Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout38- Planning CITY OF SAN BERNARDII..J - REQUE..T FOR COUNCIL AC'. .DN R. Ann Siracusa From: Director of Planning .��. W Change of Zone No . 87-23 Dept: Planning ' Mayor and Common Council Meeting, February 15 , 1988 , 2 : 00 p.m. Date: February 3 , 1988 Synopsis of Previous Council action: '00ropw Previous Planning Commission action: At the meeting of the. Planning Commission on February 2 , 1988 , the following action was taken: The application for Change of Zone No . 87-23 was unanimously recommended for approval . The Negative Declaration for environmental impact was also recommended for approval . Recommended motion: Adopt the Negative Declaration. Approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission and direct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary amendments to the Zoning Code. n Signature R. Ann Siracusa Contact person: R. ANN SIRACUSA Phone: 384-5357 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: City-wide FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (Acct No.) (Acct Description) Finance: Council Notes: r c CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 02102.188 HEARING DATE WARD 1 APPLICANT: SAN BERgARDINO VALLEY LIGHT- HOUSE FOR THE BLIND, INC. W 762 N. Sierra Way Q CHANGE OF ZONE 87-23 OWNER: San Bernardino, CA 92410 U - same - NThe applicant requests approval to change the land use zoning designation from R-3-1200 , Multiple Family Residential to O C-3A, Limited General Commercial . W X %% Subject property is irregularly-shaped parcel of land consist- s ing of 1 . 39 acres located onthe north side of Vine Street approximately 195 feet west of the centerline of Sierra Way. Q EXISTING GENERAL PLAN PROPERTY LAND USE ZONING DESIGNATION Subject Vacant R-3-1200 & C-3A Multiple Family Res. North Residential C-3A, Limited Gen. Com. Multiple Family Res. South Commercial/Res . C-3A, Limited Gen. Com. Multiple Family Res. East Commercial C-3A, Limited Gen. Com. General Ccrrrercial West Residential R-3-1200 , Multiple Fam. Multiple Family Res. Residential GEOLOGIC / SEISMIC ❑YES FLOOD HAZARD ❑YES OZONE �BD El YES HAZARD ZONE ®NO ZONE NO []ZONE SEWERS ❑NO NIGH FIRE ❑YES AIRPORT NOISE/ ❑ YES =REDEVELOPMENT ❑YES CRASH ZONE ®NO AREA 21 NO J NOT ❑ POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT Z ® APPROVAL Q APPLICABLE EFFECTS O �- WITH MITIGATING [!-- ❑ CONDITIONS Z N MEASURES NO E.I.R. Q 2 Z❑ EXEMPT ❑ E.I.R. REQUIRED BUT NO U- W ❑ DENIAL Z — SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS O WITH MITIGATING FQ" ❑ CONTINUANCE TO a: Z MEASURES N 5; W O Z ® NO ❑ SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS V W SIGNIFICANT SEE ATTACHED E.R.C. W EFFECTS MINUTES NOV. 1981 REVISED JULY 1982 SKY .CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CZ 87-23 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 3 HEARING DATE 02/02/88 PAGE 2 1 . REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval to change the zoning designation from R-3-1200 , Multiple Family Residential to C-3A, Limited General Commercial on approximately 1 .39 acres . 2. SITE LOCATION The subject property is located on the north side of Vine Street approximately 195 feet west of the center- line of Sierra Way (see Attachment "D") . 3 . MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The subject site is currently zoned R-3-1200 , Multiple Family Residential. Approval of proposed Change of Zone No. 87-23 is consistent with the letters dated June 11 , 1987 , July 3 , 1987 , and August 18 , 1987 , from the State Office of Planning and Research to the City of San Bernardino, which stipulate that" . . . land uses proposed during the period of the extension will be consistent with the purpose of the updated general plan provi- sions . . . " 4. C.E.Q.A. After reviewing the required Initial study for the project (see Attachment "B") , the Environmental Review Committee at their regularly scheduled meeting held on December 30 , 1987, recommended that a Negative Declara- tion be adopted for Change of Zone No. 87-23 . The public review period was from December 30 , 1987 to January 12 , 1988 for this Initial Study. 5 . BACKGROUND Past submittals include Conditional Use Permit No. 85-23 approved by Planning Commission on July 2 , 1985 . That application has since expired . Conditional Use Permit 87-69 and Variance 87-35 were approved January 26 , 1988 . The applications were for the expansion and remodeling of the existing Lighthouse for the Blind . The applicant filed this change of zone in order to meet State of California, Office of Planning and Research directive which allows the proposed expansion to proceed , but which necessitate the change of zone (see Attachment "A") . CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CZ 87-23 OBSERVATIONS AGENDA ITEM 3 HEARING DATE 02/02/88 PAGE 3 6 . ANALYSIS Within the C-3A, Limited Commercial Zone, numerous land uses are permitted such as: automobile sales , new and used cars including servicing