Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout65B - HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSIONREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 7, 2020 TITLE CONSIDER OPTIONS RELATED TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION /s/ Kristine Ridge CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTIONS CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: ❑ As Recommended ❑ As Amended ❑ Ordinance on 1sl Reading ❑ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ❑ Implementing Resolution ❑ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Authorize staff to develop policies for establishing neighborhoods that will be identified as Historically Sensitive Areas (HAS). 2. Approve a heightened administrative review process for buildings within a Historically Sensitive Area (HAS). 3. Authorize staff to prepare amendments to the Santa Ana Municipal Code that will allow the Historic Resources Commission the ability to impose conditions of approval on historic applications and increase the frequency of meetings. 4. Authorize staff to complete a comprehensive update to the Single -Family, Multiple Family and Historic Structures Chapters of the Citywide Design Guidelines. 5. Authorize staff to prepare a Citywide Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. SUMMARY On April 7, 2020, staff presented a memorandum (Exhibit 1) outlining a list of recommendations from the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) for City Council consideration. The City Council held a discussion and directed staff to return within 90 days and present a course of action for each HRC recommendation based on Council's input. In response to the feedback received from the City Council, staff is recommending to implement several changes. Table 1 on the following page summarizes the key issues addressed by the Historic Resources Commission and staff's recommendations. Table 1: HRC Action Items 65B-1 HRC Memo Update July 7, 2020 Page 2 Issue Staff Recommendation 1. Allow HRC to review non -historic Create Historic Preservation Section within the Planning demolitions/ alterations for Division; Adopt a Historic Preservation Element of the structures 50 years or older and General Plan; Enhance review of structures that are 50 place conditions on applications years or older; Modify the SAMC to allow the HRC to add conditions of approval to historic applications. 2. Increase Frequency of Meetings Modify the SAMC and HRC bylaws to increase the number of meetings from four to six per year. 3. Allow HRC Participation on No change to either Commission. Planning Commission 4. Reduce Application Fees Reduce the self -nomination fee from $3,507.48 to $500 and the Mills Act fee from $3,507.48 to $2,500. 5. Establish Historically Sensitive Reinstitute and formalize the Historically Sensitive Neighborhoods Program Neighborhood Program. 6. Preserve Historic Trees Prepare a Citywide Tree Preservation ordinance for adoption. DISCUSSION Historic Resources Commission Powers and Duties and Historic Sensitive Areas (HSA) (HRC Issues 1 & 5) The HRC requests that the City Council extend HRC's powers and duties as outlined in Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) Chapter 30 to Historically Sensitive Areas as follows: A. Expand HRC purview to eligible or potentially eligible historic structures; B. Expand HRC purview to review and approve all demolitions and alterations to any structure over 50 years of age (regardless of designation or eligibility); C. Designate Historic Sensitive Areas and protect the character and integrity of these neighborhoods; and D. Expand HRC authority to impose conditions of approval on all historic applications (Certificates of Appropriateness, Historical Property Listing, and Mills Act Agreements). Discussion Reaardina the Powers and Duties of the Historic Resources Commission There are approximately 57,218 structures within the City. Of the total, 44,699 (75%) are over 50 years old. As a built -out City, the numbers of buildings becoming 50 years or older will increase with time and the number of new buildings will decrease. Table 2 below provides an overview of the City's existing building inventory. Table 2: Existina Buildina Inventor Age of Building Residential Residential Accessory Buildings ll % Over 50 Years 31,263 1,962 9,474 42,699 75% Less Than 50 8,393 2,968 3,158 14,519 25% Years Total 1 39,656 1 4,930 12,632 1 57,218 100% 65B-2 HRC Memo Update July 7, 2020 Page 3 A review of annual building permit activities indicates that on average the City issues 3,190 building permits annually. Of these permits, 210 are for new construction and 2,980 are for construction or modifications of existing buildings. The majority (93%) of the permits are issued to properties with structures 50 years or older and are generally issued over the counter. Comparatively, there are currently 663 designated historic properties in the City subject to the provisions of Chapter 30. Annually, the City receives on average two to three applications for the addition or modifications to historic properties. Based on the current process, the administrative processing of an application for a historic property takes about five days to complete. However, the overall review period takes about six weeks before an application is reviewed by the HRC. Based on these findings, staff believes that the HRC's requested changes will have significant timing implications for approximately 75% of structures within the