2009. To obtain, and retain, CLG status a local government must meet specific requirements including: an ordinance to ensure that there is local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties; a qualified historic preservation commission; maintenance of a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties in accordance with the Act; and provisions for public participation in the local historic preservation program. The Act established a consultation process (Section 106) whereby federal agencies, and other entities using federal funds, must consult with SHPOs on the potential impacts to historic properties and their significance before any federal undertaking. This process is standard at all levels of government and is clearly articulated at the state and national levels. It is described in various ways at the local level. In Oro Valley the process is acknowledged in zoning codes and the recently passed Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. The Act also created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As an independent federal agency, the Advisory Council deals with federal properties or those impacted by federally funded projects. It also carries out the Preserve America initiative whereby local communities can apply for funds for historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Perhaps the best-known provision of the Act was the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places as the official list of the nation’s historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National Park Service administers National Register listings. In 2011, almost 87,000 properties are listed in the National Register. Nominations can be made by individuals, organizations, local governments, state governments, or the federal government. The criteria of significance for National Register nominations (specified in the Act) are the basis for determining the importance of historic properties at all levels of government and management. 8 The State of Arizona adopted the National Register criteria for evaluating cultural resources in Arizona, and the Town includes consideration of these criteria in the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. The criteria of significance are: A. association with historic events or activities; B. association with an important person in history; C. distinctive design or physical character; and D. potential to provide important information about prehistory or history. Significant properties must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association as defined in the Act, and generally be at least 50 years old. Determinations of significance are made by archaeologists, historians, historic architects, or other preservation professionals depending upon the nature of the property being evaluated. Determinations of historic significance do not necessarily dictate future treatment of cultural resources and they are distinct from the decision-making processes for treatment at the local, state, and national levels. Determining a course of action regarding historic properties frequently involves consideration of treatments ranging from preservation in place (preferred) to the mitigation of adverse impacts. State of Arizona Preservation Planning The Arizona SHPO prepared a comprehensive preservation plan for the state in 1996. The Plan was updated in 2000, 2009 and again in 2014 with the involvement of agencies, special interest groups, and citizens (Appendix C). Participants in the planning process identified, and have validated in updates, four principal needs to further the cause of preservation in Arizona: -- A need to strengthen partnerships between government agencies, advocacy groups, businesses, and the public. -- A need for Arizona’s citizens to become more aware of the value of our history and opportunities for historic preservation. -- A need for appropriate information about Arizona’s historic resources to be available to those making decisions about the future. -- A need for the public to continue to be engaged on questions regarding the identification, nomination, and protection of historic resources. The initial plan identified eight goals for historic preservation in Arizona that have been confirmed in the updates. The goals are grouped into two general categories: those related to the identification and management of cultural resources, and those related to preservation professionals, interested members of the public, and elected and appointed officials involved in historic preservation decision-making. The plan identifies objectives for each goal: (1) the preservation community; (2) the SHPO; and, (3) citizens at large. These are not repeated here but are an excellent reference as they relate to the action plan developed in Appendix B. The Arizona state goals are: 9 Category 1, Toward Effective Management of Historic Resources Goal 1: Better Resource Management Vision: Having a partnership of public and private programs that work together to identify, evaluate, nominate, and treat historic properties in an interdisciplinary and professional manner; and to use historic properties to meet contemporary needs and/or inform citizens with regard to history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Goal 2: Effective Information Management Vision: Having a cooperative data management system that efficiently compiles and tracks information regarding historic properties, preservation methods and programs, projects and opportunities; and provides the means to make this information readily available to appropriate users. Goal 3: Maximized Funding Vision: Having preservation programs that operate at maximum efficiency and support networks that take advantage of