and repairs conducted entirely within a building, repair garages , general retail and offices , etc . The project site consists of four (4) parcels fronting on Eighth Street and four parcels on Vine Street for a total of eight (8) parcels all of which are vacant. The area is surrounded by mixed land uses including com- mercial, multiple family residential and single family residential structures. The project is compatible to existing commercial uses along the west side of Sierra Way in that it continues existing commercial zoning . Various types of residential uses exist to the west of the proposed change of zone. Change of Zone No. 87-23 if approved, will allow for the expansion of the training facility. The proposed parking lot would act as a buffer between the two dominate land uses of commercial and residential. The City Engineering Depart ment has stated that the project will not result in a significant increase in traffic generation from the site in that the existing street system is adequate to absorb the minor increase which might occur without adverse impacts based on the current proposal . A future review might be necessary if a high intensity commercial use (such as fast food) is proposed for the site . 7 . COMMENTS RECEIVED A memo from the City Engineering Department focused on the relatively minor increase in traffic to the existing street system due to the project . Engineering further mentions that if a higher traffic generates, such as a fast food restaurant was proposed , it could alter the existing traffic flow. Further studies might be re- quired under that scenario. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE CZ 87-23 AGENDA ITEM 3 OBSERVATIONS HEARING DATE 02/02/88 PAGE 4 8 . CONCLUSION The Change of Zone was required due to a State of California, Office of Planning and Research directive . The proposal meets O.P.R. letters of June 11 , 1987 , July 3 , 1987 , August , 18 , 1987 and January 14 , 1988 . The Environmental Review Committee has determine the project as submitted , should not significantly impact the environment. 9 . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission : 1 . Approve the Negative Declaration; and 2 . Approve Change of Zone No. 87-23 . Respectfully submitted , R. ANN SIRACUSA Director of Planning 0/-, C2 t_1� MICHAEL NORTON Associate Planner Attachment "A" - Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance "B" - Initial Study "C" - Site Plan "D" - Location Map MN: lmc PCAGENDA CZ8723-0 01: 25: 88 T' AS c ATTACHMENT "A' _ +r; - r•f1..r"-. f Additionally, certain other clarifications are necessar _n order to resolve uncertainties over the appropriate direction `; of certain undertakings. I believe these of my two pop,, to be }� minor in nature given the original thrust of my two o�ricr letters. r First, since certain commercial structures were perni`tEu to be completed on both sides of said line, it naturally follcYr. that if a conditional use permit is required for a certain usr in that structure (such as a CUP for a liquor license) the:: the requested permit may go forward subject to the usual administrative process as if the conditions of the extension were not in effect. V Second, since the addition to the Lighthouse for the Blind will be connected to the 'original building, -it is considered an cn,i mai? be isC riip1 CNtC'd . This will 11ecessitatl_: a zc)ne�change rrom h t o wlI 5� �e�:.►iLt�t to be processed consistant with the thrust of the i=--diate prior paragraph. Third, a zone change for the Senior Citizen Center for Perris Hill Park may be processed for the actual physical site of the center only. ' If approved by the appropriate city entity, the zone change will be from O to PF. This center would be located in the park and would not result in any boundary changes to the park . Fourth, the distinction in zones between M to C and C to H and/ or a combination thereof south of said line is, At best, a distinction without much difference, certainly for general plan update purposes. Accordingly, -should such zone changes be necessary in conjunction with proposed projects which are permitted to otherwise proceed south of said line, then such zone change requests may also be processed in accordance with the thrust of the prior paragraphs. Finally, I indicated to you that zone changes in redevelopment areas from R1 to a greater density use, such as R3, are not to be permitted since, contrary to the effect of the prior paragraphs, such change could result in a higher and distin tively different level of development than the city may wish completing its general plan. i Cor ally to T. CJa _ le, Jr. _P' rector RTC:ad cc: Marguerite P. Battersby Enclosure ATTACHMENT "B" Planning Department City of San Bernardino INITIAL STUDY for ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NEGATIVE DECLARATION Change of Zone No. 87-23 From R-3-1200, Multiple Family Residential , to C-3A, Limited General Commercial at the west side of North Sierra Way, between Vine and 8th Streets, at 762 Sierra Way Prepared by Michael Norton Planning Department 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 �— Prepared for San Bernardino Valley Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. 