City. The concerns raised and solutions recommended by the HRC are oriented to ensuring that neighborhood characteristics are maintained; new construction or modifications to structures are reviewed for context sensitivity with adjacent developments and neighborhood consistency; and that design integrity, material quality, and complementing landscape features are maintained. The discussions by the HRC focused on nine specific HSAs which included Pacific Park, Floral Park, West Floral Park, Jack Fisher Park, Wilshire Square, Park Santiago, Morrison Park, Washington Square and Heninger Park. These HSAs are largely associated with a concentration of historic properties. A mapping of the existing 663 designated properties within the City confirms that the overwhelming majority of the historic properties are located in these HSAs and affirms the City Council directions to evaluate a focused approach, rather than a general application of the threshold (Exhibit 2). Staff Recommendations (Items A — C) It is recommended that staff take a multi -facet approach with immediate, mid-term, and long-term implementation measures as outlined below: • Establish new planning section, Historic Preservation Section (HPS) with the Planning Division whose focus is to enhance historic preservation and to elevate the review of development projects with historic preservation issues (immediate measure). • Update the building permit system to flag any structure over 50 years of age within the City that may require appropriate review and approval by the HPS and as applicable, by the HRC (immediate measure) • Require the completion of a supplement survey form requiring information regarding the age of the building for all new construction, modifications, and demolition requests, with buildings over 50 years old and located within a HSA to be routed to HPS staff for heightened review and processing (immediate measure). • Facilitate the further identification and characterization of neighborhoods where historic properties are concentrated for identification as an HSA. These HSAs will be incorporated and implemented as part of the general plan policies within the proposed new Historic Preservation Element to be considered as part of general plan update. In addition, these policies could be integrated into the various elements of the general plan including the Urban Design, Land Use, and Housing Elements to guide identification of neighborhoods where historic properties are concentrated and to formally designate such neighborhoods as an HSA. These policies and guidelines could be developed through a series of workshops and joint study sessions involving local stakeholders and City commissioners that may include L• HRC Memo Update July 7, 2020 Page 4 the Historic Resources Commissioners and Planning Commissioners, among others. (mid- term measure) • Update Chapter 6 (Residential Guidelines) and Chapter 13 (Historic Structures Guidelines) of the Citywide Design Guidelines to develop new guidelines and standards for new infill- development projects or additions, establishing criteria for the heightened review of non - designated structures, and outlining a revised administrative design review and approval process (mid-term measure). • Establish a local district designation program to provide the opportunity and process for HSAs and neighborhoods to work with the HRC and staff and facilitate the designation of Local Historic Districts and formalize preservation goals, policies, and procedures (long- term measure). Discussion and Recommendations Regarding Items D It is recommended that Section 30-6 of the SAMC be modified to allow the HRC the ability to impose conditions of approval on historic applications (short-term measure). This action will be brought back to the Council within 90 days. Historic Resources Commission Bylaws (HRC Issue 2) The HRC requested that the HRC Bylaws be amended to allow a streamlined process of placing discussion items on the HRC agenda. Discussion Regarding Frequency of HRC Meetings Increasing the frequency of the meetings will enable time sensitive items and topics of interest to be placed on the HRC agenda. In addition, formalizing the ability for the Chair of the Commission or staff to request a special meeting will facilitate unanticipated matters that warrant discussion by the HRC. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the HRC Bylaws be modified to increase the frequency of meetings from quarterly to six meetings a year (every other month) and to formalize the ability for the Chair or staff to call for a special meeting. This action will also require an amendment to Section 2-372 of the SAMC to change the frequency of meetings to be aligned with the Bylaws. This action will be brought back to the Council within 90 days. Historic Resources Commission Member to Planning Commission (HRC Issue 3) The HRC requests that the City Council amend SAMC Section 2-350 to require an HRC member be appointed to the Planning Commission as a non -full voting member (i.e., only voting on historically related items). Discussion Regarding Structure of Planning Commission The HRC consists of nine members, two of which are representatives from the Planning Commission (PC) and the Community Redevelopment and Housing Commission (CRHC). The intent of this structure was to allow each representative to advise and make recommendations to their corresponding commissions regarding potentially historical projects and properties and vice - versa. Through