diverse funding and volunteer opportunities. Goal 4: Integrated Preservation Planning Vision: Having preservation principles and priorities fully integrated into broader planning efforts of state and federal agencies, local governments, and private development to help achieve the goals of historic preservation, including sustainable economic and community development. Category 2, Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency Goal 5: Proactive Partnerships Vision: Having a strong preservation network of agency, tribal, county, community, and advocate partners that communicate preservation values and share preservation programs with the broader Arizona community, its institutions, and individuals. Goal 6: Public Support Vision: Having an educated and informed public that embraces Arizona’s unique history, places, and cultures, and is motivated to help preserve the state’s historical patrimony. Goal 7: Policy Maker Support Vision: Having informed policy makers that appreciate the importance of historic properties to the economic, social, historical, and cultural development of the state, counties, and communities. Goal 8: Informed Professionals Vision: Having a full range of educational programs that are available to both established and new preservation professionals to ensure that the highest standards of treatment and identification are applied to the state’s historic properties. 10 Familiarity with these goals and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2009 is essential for Oro Valley in order to provide a broader framework for planning consistent with state priorities. Local Preservation Planning It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the Town of Oro Valley joins with the United States of America and the State of Arizona in promoting the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of properties, areas, documents, and artifacts of historic, cultural, archaeological, and aesthetic significance as being necessary for the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public. This is done pursuant to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended, the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.01, and the establishment of this Historic Preservation Ordinance by the Oro Valley Town Council. (Purpose. Historic Preservation Ordinance Article 6-10). Oro Valley is a relatively young town, created in response to the city of Tucson plans to annex much of northern Pima County along the Canada del Oro. At the time of its incorporation in 1974 the Town encompassed 2.5 square miles and was home to about 800 residents. Today, the Town encompasses more than 36 square miles and has a population of over 44,000. Ranching and homesteading traditions still exist in this modern dynamic community that provides full public services. The Town currently has guidance for cultural resources and preservation planning in the Town’s General Plan Focus 2020 (2005), the Town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Ordinance, several zoning ordinances, and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. These policies and direction are integrated into the preservation plan and are available in Appendix C. One of the most important elements in relation to preservation planning is the identification of local community criteria to be applied in evaluations of cultural resources as well as use of the National Register criteria. Cultural resources are significant locally “if the resource is preserved in a condition of scientific integrity and the property or resources contribute to: a) the unique identity of the community; or b) the enhancement of community economic, educational, or recreational needs; or c) the understanding of the unique religious, mythological, or social character of a discrete population within or outside the community” (Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 27 - General Development Standards, Section 27.10 – Environmentally Sensitive Lands (e(v)2(ii)). Current Oro Valley preservation planning is based on the report from the Oro Valley Cultural Resources Inventory, Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley and Its Planning Area, approved by the Town Council in May 2010 (Appendix C). The inventory consolidates available information on cultural resources, includes a review of archival records, and provides substantial data about prehistoric sites, historic neighborhoods, and general 11 historic patterns of occupation and use in the area. A series of historic contexts are defined for evaluating the significance of cultural resources in the Oro Valley area. The Town endorses the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (Town Council approval 2008) and has participated in planning for the proposed Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area designation currently being considered by Congress. The Town lies within Pima County and coordinates as needed on historic preservation matters. The County’s bond program has been instrumental in the Town’s acquisition of the historic Steam Pump Ranch and in preserving a portion of the Honey Bee Village archaeological site in public ownership. Restoration of historic ranching sites and preservation of irreplaceable at-risk archaeological sites are priorities for County efforts to preserve the heritage of Pima County and southern Arizona. Appendix B builds on the legal context for historic preservation by providing cultural resources strategies for effective management and action items for the local community. The underlying themes are an attempt to foster a community-wide commitment to preserving important places of our past, developing a comprehensive toolbox to engage and educate residents, and highlighting opportunities for sustainable cultural resources management. 