The Planning and Community Development Committee advanced a two-year pilot program for downtown and targeted San Antonio corridors that would allow a limited number of large-format digital displays paired with public art, voting to move the proposal forward while asking staff to return with two to three implementation options on revenue sharing and city use of the screens.

The vote came after more than an hour of public comment, with opponents — including multiple speakers from the Conservation Society of San Antonio — urging the committee to reject the plan on preservation, visual-clutter and First Amendment grounds. Proponents including OutFront Media and downtown business groups told the committee the program could bring revenue and curated civic messaging and art to underlit parts of the city.

Why it matters: The program would change how off-premise advertising is used in parts of San Antonio, and staff said the pilot is intended to pair digital displays with a substantial art component and contractual restrictions. That combination — and the council’s decision to advance a pilot — sets the framework for later contract negotiations on content, hours, revenue shares and siting that could affect downtown, historic districts and neighborhood corridors.

What staff proposed: Amin Thomas, deputy director of Development Services, said staff’s draft recommendation would cap the program at a maximum of 10 digital displays citywide, with no more than two displays in any single designated area. Staff recommended a two-year pilot that would: limit display size to no more than 25% of the building façade where installed; require a minimum dedicated art fund for each display; and include a proposed 20% revenue share to the city plus 20% of display time reserved for city messaging, Thomas said. He also summarized outreach: four public meetings, multiple stakeholder meetings, and an online survey (544 responses) in which about 75% of respondents chose “no” to a question about adding large digital displays across the city.

Public comments: Speakers from the Conservation Society and allied historic-preservation speakers said the signs would undermine downtown character and could not be reliably content-restricted. Louis Vetter, president of the Conservation Society of San Antonio, said the pilot would “install some number of these, and they will not go away,” and warned the pilot could be expanded after the initial phase. Mary Heathcotte, executive director of Contemporary at Blue Star and spokesperson for CAUSA (Culture and Arts United for San Antonio), urged strict placement and content limits and that any city revenue be dedicated “in perpetuity exclusively to the Department of Arts and Culture.” Several speakers also noted previous city-installed kiosks that they said had become advertising rather than wayfinding.

Supporters’ pitch: OutFront Media and other proponents emphasized potential community benefits: local-arts promotion, civic messaging and added nighttime lighting in dark blocks. Lani Faro of OutFront said the company “partners with counties, municipalities, and communities to provide signage solutions that create revenue opportunities for important programming, community and emergency messaging,” and said contracts can require media companies to comply with municipal content restrictions.

Legal and content control: Joseph Harney of the City Attorney’s Office and other presenters explained the legal approach. Harney said cities generally regulate the time, place and manner of signage and that contractual agreements with media companies are the mechanism other cities have used to impose content restrictions (for example, restricting political advertising or certain categories of commercial ads) while avoiding First Amendment pitfalls. Staff and legal counsel told the committee that a contract-based governance approach — with participating media companies signing binding terms — is the path used by Denver and Atlanta and is what the city would pursue if a pilot is approved.

Council discussion and direction: After extended council member debate about preservation, economic benefit and public safety, Councilwoman Villagran moved to advance the program as a pilot and direct staff to return with two to three options for revenue sharing and city display utilization; Councilman Courage seconded the motion for further discussion. The motion passed on a voice tally recorded as three in favor and one abstention. Committee members directed staff to negotiate details with multiple media companies, refine siting areas (staff had proposed 10 geographic areas), and prepare draft contract terms for later review.

Key clarifying details from the hearing and staff report:
- Proposed maximum signs: 10 digital displays citywide; no more than two in any designated area.
- Size limit: proposed cap at 25% of building façade for the digital display.
- Revenue/time proposal (staff starting point): 20% revenue share to the city and 20% of display time reserved for city messaging; council requested options.
- Minimum art fund: staff said each location would pair a physical art component funded at a minimum level (staff cited a $100,000 art fund per site as the approach in other cities).
- Pilot length: two years for the initial pilot, with performance review before expansion.
- Public survey: 544 respondents; approximately 410 (≈75%) answered “no” to adding large digital displays citywide; respondents who chose “yes” proceeded to follow-up questions on placement and restrictions.
- Stakeholder outreach: staff reported roughly 10–15 stakeholder meetings with 10–15 participants typical per meeting.

Next steps: Staff will work with legal counsel, arts stakeholders and multiple media firms to produce two to three implementation options that vary the revenue-sharing and city-use terms and the proposed siting, then return to PCDC for further review and likely a B-session for broader council consideration. If the pilot proceeds, staff said they will draft the contractual terms that would govern participating media firms and the public-art requirements.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded the motion as passing with three votes in favor and one abstention; the roll-call names were not recorded in the meeting transcript. The committee’s action was to advance the pilot concept and direct staff to develop options for council consideration.

Ending: Committee members and many speakers said they expect additional rounds of public and stakeholder review as staff returns with concrete contract language and final siting options. The committee emphasized that any pilot would need enforceable contract terms before installations began.