this existing formal structure, the HRC can work with the representative of each Commission and provide HRC input and feedback to their respective commissions as well. L. HRC Memo Update July 7, 2020 Page 5 Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission be maintained in its current structure. Due to the distinct differences in the type of projects each commission reviews, the current format is the most efficient in the review of projects. Historic Application Fees (HRC Issue 4) The HRC requests that the City Council reduce historic application fees for placing properties on the local historic register to $500 and to $2,500 for Mills Act agreements. Currently, the fee for both the self -nomination and Mills Act applications was $3,507.48 each during FY 19-20. Discussion Regarding the Reduction in Self -Nomination and Mills Act Fees Through the self -nomination process, a property owner is volunteering to invest into and to restrict changes to the real property they own, thereby preserving and transforming a private asset into a historical property. The reduction in fees for placing properties on the local historic register will have direct public benefits as historical properties are a public resource and have public benefits celebrating the City's history, culture, and heritage. In addition, they increase property values and the quality of the physical environment in the surrounding neighborhoods and Citywide. It is anticipated that the reduction in fees would result in an increase in the number of historic applications, thereby enhancing the City's historic resources program. Financial benefits to a property owner receiving a Mills Act Agreement is ongoing and significant, which includes up to a 50% reduction in their annual property tax assessment. In reviewing the Mills Act process, the review and hearing process was further refined to streamline the internal review time and to consolidate public hearing costs. While the cost did not go as low as was recommended by the HRC, the measures did achieve a reduction from the current fee. Staff Recommendation At the June 18, 2020 meeting, the City Council adopted the Miscellaneous Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 which reduced the self -nomination application fee to $500 and the Mills Act application fee to $2,500. Staff also recommends that the self -nomination fee remain constant and the Mills Act Agreement fee would remain as part of the miscellaneous fee schedule and adjusted annually based on the City's estimated reasonable cost to process each specified application. Each fiscal year the City Council would be required to adopt the adjusted annual fee for the Mills Act Agreement as part of the budget adoption process. Preservation of Historic Trees (HRC Issue 6) The HRC requests that the City Council direct staff to prepare a Tree Preservation Ordinance that includes the protection of certain tree species on private and public properties and sets criteria for defining the protection of specified trees. Discussion Regarding Establishing a Tree Preservation Ordinance The HRC has inquired about the preservation of trees, especially those found on properties that are on the City's list of historical resources. Currently, the City does not have any mechanism that would prevent the alteration or removal of mature trees. Therefore, the HRC has raised the potential of a Tree Preservation Ordinance addressing the protection and preservation requirements of trees located on public and private properties. L• HRC Memo Update July 7, 2020 Page 6 Staff Recommendation It is recommended that a task force consisting of the Planning and Building Agency, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency, and the Public Works Agency be utilized to prepare a Tree Preservation Ordinance addressing the protection and preservation requirements of trees located on public and private properties. FISCAL IMPACT A Request for Proposal (RFP) shall be necessary to procure third party services to assist with surveying and working with the community to develop a program to establish a historical district designation program for future designations. The approval of the services and costs will need to be presented to the City Council for approval at that point in time. There no fiscal impacts associated with this component of staffs recommendation at this time. Submitted By: Minh Thai, Executive Director — Planning and Building Agency Exhibits: 1. Historic Resources Commission Memorandum 2. Map of Historic Properties EXHIBIT 1 MEMORANDUM 0 nz�za�ente-ene.ors To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: April 7, 2020 From: Historic Resources Commission RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING HISTORIC Subject: RESOURCES POLICIES AND REGULATIONS The Historic Resources Commission (HRC) conducted workshops with PBA staff in July and October of 2019 and discussed issues the HRC desires to advise and make recommendations to the City Council, to enhance historic resource preservation within the City. The recommendations by the HRC address the following topics: • Historic Resources Commission powers and duties; • Historic application fees; • Historically sensitive neighborhoods; • Historic resources protection and enforcement; and • Preservation of historic trees. Some of the issues discussed are procedural and administrative in nature and can be addressed by the Commission and staff. However, the policy topics below require direction and feedback from the