By David Garrick / SD Union-Tribune / June 23, 2025
Cash-strapped San Diego’s aggressive search for more revenue includes a new plan to generate $3 million a year by allowing controversial digital billboards for the first time.
In addition to generating revenue, the plan would allow the replacement of dozens of static, old-fashioned billboards with a much smaller number of digital billboards in more strategic locations, city officials say.
Critics say digital billboards — which have been rejected by La Mesa and several North County cities in recent years — could make parts of San Diego look like an amusement park or a miniature Times Square.
Digital billboards, which are typically two-sided, feature bright electronic images that change as often as every four seconds as they cycle through various ads or public service messages.
Members of the public — who helped defeat similar proposals in other cities by packing public hearings and leading petition drives — will get a chance to weigh in, because city regulations now prohibit digital billboards.
But city officials are proposing to have the necessary rule changes approved in a way that has been criticized for reducing public scrutiny.
Instead of a standalone proposal, they want the changes to be included with dozens of other municipal code amendments in a giant package the City Council is slated to approve this fall.
Councilmember Kent Lee, who is spearheading the effort, said he views it as a win-win proposal because San Diego has nearly 600 decaying static billboards — many in residential areas or odd locations.
A 1981 U.S. Supreme Court ruling gave San Diego the power to prohibit any new billboards based on city concerns about community aesthetics and traffic safety.
But the ruling also forced the city to allow existing billboards to remain in place until they are either removed to make way for new development or their support structures need replacing due to age.
Allowing digital billboards would give San Diego a chance to remove the most conspicuous and unpopular of those remaining static billboards, said Lee, stressing that many are in residential neighborhoods that are otherwise commercial-free.
“The city has no other way of accomplishing this, because these are vested property rights,” said Lee, who crafted the proposal along with Councilmembers Henry Foster, Sean Elo-Rivera and Joe LaCava.
The neighborhoods with the most billboards — and the most conspicuous billboards — include Pacific Beach, several stretches of El Cajon Boulevard and the Midway District near the city’s sports arena.
Lee said the owners of the static billboards will voluntarily give them up in exchange for digital billboards — possibly at a ratio of something like 5-to-1 — because digital billboards generate more advertising revenue.
While Lee acknowledged that some critics call digital billboards visual blight, he said you could make a case that the decaying static billboards are even worse.
“There are probably arguments in both directions,” he said, contending that some critics exaggerate the impact of digital billboards. “I’m not thinking of them as flashing Las Vegas lights.”
Lee said San Diego would also benefit from the fact that several other California cities have taken advantage of a recent change in state law that lets cities negotiate relocation agreements with billboard owners, in which they agree to abandon one location in exchange for a permit elsewhere.
Since 2023, Oakland, Murrieta and El Monte have made such moves. Oakland approved a deal earlier this month that provides the city a $2.3 million initial payment and $35 million over the life of the contract.
Lee said ongoing revenue from digital billboards could help San Diego not only close its existing budget deficit but also put long-term city revenues more in line with long-term expenses.
His proposal calls for 15 digital billboards generating annual revenue of somewhere between $100,000 and $300,000 each. That’s where the $3 million estimate comes from — 15 multiplied by $200,000, the midpoint of those annual revenue estimates.
While negotiations haven’t begun, Lee suggested the deal could allow the city to remove static billboards at a ratio of 5-to-1. That would mean removing 75 static billboards in exchange for 15 digital billboards.
Advertising companies specializing in billboards say San Diego is a lucrative market partly because the city provides an especially broad audience in summer when it’s flooded with tourists. It’s also a binational city with many miles of freeway.
Lee said he’s had preliminary discussions with Outfront, a leading billboard company, about his plan.
Outfront officials declined interview requests this week but emailed a prepared statement.
“Cities across California have successfully converted from static to digital billboards, and we applaud the City of San Diego for exploring this opportunity,” the company said. “The advertising revenue generated through digital conversion is significant and can play a meaningful role in helping to address the City’s budget deficit. Outfront looks forward to the potential partnership and stands ready to support the city throughout this process.”
Pamela Wilson, leader of an anti-billboard group called Scenic San Diego, said Lee and his colleagues are making a huge mistake.
“Digital billboards are visual blight, pure and simple,” she said. “It’s an invasion of public space.”
Wilson said $3 million won’t make even a small dent in the city’s $2.2 billion annual budget, contending that the visual damage is not remotely worth such a relatively small financial reward.
She also warns that billboard advertising companies have historically targeted cities facing large budget deficits like San Diego. The companies know such cities need money badly enough to possibly make deals they will regret, Wilson said.
In such cases, she said, city officials often get outsmarted by advertising officials who are more familiar with the nuances of the regulations, and who she said often promise elected officials free ads during their next campaign.
Wilson said San Diego officials are probably not ready for the strength of the backlash they are likely to face. That kind of backlash prompted officials in La Mesa, Oceanside, Vista and Carlsbad to reject digital billboard proposals.
“The good news is the public has not been heard on this — but they will have to be,” Wilson said. “When the public is heard on this topic, they hate it.”
Wilson said amending the city’s sign ordinance to allow digital billboards could also open San Diego up legally to other types of advertising the city has prohibited.
But Katherine Johnston, an aide to Lee, said the regulations San Diego must amend are located instead in the city’s municipal code: Chapter 12, Article 7, Division 3.
Lee said he’s had initial discussions with City Attorney Heather Ferbert’s staff that indicate the necessary municipal code changes would be relatively minor.
He also stressed that the city can include rules that prevent visual blight.
His plan calls for demanding that messages not change more frequently than every four seconds, not include flashing lights and not include obscene, indecent or immoral content. They would also have to adjust their brightness to the ambient light and time of day.
In addition, Caltrans regulates billboards near freeways to make sure they don’t significantly distract drivers or create dangerous conditions.
While a council vote is not expected before December, Lee and his colleagues said in a June 10 budget memo that preliminary discussions have taken place with the Development Services Department, Mayor Todd Gloria and outdoor advertising companies.
The memo says Gloria “should begin to negotiate relocation agreements concurrently as municipal code amendments are being processed.”
Wilson said that’s a dangerous strategy.
“They are putting the cart before the horse if the mayor is negotiating these deals without public approval,” she said.