12 APPENDIX B: STATUS OF ORO VALLEY CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TOOLS FOR THEIR MANAGEMENT AS OF 2015 Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley and Its Planning Area is a useful summary of previous efforts to document cultural resources in the Town and its planning area, but it also shows the substantial gaps in our knowledge of these resources. As an important example, only about 35 percent of the Oro Valley Planning Area has been systematically surveyed for archaeological sites, and much of that work took place more than 10 years ago. Because the Arizona SHPO considers any archaeological survey more than 10 years old to be inadequate for evaluating the current archaeological potential of a location (and this is echoed in the Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance), the actual total survey coverage in the Oro Valley Planning Area should be considered substantially less than 35 percent. Although many previously surveyed areas are now fully developed for residential or commercial use, which means they are unlikely to require archaeological survey in the future, a significant portion of the Town and its planning area remain archaeologically unstudied. Another obvious gap in our knowledge of Oro Valley’s cultural resources is the general lack of information about potentially historic residential architecture in the Town. Although Oro Valley did not incorporate until 1974, its land base has a significant amount of residential architecture that is at least 50 years old and is therefore potentially historic. Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence included preliminary examination of seven of the earliest residential developments in the Town, four of which are considered potential candidates for nomination to the National Register as residential historic districts. Field documentation of these neighborhoods, along with more historical research, will be required to pursue formal evaluations of historical significance and possible nomination, but it is clear from the initial work that these (and soon other) early residential developments in Oro Valley are potentially valuable parts of the community’s heritage. Oro Valley can build on previous efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect cultural resources in the Town by using five basic tools: (1) archaeological inventories; (2) residential neighborhood surveys; (3) National Register nominations; (4) protection of historic properties; and (5) preservation incentives. Each of these tools is discussed briefly below. Further discussion of the ways these tools can be applied in Oro Valley is provided in Appendix B, along with a list of specific preservation priorities in the Town. Archaeological Inventories To avoid unanticipated damage to archaeological resources, proposed ground-disturbing projects in Oro Valley should be preceded by an evaluation of the archaeological potential of the affected parcel by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior standards. The principal basis of an evaluation is an inventory of the archaeological sites either previously recorded or newly recorded in a survey conducted for the proposed project. In some cases, the inventory will be limited to a search of the records of previous archaeological surveys and previously recorded archaeological sites, along with a consideration of previous disturbances to the parcel. In other cases, the inventory will require a walking survey of the affected parcel. Archival research may also be necessary to evaluate the possibility that historic-period archaeological features are present on the parcel. 13 Archaeological evaluation is necessary both for projects on previously undeveloped parcels and for projects where the parcel has already seen development. In many cases, a previous development project, such as the construction of a building or a set of buildings, will have greatly reduced or eliminated the archaeological potential of a parcel, but even on parcels where the original ground surface has been completely altered or obscured, intact archaeological features may still exist below the level of construction impacts. While the Town is often limited to evaluating the potential impacts of individual, relatively small development projects on archaeological resources, a more cost-effective way to ensure that significant resources are not compromised is to carry out a systematic archaeological inventory of a large area. Oro Valley and its planning area still hold substantial areas of undeveloped land which are likely to become the focus of plans for large residential or commercial developments. The development of such areas presents an opportunity both to document an extensive area archaeologically and to incorporate a plan for the protection and interpretation of significant cultural resources into the overall plan of development. In all cases, inventory and evaluation of archaeological and historic resources should include consideration of the historic contexts identified for Oro Valley in Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence. For prehistoric sites the contexts are cultural affiliation and interaction, chronology, diet and subsistence, and community organization. For historic sites the contexts include early transportation routes and the Canada del Oro crossing, cattle ranching and homesteading in the Canada del Oro area (1869–1962), and early residential development in the Cañada del Oro area (1945–1974). Residential Neighborhood Surveys The initial survey of residential architecture carried out for Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence showed that