City Council. COMMISSION POWERS AND DUTIES Section 2-374 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code (SAMC) outlines the powers and duties of the HRC. These duties include, but are not limited to, advising and making recommendations to the Planning Commission, City Council and other city boards and commissions regarding historical projects and property; and recommending to the City Council policies and regulations regarding the protection, reuse and rehabilitation of historical properties. Issue 1: The HRC has expressed concerns that many buildings, structures, and properties potentially eligible or eligible for historic preservation that should be preserved are not protected because they have not been listed or identified as a historical resource and can potentially be remodeled or demolished. The Commission's current authority limits their preservation efforts to those structures/properties on the local historic register. The Commission also expressed preservation interest in protecting the historical fabric and integrity of all neighborhoods throughout the city, many of which have properties that may be eligible for historic preservation. Moreover, there's been concerns regarding infill development, new 1 65B-7 additions, exterior alterations, and related new construction alterations that have altered potentially historic materials, features, and/or spatial relationships that characterize the individual properties and neighborhoods as a whole. The following recommendations would extend the purview and review authority of the HRC to preserve neighborhoods, and to retain the existing historic character of individual properties. For example, under the HRC's recommendation a property over 50 years of age undergoing proposed exterior alterations, regardless of designation and/or eligibility, would be required to be reviewed and approved by the HRC. HRC Recommendation(s): Amend the powers and duties outlined in Section 2-374 of the SAMC to allow the following: a. Extend the HRC's purview to include eligible or potentially eligible historic structures; b. Extend the HRC's purview to include review and approval of proposed demolitions, alterations and or/modifications to any structure over 50 years of age, regardless of designation and/or eligibility; and c. Grant the HRC the ability to impose conditions of approval on historic applications, including Certificates of Appropriateness (i.e., Historic Exterior Modification Application), Historical Property Registration Applications, and Applications for Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Agreements). Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the powers and duties outlined in Section 2-374 of the SAMC would require City Council review and approval of a municipal code amendment. In addition, an impact analysis would be required to analyze the benefits and implications of the recommended policies and regulatory changes. Issue 2: Currently, the HRC meets quarterly. The frequency of the meetings would not allow the Commission to effectively discuss items that could be considered urgent or time sensitive. Recent examples of this constraint includes the HRC's desire to place items on the agenda that were scheduled for discretionary action by either the Planning Commission and/or City Council. The recommendation outlined below would provide clarification on how matters can be put on future agendas and provide a more streamlined approach. HRC Recommendation(s): Amend the Historic Resources Commission Bylaws to allow a more streamlined process of placing discussion items on the HRC agenda for review and consideration and clearly outline that process. Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the commission bylaws would require a Historic Resources Commission meeting and majority vote from the commissioners. Issue 3: The HRC consists of nine members, two of which are representatives from the planning commission and the community redevelopment and housing commission. The intention of this structure was to allow each representative to advise and make recommendations to their corresponding commissions regarding potentially historical projects and properties. However, the HRC has been concerned that in recent months the Planning 2 L• W • Commission has reviewed and acted on projects with the potential for historic significance, without adequate conversations and consideration. The recommendations outlined below would allow the HRC to lend a voice to the Planning Commission regarding historically or potentially historically related items as "non -full voting" members. HRC Recommendation(s): Amend Section 2-350 of the SAMC to require that representative(s) from the Historic Resources Commission be appointed to the Planning Commission as non -full voting members (i.e., only voting on historically related items). Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Amending the powers and duties outlined in Section 2-350 of the SAMC would require City Council review and approval of a municipal code amendment. In addition, staff resources would be required to analyze the full implications of amending the code section to include HRC representatives on the Planning Commission. HISTORIC APPLICATION FEES Issue 4: The FY 19-20 fee for each of the historic applications (i.e., Mills Act application and the Historic Register application) is $3,589.14. Although this is a significant reduction in application costs from the recent years (as high as $5,814.41 for historic registration and $4,422.59 for mills act) the HRC has expressed concern that the high cost has been a financial burden and discourages property owners from applying to place their properties on the historic register, contributing to reduced preservation efforts Citywide. An informal survey conducted both by staff and HRC members of regional cities with historic programs, highlighted that the City of Santa Ana has the highest application costs for both historic register and mills act applications. The cities surveyed include Orange, Tustin, Anaheim, San Clemente, Newport Beach, San Juan Capistrano, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. The implementation of these application costs dates back to 2009, when the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a fee for nominations of properties to the local historic register. This decision was based on the determination that the most significant properties had received historic status and further listings of nominated properties were primarily for the purpose of receiving the mills act tax reduction. At the time, the fee was developed based on a full cost recovery. In September 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution to temporarily reduce fees for mills act applications by 50%, and waive the $5,015.05 fee for nominations of properties to the historic register. The proposed fee waiver was in effect for one year with an option for the City Council to renew for an additional two years. In August 2015, the City Council adopted a second resolution authorizing the extension of the previously approved waiver and the reduction of fees for two additional years. The waiver and fee reduction expired in August 4, 2017. During the time that the reduced fee waiver was in effect (2014-2017) the City saw a noticeable increase in historic applications received, as can be seen in the Attachment 1. The line graph provided highlights the steep decrease in applications received once the waiver and fee reduced expired. Therefore, the HRC is making the recommendations to facilitate and encourage property owners to place their properties on the local register, thereby spurring historic preservation efforts. 3 65B-9 HRC Recommendation(s): Reduce the historic application fees for (1) placing properties on the register of historical properties (i.e., self -nomination); and (2) processing historic property preservation agreements (i.e., mills act). The HRC recommends that the fees should be from $200-$500 for self -nominations to the historic register and no more than $2,000 for a Mills Act application. In addition, the HRC discussed the following alternatives be implemented to determining appropriate fees: a. Establishing historic fees that are less for self -nomination than for mills act; and b. Introducing a sliding scale for historic application fees (e.g., location of structures within the City). Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: The proposed recommendations to permanently reduce the historic application fees for the mills act and historic registration would require review and approval by the City Council of a resolution amending the City's miscellaneous fee schedule. A process would have to be established in order to determine the metrics to be used for the recommended sliding scale. In addition, an impact analysis would be needed to determine the short- and long-term effects of the reducing the fees. Additional analysis may provide insight as to the impact on revenue to the City. For example, while the exact savings is dependent on a number of factors, many property owners realize as much as a 50% savings on their property tax bill through the mills act application. As a result, the City sees a loss of property tax dollars annually. The analysis may take into account local economic growth through invigorated historic preservation efforts, and cultural and aesthetic benefits that may have a positive impact on property values, both in residential and commercial. HISTORICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AND HISTORIC RESOURCES PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Issue 5: The HRC has expressed the concern for demolition or alteration of structures that have not been designated historic or surveyed, but that are located within neighborhoods of potential historical significance. These neighborhoods have been informally referred to as Historically Sensitive Areas (HSA) and include Pacific Park, Floral Park, West Floral Park, Jack Fisher Park, Wilshire Square, Park Santiago, Morrison Park, Washington Square and Heninger Park. Historically, there's been an increased sensitivity regarding additions and exterior alterations to properties within these neighborhoods due to their potential significance. The process of reviewing projects (e.g., new additions, exterior alterations, construction alterations, etc.) for historic appropriateness and context within these areas has been largely informal in nature as none of the areas have been formally designated as historic districts either at the local, state or federal level, nor has a policy been adopted by the City Council to officially recognize the term Historically Sensitive Area. Therefore, the HRC is making the recommendations outlined below in an effort to establish a Historically Sensitive Area program that protects structures within certain neighborhoods by retaining and preserving the historic character, regardless of designation and/or eligibility. rd 65B-10 HRC Recommendation(s): 