Foothills Zoning Concerns
In the last issue of Vance Jackson Views, several concerns were mentioned in regards to a residential construction at 3235 Rock Creek Run. The construction appears to be nearly complete and its use has not yet been determined. Nonetheless, it appears to be a multi residential facility with no parking.
This property is located at the entrance of Foothills and at this point it seems parking is to be along Rock Creek Run. This is the busiest street in Foothills not to mention a designated bus stop for NISD. I think it is safe to say a majority of the Foothills residents travel this route on a daily basis.
Diane Cibrian, City Council District Eight Rep and her staff have been asked to look into the zoning concerns by the Foothills residents.
In the meantime, the Restrictive Covenants for this Plat of land was presented to the V.J. Board at the October 8th board meeting. After the board reviewed the Covenants, a motion passed to seek pro bono council. The board agreed to set aside a small fund to research the legalities of the restrictions/deeds for this property.
Hopefully, the V.J. Neighborhood Association can assist in having our concerns addressed.
Peggy H. Hughes
Off-Premise Digital Signs
A Statement by June Kachtik to the Electrical Supervisory Board
September 11, 2007
I am June Kachtik. With the approval of the board of directors of the Vance Jackson Neighborhood, Inc I am here to express our disapproval of allowing off-premise digital signs in any manner for the following reasons:
1. We don’t like billboards, which by definition are a form of advertising along the roadways paid for by our tax dollars. We feel billboards cheapen the public investment and offend our sense of scenic values. We are not alone in this view. As a gauge of public opinion regarding billboards of any kind, by 2005 almost 300 towns and cities in Texas have banned new billboards. That includes the smaller towns of Alamo Heights, Bulverde, Fair Oaks Ranch, Helotes, Hill Country Village, Olmos Park, Shavano Park, Terrell Hills, Universal City and Windcrest in our area. Among the largest and most economically viable cities in the state – Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston – only San Antonio does not ban new billboards. It leads us to infer that the effort is being made in San Antonio to install digital signs because other markets are closed.
2. We are not convinced that digital signage is not a safety hazard. Your role as the Electrical Supervisory Board is to assure public safety. But, can you do so?
An analysis of the “100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study”, conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and released in 2006 states: taking one’s eyes off the road for more than two seconds for any reason not directly related to driving significantly increased individual near crash/crash risk. The study goes on to say that the factors that make drivers likely to look at an electronic sign for more than two seconds at a time are:
• They are extremely bright and are designed to be visible in bright sunlight and at night. They are designed to be eye-catching, and they are.
• They can be seen from great distances, making them distracting even before they begin to communicate their messages.
• Because the messages rotate, drivers are likely to look to see what comes up next. And, unlike static signs, there will always be the urge to look. These signs do not fade away into “background visual noise.”
• Younger drivers may be more easily distracted by electrical media.
The sign industry may well say that this is not enough “proof” that digital signs are a safety hazard. But, that is the point. You are considering an ordinance where the safety of digital signage needs to be proven. The Federal Highway Administration in January 2007 announced that it will initiate a study to examine the safety issues related to electronic signs. Details on the scope and timing of the research have not been released, but results are not expected until 2009. We urge you to disapprove this modification of the sign ordinance for other reasons, but at least until you know the results of that study.
3. If you allow off-premise digital signs now, and the Federal study determines that they are not safe, what will the City do? San Antonio has no amortization process that would force sign companies to remove signs at their cost. If the City allows digital signs and then finds that they are unsafe, would not the City be responsible for removing them? We understand from the publication, “Billboards in the Digital Age – Unsafe (and Unsightly) at any Speed,”
that Clear Channel Outdoor spent $3.5 million converting seven static boards to digital in Cleveland. That’s an average of $500,000 per sign. We don’t think you should put us, as taxpayers, in the position of having to compensate any sign company for its investment in a technology that has not been proven safe.
[Editor’s Note: June Kachtik of the Rock Creek subdivision presented this in September. It is repeated here since it neatly sums up reasons to oppose Digital Signs.]
An Open Letter by Diane Cibrian
Dear District 8 Resident,
My office is committed to staying in contact with our community and to increase this effort, I have instituted an email drive. We are doing our best to accumulate email addresses for all constituents that contact our office. We are
compiling this information so that we can update citizens about community activities.
We try to send out E-Blasts, which are newsletters sent via email, twice each month. This is a fast and effective method of communicating with our constituents regarding issues of concern. I want to collect thousands of emails over the next few months, to communicate effectively with residents of District 8. Please contact our office at District8@sanantonio.gov to send us your email address. If there is ever anything I can do to serve you, please do not hesitate to contact me or my office. We are here to serve you!
Yours in public service,
Diane G. Cibrian
City Council, District 8
A Letter by Diane Cibrian
Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission
(October 12, 2007)
Agent Lewis Dewitt
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
4203 Woodcock #120
San Antonio, TX 78228
On behalf of the citizens if District 8, I would like to take this opportunity to protest the issuance of any and all original, renewal, and/or transfer of any alcoholic beverage permit (s) for “The Boobie Rock” and/or the address of
10855 W IH-10 in San Antonio, Texas.
There are several reasons for my concern for the realization of “Boobie Rock.” I have been inundated with calls, emails, and letters expressing deep concern regarding the plans for this bar. I have received tremendous public protest to this establishment as a result of my press conference to inform the surrounding neighborhoods.
Also, children walk and ride their bikes on these very streets. This objectionable establishment will influence our youth inappropriately and create severe ramifications. This neighborhood is full of children and seniors who would be negatively affected by this bar.
Additionally, the owner/operator currently owns several establishments in San Antonio and has informed me that this facility will be similar to his Sugar’s establishment. This location alone has received over 100 police calls this
year as of October 4, 2007. Both Sugar’s Men’s Club and Boobie Rock have the same operator and will provide homogeneous entertainment. This business is clearly unsuitable for this neighborhood; therefore I adamantly request the denial of any issuance of an alcoholic beverage license.
Please let this letter serve as official notice of my desire to join the protest along with the surrounding communities. If you have any questions please contact Katie Nisbet at 210 207-2888.
Diane G. Cibrian