The Planning and Community Development Committee on March 21 agreed to move forward with developing a pilot digital media and arts signage program for designated areas of San Antonio and asked staff to return with two or three proposed implementation options and proposed revenue-sharing arrangements.

The committee’s vote followed more than two hours of public comment. Opponents, including multiple members of the Society for the Conservation of San Antonio, urged the committee to reject the program — saying large digital displays would harm the city’s historic character and could allow commercial advertising in sensitive areas. Elaine Better, identifying herself as a sixth-generation San Antonian, warned the displays would encroach on historic districts: “No lo dejen que entren a nuestra ciudad,” she said. Louis Better, president of the Society for the Conservation of San Antonio, said he feared a pilot would become permanent: “If it’s a failure… they’ll remain there.”

Supporters argued the pilot could fund public art, increase nighttime safety and highlight local cultural programming. Mary Hitscott, identified as executive director of Blue Star and an arts coalition, said the program could be limited to noncommercial arts content and return revenue to local arts organizations. A company representative described the program as voluntary for property owners, said each location would include a minimum community-art contribution of $100,000, and said roughly half of displayed time in other cities has been used for civic or arts content.

Staff from Development Services presented a proposed framework developed after community outreach and a city survey of 544 responses: 400 opposed and 134 supportive. The staff recommendation the committee considered included limiting the pilot to a maximum of 10 locations (with up to two displays in any one area), capping display size at no more than 25% of a building façade, requiring displays comply with existing sign code (UDC Chapter 28) and negotiating a revenue share in which a portion of income would be reserved for arts programs and city messaging. Staff said a 20% revenue-share to the city had been discussed; council members proposed different shares for arts organizations (one councilmember proposed 10% be directed to arts with an increase to 15–20% after review).

Committee members emphasized the need for safeguards. Several members said the council should approve specific locations or at least the geographic zones before corporate contracts proceed and asked staff to define time-of-day limits for public-service announcements and restrictions on content categories (for example, political advertising or certain commercial categories). Several council members also asked that contracts require removal and remediation at the company’s expense if the pilot is later discontinued.

After a motion to proceed and a staff-led clarification that the next step would be to return with concrete options and contract terms, the committee voted to advance development of the pilot and requested staff bring two to three proposals for committee review before sending a recommendation to the full council. The vote was recorded on the floor as in favor with several abstentions; individual roll-call votes were not provided in the committee record.

The committee’s direction does not itself change the Unified Development Code. Staff and the company representatives said the pilot would require policy direction and, if necessary, a code amendment to UDC Chapter 28 to address technical sign standards and locations. Staff indicated private property owners would be required to sign contracts to participate and that displays would be restricted from certain historic properties and other protected areas.

Next steps: staff will return to the committee with two or three buy/no-buy options that specify exact locations (or mapped zones), revenue-sharing plans, proposed content restrictions and draft contract terms for council review and committee consideration.