762 North Sierra Way San Bernardino, CA 92410 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Introduction 1-1 2.0 Executive Summary 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project 2-1 2.2 Project Impacts 2-1 3.0 Project Description 3-1 3. 1 Location 3-1 3.2 Site and Project Characteristics 3-1 3.2.1 Existing Conditions 3-1 4.0 Environmental Assessments 4-1 4.1 Environmental Setting 4-1 4.2 Environmental Effects 4-1 5.0 References 5-0 6.0 Exhibits Exhibit "A" - Location Map 6-0 Exhibit "B" - Site Plan 6-0 Exhibit "C" - Environmental Impact Checklist 6-0 Exhibit "D" - O.P.R. Letter Dated August 14, 1987 6-0 Exhibit "E" - Engineering Memorandum 6-0 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is provided by the City of San Bernardino as an Initial Study for the proposed Change of Zone for the west side of Sierra Way, between Vine and 8th Streets from R-3-1200, Multiple Family Residential , to C-3A, Limited General Commercial . As stated in Section 15063 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the purposes of an Initial Study are to: 1. Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration; 2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby, enabling the pro- ject to qualify for a Negative Declaration; 3. Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required by; a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant, b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant, C. Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially signifi - cant effects would not be significant. 4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; 5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a' — Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; 6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; 7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1-1 Initial Study - Change of Zone No. 87-23 December 18, 1987 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Proposed Project The request is for approval of a zone change under authority of Section 19.06.060 from R-3-1200, Multiple Family Residential to C-3A, Limited General Commercial District for a 1.39 acre site at the west side of Sierra Way between Vine and 8th Streets. 2.2 Project Impacts Impact identified in the attached checklist include: 6.a. A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? 9.a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? 2-1 Initial Study - Change of Zone No. 87-23 December 18, 1987 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Project Location The proposal is for a site located on the west side of Sierra Way between Vine and 8th Streets (See Exhibit "A") . 3.2 Site and Project Characteristics 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The site is irregularly shaped encompassing approximately 1.39 acres. The site is currently vacant with the exception of the Lighthouse for the Blind complex at the southeast portion (See Exhibit "B") . The project consists of four vacant lots on 8th and Vine Streets. 3-1 Initial Study - Change of Zone No. 87-23 December 18, 1987 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS 4.1 Environmental Setting The irregularly shaped site is bordered to the north by 8th Street; Sierra Way to the east; Vine Street to the south and older single family residences to the west. Surrounding zoning on the project is C-3A, Limited General Commercial to the east; R-3-1200, Multiple Family Residential to the west. Zoning to the north and south is C-3A, Limited General Commercial and R-3, Multiple Family Residential , respectively. 4.2 Environmental Effects The Environmental Impact Checklist identifies two areas of potential concern regarding the project. The possibillity that the proposal would change the land use as designated on the General Plan. The possibility of an increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan. The Environmental Impact Checklist is attached as Exhibit "C" of this report. Each item checked "maybe" on the checklist is identified below, followed by the recommended mitigation measures: 6. Will the proposal result in a change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? Within the August 18, 1987 letter from the Office of Planning and Research, State of California to the City Attorney' s Office it states in part: Is . . since the addition to the Lighthouse for the Blind will be con- nected to the original building, it is considered an a accessory structure and may be completed. This will necessitate a zone change from "R" to "C" . . (See Exhibit "D") . 