upr000189 102

Las Vegas - July 6. Iff3 M 23-1-12? Wrs* Re 1 nbs.r<3.t — Los Angeles 0 0 s £* K* Bennett 0 , M* Cory Slvd* between lit? 1 ^ ? a T„ J * ffRi®fn X|«» Street and 1 5th street in wh?(iScrht itohn e LasC haVarrlneasaton S 3 *? r un* and has crvSa notice the renaming SrtleS V a X a f 0® *“ & paalUoB withln **« U*i1S« °* Xn their notice they refer to nararraTb ? «•#* Kftw« *, MSry oBS te*nJ tnifeLti tl ft^ke**i*8®?*i **l**. 2^:>#P X^93y0 cwopAys hof iwsh iocnh wisM I nla y Bennett and hf e fifs* efi ami* liar widtlhs oiuts*sed the situation with Mr. approval, 1 “ subraim^ herewith the following data for your (15 (2) (3) 2X schoepeyt so.f Form 30 Sstlm&te consisting of 1 copy of Dwg* A-1101 dated June 10* 1953 asnhdo wpionrgt iporno poosf ede xliosctaitngi olni noef ntoe wb e8 * relitnior*'ed in place* d1 atceodpy J uonfe l 1et7t, e1r9 f5r3o,m City of Las Vegas -loaccaattiioonn oorf ^e xisting 8®t hm®a,ipnr itnot *b e0 raabwainrd^o n*e-d1 1I0n1 pwlhaicceh. s1i ihowagve wwhhiicchh 91thhiisa ' ll*innea "?is» SlopcaBtpedH, ftyhe* matthtee nrm ?of leavinogf itih e ilna nd in ®na he w»s agreeable to this but thought he should have an Indian* ' tirfo^uobaltei onne asgirgehetm ehnatv we iwtiht ht hiet .W atMerr. CCoomrpya nya dvtios ecdo vtehra ta nyi nfuture opinion, we should not furnish such an agreement* * build the 2 S -fte# S «th®r, arf OTaenrx?io ufsm to instaaslhli nng mwh peanv wemee wnitl lIn Charleston Blvd. after a new line is constructed. District f 5 ttoliPS p 5 ^ sL M U 1 *UhBit 6118 pro> ot t0 « “ § W * LRW/tfc> L. H« M&&S