CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

286 Police Chief was questioned on this point, and he indicated his Department watches traffic closely, and found that volume is very heavy at varying times throughout the day, and is affected by railroad traffic, shift changes at the hospitals and industries, and other causes. He recommended again that the City not permit any kind of traffic zone. Alfred Kimmel, Kimmel Furniture, stated if no parking permitted, their business would suffer. Mrs. Anna Wessa, 1942 Whipple Avenue, objected to plans for no parking, advising of the house they owned near Lenolt and that it would be impossible to get onto Whipple. George Solari, who stated he represented owner of northeast corner of Whipple and Arguello, stated he realized the serious traffic problem, but removal of parking would create a hardship. In the discussion, Council questioned whether Staff had considered the effects of prohibiting parking, and notwithstanding hardships still felt the plan was necessary. Police Chief responded that any time improvements are made, some would be hurt and others would be helped, and that the problems were recognized as plans went along, but the changes were felt to be necessary for safety reasons. William Royer, 1047 Whipple Avenue, stated again that it would cause a hardship to lose parking in front of his business. If Gas Tax funds are available, he felt widening to permit parking should be considered. Allan Semeit, 1563 Fernside, felt City should plan ahead, if Whipple is eventually to become part of parkway. Councilman Keckley advised with reference to a master plan that such was developed several years ago, but voted down in a County bond issue. Temporary solutions therefore have to be made periodically. He also noted the corner has been a problem for a number of years and felt that finally a solution had been proposed. Mr. John Imbernon, 345 Green Street, San Francisco, owner of apartments at Arch and Whipple, noted this was the 4th meeting he had attended on the subject. It was his feeling that with the amount of study and time given by Staff to solving the problem that this plan obviously had, it should be given consideration. He felt decision should be made as to which plan is best, and if justified, should be paid out of whatever funds necessary. He approved of the original traffic plan submitted and felt it should be given every consideration, and that perhaps another solution could be found for the parking problems mentioned. Public Works Director advised, in response to question, that for an earlier project, widening between Whipple and Hopkins, Gas Tax funds were not permitted to be used. However, recent changes in the law may affect whether such funds may be used or not, but there has been no assurance in writing from Sacramento, as yet, if Gas Tax funds will be available for this project.