four of the earliest subdivisions in the Town are potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register as residential historic districts and should be considered for historic district designation, consistent with the Town’s historic preservation ordinance. They are: Oro Valley Estates, Suffolk Hills, Campo Bello, and Shadow Mountain Estates. The report recommended that the Town consider nominating each of the four subdivisions to the National Register, with the consent and cooperation of the residents. Because of the preliminary nature of the inventory survey, it is not certain that the SHPO will agree that any of the four subdivisions is appropriate for a National Register nomination. Before deciding to pursue a nomination, which can be a significant expense, a determination of eligibility should be made for a selected subdivision by the SHPO. Obtaining a determination of eligibility involves contacting the SHPO, providing a minimal level of documentation about the selected subdivision, and arranging for the SHPO staff to visit and tour the subdivision. If the SHPO determines that the subdivision is eligible for listing in the National Register, a nomination is warranted. Local designations may also be pursued at this time. The number of subdivisions in Oro Valley that are potentially eligible for listing in the National Register will only rise as other neighborhoods reach the minimum requirement for district 14 eligibility—when at least 50 percent of the houses are at least 50 years old. Determining the National Register eligibility of a neighborhood beyond the simple age requirement requires a survey by an architectural historian, or by non-historians under the direction of an architectural historian. 15 16 The survey for determining eligibility can consist of a “windshield” survey, or a preliminary pass to establish the range of architectural styles and landscape features present in the neighborhood as well as the general degree of integrity of both the architecture and the original subdivision plan. National Register Nominations There are a number of reasons for the Town to encourage the nomination of historic properties to the National Register, whether the property is an archaeological site, a historic district, or an individual building. First, when a historic property is listed in the National Register, it achieves a special recognition as a place of importance in local, state, or national history, thus strengthening the community’s awareness of, and pride in, its unique heritage. Second, properties i n the National Register are granted a degree of protection from impacts by federally funded or permitted projects, because all such impacts are subject to review and comment by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Finally, there are significant tax incentives for the owners of properties listed in the National Register. It is important to emphasize that listing a property in the National Register does not prevent the owner of the property from remodeling, repairing, altering, selling, or even demolishing the property, provided that the action does not involve federal or state funding or permitting. Neither is the owner obligated to make repairs or improvements to the property. It is equally important to emphasize that listing in the National Register does not ensure that a federal or state project will not adversely affect the listed property under every circumstance. It only ensures that any project with a potentially adverse effect, and that receives federal or state funding or permitting, will receive a federal- or state-level review. Currently, only one property in Oro Valley is listed in the National Register—Steam Pump Ranch, a historic ranch complex established in the 1870s. Other properties have been determined eligible for listing (e.g., the Honey Bee Village archaeological site), and others have been identified as most likely eligible. As Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence made clear, this small number of listed properties belies the number of important archaeological and historic sites previously recorded in the Town and its planning area. Of the 185 previously recorded sites in the planning area, six others have been determined eligible for listing and another 29 have been recommended eligible for listing by their recorders. Many of the recorded sites have never been evaluated, and some have probably been destroyed by development since they were recorded. But there is little question that other sites in the Town and its planning area, both previously recorded sites and sites yet to be discovered, are eligible for listing in the National Register. In the Oro Valley Cultural Resources Inventory, four neighborhoods in the Town were recommended for nomination to the National Register as residential historic districts, provided that the SHPO gave a determination of eligibility to each neighborhood. Given a determination of eligibility, the Town should approach the neighborhood association for the subdivision, or the residents themselves, and recommend that a nomination be prepared. The nomination process, which includes writing a detailed historic context for the subdivision and preparing SHPO historic building inventory forms for all of the houses, could be funded directly by the Town, by contributions from the neighborhood residents, or by a combination of these sources. When each resident 17 contributes a portion of the nomination cost, individual contributions are usually smaller when the neighborhood is large, because much of the expense of a nomination is in the historic context, which is generally the same for any size of neighborhood. In other words, the per-house cost of a nomination declines