9. Could the proposal result in an increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? The City of San Bernardino Engineering Department has determined that the proposed project will not cause a significant impact to the cir- culation in the area. The attached memo from said Department, (See Exhibit "E") states that the expansion of the San Bernardino Valley Lighthouse for the Blind will not significantly affect the environment. (If a high intensity commercial use is proposed; the City might review the site again for impacts) . 4-1 Initial Study - Change of Zone No. 87-23 December 18, 1987 5.0 REFERENCES Mr. Huston T. Carlyle, Jr. Director Office of Planning and Research State of California 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Michael Grubbs Senior Civil Engineer City of San Bernardino S-0 Initial Study - Change of Zone No. 87-23 December 18, 1987 6.0 EXHIBITS Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Environmental Impact Checklist Exhibit "D" - O.P.R. Letter Dated August 14, 1987 /kdm 12-21-87 KSR CZ87-23P1-8 6-0 EXHIBIT "A" a Additionally, certain other clarifications are necessary in order to resolve uncertainties over the appropriate direction of certain undertakings. I believe these clarifications to be minor in nature given the original thrust of my two prior letters . First, since certain commercial structures were permitted to be completed on both sides of said line, it naturally follows that if a conditional use permit is required for a certain use in that structure (such as a CUP for a liquor license) then the requested permit may go forward subject to the usual administrative process as if the conditions of the extension were not in effect. Second, since the addition to the Lighthouse for the Blind will be connected to the original building, -it is considered an accessory structure and may be completed . This will necessitate a zone change from R to C, which is also permitted to be processed consistant with the thrust of the immediate prior paragraph. Third, a zone change for the Senior Citizen Center for Perris Hill Park may be processed for the actual physical site of the center only. If approved by the appropriate city entity, the zone change will be from 0 to PF. This center would be located in the park and would not result in any boundary changes to the park. Fourth, the distinction in zones between M to C and C to M and/ or a combination thereof south of said line is, at best, a distinction without much difference, certainly for general plan update purposes. Accordingly, -should such zone changes be necessary in conjunction with proposed projects which are permitted to otherwise proceed south of said line, then such zone change requests may also be processed in accordance with the thrust of the prior paragraphs. Finally, I indicated to you that zone changes in redevelopment areas from R1 to a greater density use, such as R3, are not to be permitted since, contrary to the effect of the prior paragraphs, such change could result in a higher and distin tively different level of development than the city may wish , on completing its general plan. Cor ally to T. le, Jr. rector HTC:ad cc': Marguerite P. Battersby Enclosure Exhibit "B" Itrf a i I i • li — � Q c I , I vim: cv i�_� c❑ c_ .+ _�:7 w_ LLITX t K.C:.QIZ A" A*OC :L7 �.-sT..r� -i.��•or-rr�— _< i ' Exhibit "C" i CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Application Number : Change of Zone No. 87-23 Project Description: Change of zone from R-3-1200, Multiple Family Residential to C-3A, Limited General Commercial Location: Westerly side of North Sierra Way, Between Vine and Fi2hth Streets. Redevelopment Area, Enterprise Zone or other Special District : — General Plan Designation: General Commercial and Multiple Family Residential Zoning Designation: C-3A Limited General Commerci a1 and R-1-1200, Multiple Family Residential _ .B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet . 1 . Earth-Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a . Earth movement (cut and/or fill ) of 10 , 000 cubic yards or more? b . Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15$ natural grade? X c . Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies X Zone? d . Modification of any unique X geologic or physical feature? REVISED 10/87 PAGE i OF 3 Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the X project site? f. Modification of a channel , X creek or river? g. Development within an area subject to landslides , mudslides, liquefaction or other similar X hazards? h. Other? X --- 2 . AIR RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or an effect upon ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable X odors? c. Development within a high wind X hazard area? 3 . WATER_—RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in? a. Changes in absorption rates , drainage patterns , or the rate and amount of surface runoff X due to impermeable surfaces? b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? X C . Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface X water quality? d. Change in the quantity or X quality of ground waters? e . Exposure of people or property X to flood hazards? f . Other? X REVISED 10/87 PAGE 2 OF 8 Yes No Maybe 4 . BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Could the proposal result in: a . Change in the number of any unique , rare or endangered species of plants or their habitat including stands of trees? X b . Change in the number of any unique , rare or endangered species of animals or their habitat? X c . Other? X 5 . NOISE: Could the proposal result in: a . Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? X c . Other? X 6 . LAND USE: Will the proposal result in: a . A change in the land use as designated on the General Plan? X b . Development within an Airport District? X C . Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A,B, or C? X d . Development within a high fire hazard zone? X e . Other? X REVISED 10187 PAGE 3 OF 8 i Yes No Maybe I F7 . MAN-MADE HAZARDS: Will the project a. Use, store , transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic Materials (including but not limited to oil , pesticides , chemicals or radiation) ? X b . Involve the release of hazardous substances? X C . Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? X d. Other? X 8 . HOUSING: Will the proposal : a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional X housing? b. Other? X 9 . TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General X Plan? b . Use of existing , or demand for new, parking facilities/ X structures? C . Impact upon existing public X transportation systems? d . Alteration of present patterns X of circulation? e . Impact to rail or air traffic? X f . Increased safety hazards to vehicles , bicyclists or X pedestrians? .J REVISED 10/87 PAGE 4 OF 8 Yes No Maybe i g . A disjointed pattern of - F roadway improvements? X h. Other? x 10 . PUBLIC_SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a . Fire protection? x b. Police protection? x C . Schools (i .e. attendance, boundaries , overload, etc . ) ? x d . Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Medical aid? x -- f . Solid waste? X g . Other? X 11 . UTILITIES° Will the proposal : a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1 . Natural gas? X 2 . Electricity? X 3 . Water? X 4 . Sewer? x 5 . Other? X b . Result in a disjointed pattern of utility extensions? X c . Require the construction of X new facilities? REVISED 10187 PAGE 5 OF 3 Yes No Maybe F12 . AESTHETICS• a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? x b . Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? x C . Other? x 13 . CULTURAL RESOURCES: Could the proposal result in: a . The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? x b. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts to a prehistoric or historic site, structure or object? x v c . Other? x 14 . Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. a . Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment , substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species , cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate —J REVISED 10/87 PAGE 6 OF 8 Yes No Maybe important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) X c . Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant . ) x d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings , either directly or indirectly? X C . DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary. ) 6.a. Reference is made to O.P.R. letter dated August 14, 1987. 9.a. City of San Bernardino Engineering Department has verbally determined the proiect will not significantly impact the circulation pattern in the area. L01 REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 F DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation, The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared . The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will . not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project . A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment , and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA Name and Title Signature Date: REVISED 10/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 EXHIBIT "D" CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM # L CASE Change of Zone ^10. 87-23 3 HEARING DATE 02/02/88 J t.j LJU i G-3 1 ( C-3 1 l - dal I C-3 IC-3 -c3 " C-3 C 3 =C3 ST. RASFLINF ST c 3 c C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 C-3 'IT3- C•3 C-3 C-3 aT 3 A T T FR3 T �^C•4 0 4 R3 R'3 �, C-4 C•4 N nAP FPFR3 rR 3 c3 R 3 R-3 R-3 R-3 R'3 I ! R-3 ttttt ST. tlth ST. l C3 T R•3 R-3 R-3 F73 T C !� c C-4 C-4 C-3 R R R3 ni ivr 'T R-3 R-3 R-3 03 10 th R-3 C-4 TC-3 R-3 R-3 a R-3 C3 •� C-4 C-4 C-3 •3 R R-3 R-3 c-4 C3A R-3 3 R -3 T C3 t C-4 N R-3 R'3 C3A C-4 C-3 C3 Rs R-3 R-3 R-3 R-3 C- 4 w AP SI'Z'E C-3 C-4 R4 z i C-4 4 R3 R.3 R-3 R-3 DD'�Q C-4 C-4 C4 a R•3 3 ..0.. ❑� ❑ 10» T C3 ; 7th ST. rER C-4 4 T R3 C-M "0' -4 C-4 z C-M 4 R-3 D R-3 T w LL C- 4 C-M L 31 61 »0.. C•4 R-4 C•3A L C-4 C-4 C-4 0 R 3 C-M C4 R4 C4 C-4 C3A C4 C34 C 5th ST. f- C-4 C-3A C•3A C-3A C-4 Nf C-4 C- 4 A-P C-4 3 R-3 Cti Ef C-4 W� C-3A R-3 R•3 --- -ZTF--Sr C-1 R- \R� T tit-1r'1 .I I -- •- .... 4th 3T.