1. Direct planning staff to explore the designation of "Historically Sensitive Areas (HSA)" through the implementation of general plan policies within the new Historical Cultural Element considered as part of general plan update; and/or 2. Direct planning staff to engage in efforts to establish an HSA program that includes the following: a. Establish criteria for selecting critical neighborhoods within the City with a high concentration of historic resources; b. Identify critical neighborhoods to be designated an HSA and establish boundaries; c. Develop guidelines and standards for the newly created HSA that establish the following: i. Set criteria for review of non -designated structures within HSA that includes a heightened level of review for modifications and alterations; ii. Set design standards for new infill-development projects or additions within the HSA that are consistent with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation and the City of Santa Ana Design Guidelines, and which are mindful of community context and architectural sensitivity. Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: In order to establish historically sensitive areas, the City Council would be required to direct staff to analyze the implementation of one of the two above -mentioned options. In addition, the City Council would be required to direct staff to make a recommendation as to what option would be most feasible and cost-effective. Establishing an HSA program would require staff time and resources in order to establish the necessary criteria for selecting neighborhoods with high concentration of historic resources for inclusion into the HSA. In addition, impact analysis would be required to analyze the short- term and long-term implications of establishing HSAs in order to preserve properties not currently designated as historic. Lastly, property owners located within HSAs would be required to be notified of potential property improvement limitations. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC TREES Issue 6: The HRC has expressed concerns that there is no current ordinance in place for the protection and preservation of private property trees such as oaks, sycamores and/or mature trees. They've expressed that such trees could be significant aesthetic and ecological resources that would help enhance the aesthetic and scenic beauty of the neighborhoods, protect property values, and protect heritage tree resources. The recommendations outlined below are intended to establish a process for the preservation and enhancement of property values through conserving and enhancing the distinctive and unique aesthetic character that specific trees species provide in many areas in the City. 5 65B-11 HRC Recommendation(s): Recommend that the City Council or Environmental & Transportation Advisory Committee (ETAC) develop a Tree Preservation/Protection Ordinance that establishes the following: a. Identifies all tree species to be protected/preserved on private and public properties (e.g., Oak trees, Southern California Black Walnut, Western Sycamores, California Bay, etc.) and trees species not subject to tree preservation requirements (i.e., unprotected trees); b. Sets criteria to be used to define a protected tree including, but not limited to the following: species, age, trunk diameter, historic significance, ecological value, aesthetics, location, or other unique characteristics. Required Tasks, Approvals, and Resources: Adopting a Tree Preservation/Protection Ordinance would require staff time and resources to develop the required language, definitions, and standards as part of the ordinance. Additional staff resources may involve research into successful tree preservation/protection ordinances from adjacent cities and an impact analysis on the short-term and long-term implications of establishing a tree preservation/protection program. If implemented, additional staff resources would be required to implement and enforce required protective measures (i.e., code enforcement). The HRC is requesting the City Council to consider and provide directions to staff to proceed with initiating the process to implement above recommendations. Alberta Christy, Chairperson 2 65B-12 Attachment 1: 70 6o 50 10 0 } 6o 50 lO 0 Mills Act Applications and Cost 200'7-2019 FISCALYEAR AMUAct Fee �Mi➢s Act Historic Listing Applications and Cost 2007-2019 a b 4�1 FISCALYEAR Historic Register Fee �HistoricljAmg Applications Received 7 65B-13 $5,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,000.00 $3,500.00 N $3,000.00 z $2,500.00 E, 6 0 $2,000.00 w a $1,500.00 $i3Ooo.00 $500.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $;oOo.00 $O.O City of Santa Ana Historic Resource Map and Neighborhoods As or Fermary a, zo2o LA VETA AV See Sara Ana Bossier of H Istoncal Pmpetlles List for more Nci dI infomlafon N Historic Properties by Category CAPn a,. • landmark NE .F. D • Key • contributive • *(To Be Categorized) .r zt y:' X -1111 Histaricwct +• bf dwx J SANTA CIJaR IA � � Doowntnt> SANTA CLARAown Nat onal Register Dstnct `a°"°" French Park National Register District Hen nger Park (SD ,PD) e PTH ST d r-- Q °Vu E S ER AV,i m ©; 17TH ST ' o z WASHINGTON AV 5 F R� ®N € x CJ I� iTT¶ �rJ'.SKNTA �0 m \\ • `. N.,. 1Y „„ — ro 1ST ST W,. W i` ul c = IST ST a " •w @ aHIP to 7,DDEN c E]EEel p a sN V � M� CR EDINGERAV E I GERAV o WARNER AV w ..wa. French Park National Register Dstrd Downtown National lRegister District ER w FrEul TTTD SEG�E RS RO V 65B-14