as the number of houses increases. There are also individual buildings in Oro Valley worthy of nomination. Two architect-designed residences—the Countess of Suffolk Forest Lodge and the Joseph E. McAdams house—predate planned developments in the Town and are important as individual architectural properties. Both residences merit nomination to the National Register. This would require the consent and cooperation of the separate private owners but would benefit the larger community by drawing attention to the presence of important historic architecture in the Town. The Town can also make an effort to identify and nominate other individual properties of distinction. Protection of Historic Properties Archaeological sites are the historic properties most vulnerable to unintentional damage through development or natural processes, or through intentional damage by vandalism. It is fortunate that Honey Bee Village, a major prehistoric site, is protected in public ownership and by physical barriers to access, but other important prehistoric and historic sites exist in the Town that also need protection. An important first step in protecting these sites would be to assess the potential threats to each site and establish a priority list for taking protective measures that can be made with the consent and cooperation of the property owners. Historic architecture, especially if left unoccupied or unused for any length of time, is also subject to damage through natural processes and vandalism. As with archaeological sites, the Town can identify individual buildings that are or may soon be historic, assess the possible threats to the historic integrity of the buildings, and establish a priority list for taking protective measures, again with the consent and cooperation of the property owners. In some cases, property owners are unaware of the historic value of buildings when making decisions about modifications. Community education is important to reduce this risk. Preservation Incentives State and federal tax incentives are available for the owners of National Register–listed properties that meet certain criteria. Full information about the state and federal programs behind these incentives is available from the SHPO, but the main features are described in the following paragraphs adapted from the SHPO website (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/tax.html). Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Program The ITC program permits owners and some lessees of historic buildings to take a 20 percent federal income tax credit on the cost of rehabilitating such buildings for industrial, commercial, or rental purposes. This program also permits depreciation of such improvements over 27.5 years for a rental residential property and 31.5 years for commercial property. The rehabilitated building 18 must be a certified historic structure that is subject to depreciation, and the rehabilitation must be certified as meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, established by the National Park Service (NPS). Only projects involving certified historic structures are eligible for tax credits. According to program rules, a certified historic structure is: a structure individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or; a structure certified by NPS as contributing to a registered district. A registered district is a designated area listed in the National Register, or listed under a state or local statute certified as substantially meeting the requirements for listing of districts in the National Register. State Historic Property Tax Reclassification (SPT) for Owner-Occupied Homes The State Historic Property Tax (SPT) program offers a substantial reduction in the state property tax assessment for eligible owners. This 15-year agreement requires maintenance of the property according to federal and Arizona State Parks Board standards and is limited to property used for non-income-producing activities. In order to qualify for the SPT program, the property must be listed in the National Register, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district. The program is managed by the SHPO in conjunction with Arizona’s county assessor’s offices. The SHPO determines program eligibility and monitors property maintenance, and the county assessor enacts tax classification changes, manages issues of property value, and tax calculation. Properties must meet the minimum maintenance standards established by the Arizona State Parks Board. Achieving the goals of the Oro Valley historic preservation planning will require a sustained and systematic effort on the part of the Town to identify and evaluate its known and yet to be recorded cultural resources. The above items provide the broad parameters within which specific actions, described in Appendix A, can be carried out. 19 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES FOR ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLANNING (DOCUMENTS INCLUDED ON CD) 1. Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley and its Planning Area. Prepared by Scott O’Mack. William Self Associates Technical Report No. 2009-51, January 2010. --Recommend inclusion on Town of Oro Valley website for Cultural Resources (excluding site listing tables). 2. Oro Valley Historic Preservation Ordinance—Historic Preservation Code (06/20) Article 6-10. Adopted 10/04/2006. --http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/ 3. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance, Section 27.10 --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/_assets/DIS/Planning/pdf/ESL+Final+Draft.pdf 4. Focus 2020, The Future In Balance, Town of Oro Valley General Plan, 2005 --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=4955 5. Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/_assets/parks_rec/PDF/SPR_Draft_April+7.pdf 6. Deed of Preservation Easement between the Town of Oro Valley, a municipal corporation (Grantor), and Pima County, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona (Grantee) for the Steam Pump Ranch property. 2008. --Recommend adding Easement to Town’s cultural resources website (18 pages). 7. Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley for the Implementation of the 2004 Pima County Bond Issue Project for the Steam Pump Ranch Acquisition. 2006. --Recommend adding to Town’s cultural resources website (16 pages) 8. National Register of Historic Places National Register Nomination. 9. Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve Implementation Plan. February 2007 --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/_assets/residents/Culture_and_History/pdf/ honeybee-plan.pdf 10. Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan. Update 2009. --http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/downloads/SHPO_Plan_2009_Final.pdf APPENDIX D: HELPFUL ONLINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REFERENCES 20 Note. References on prehistory and history of the Oro Valley area can be found in Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence (2010). 1. Historical Archaeology Research Guide. Compiled by James E. Ayres, Carol Griffith, and Teresita Majewski with contributions by the SHPO Advisory Committee on Historical Archaeology. http://azstateparks.com/publications/downloads/SHPO_2008_Historical_Archy_Guide.pdf 2. Arizona Heritage Preservation Education Materials. By Carol J. Ellick: An annotated bibliography of archaeological, architectural, and preservation education materials relating to Arizona for grades K–12. http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/downloads/SHPO_Biblio_AHP.pdf 3. Arizona Historical Society educational materials. http://www.arizonahistoricalsociety.org/education/educators/t_resources/ 4. Arizona Memory Project. http://azmemory.lib.az.us/ 5. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html 6. Historic Context Study Guides: These publications compile research and evaluation of several topics that are key to understanding Arizona history, prehistory, and resources. Topics include Homesteading, Commerce in Phoenix, Gold and Silver Mining, the Chinese in Arizona, the United States Military in Arizona, Transcontinental Railroading, Prehistoric Rock Art, Historic Trails, Prehistoric to Historic Transition Period, Paleoindian and Archaic Sites, and Prehistoric Water Utilization and Technology in Arizona. The guides are available from the SHPO. (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html) 7. National Register of Historic Places General Information. http://www.nps.gov/nr/ 8. National Register listings and nomination procedures. http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ 9. National Register information bulletins. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/#bulletins Historic preservation laws and regulations. http://www.nps.gov/history/laws.htm 10. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan www.pima.gov/CMO/SDCP/ Town History Records and Reports Presentation by Stephen Hannestad Four States of Knowledge Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara Known Unknown We know what we know Known Unknown We don’t know what we know We know what we don't know We don’t know what we don’t know Historic Preservation Commission 2. Meeting Date:11/08/2021 Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND PROPOSED CHANGES TO STAFF REGARDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A motion at the October 4, 2021 meeting was made by Chair Dan Biel, seconded by Commissioner Steve Hannestad to continue discussion of the Oro Valley History on the Town's website with emphasis on implementation, additionally, each member will research and report on a different website providing recommendations of implementation and action. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Chair Biel will lead this discussion. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: Any action items will need a motion and a second, followed by a vote. I MOVE to approve.... Attachments 2021 11 08 Item 2 Chair Biel Presentation Historic Preservation Commission 3. Meeting Date:11/08/2021 Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO: RECOMMEND PROPOSED CHANGES TO STAFF REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM SIX HONEYBEE VILLAGE ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVE AS IT PERTAINS TO PRE-HISTORIC FEATURES AND USES; a. POSSIBLY RECOMMEND THAT STAFF REQUEST TOWN COUNCIL PURSUE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE PRE-HISTORIC FEATURES ARE LOCATED. b. RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A motion was made at the October 4, 2021 meeting by Commissioner Nicole Casaus, seconded by Commissioner Michael Wilson to add to the agenda for November discussion and possible action regarding Honeybee Village. Vote: 6 - 0 Carried. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Commissioner Casaus will lead the discussion. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: Any action items will need a motion and a second, followed by a vote. I MOVE to approve.... Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Date:11/08/2021 Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Mrs. Dellerman-Silverthorn will provide the report and conclude with the next HPC meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 6, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. in the Hopi Room. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A