Billboard banishment on Rosecrans at stalemate

The squabble continues between the owners of the Dolphin Motel and the Point Loma Association over the removal of a billboard.

Robert Tripp Jackson of the association said on March 24, "The Point Loma Association was promised in 2013 that the ugly billboard at the corner of Rosecrans and Garrison would come down in exchange for our support with the Dolphin Motel's expansion. Support was given but the billboard is still there. When we saw some action at the billboard in mid-February, we thought it was finally coming down only to find out they were just refurbishing the eyesore. The city is in the middle of the whole thing. Removing the billboard was part of the plan and it got switched around internally."

The association was formed in 1961 with one of its foundational issues being the elimination of billboards and tacky signage. They had tried to convince Holly Murdock (Dolphin Motel owner) since 2007 to remove his billboard. So they were surprised when the 84-year-old approached them in February 2013 offering to remove his billboard in exchange for their support. Murdock needed their help to appeal to the city to waive the handicapped parking requirements of turning his hotel's adjacent office space into a four-room hotel.

On May 8, 2013, the association sent off a letter to the city's development services department giving their full support to the project under the condition that the billboard be removed.

A public hearing on September 11, 2013, resulted in a site-development permit being awarded to the Murdocks with the condition that the billboard be removed.

On January 23, 2015, Murdock sent a certified letter to Clear Channel giving notice that they wanted the billboard removed by March 1, 2015.

On February 9, 2015, Clear Channel responded with a letter to San Diego city attorney Jan Goldsmith. The letter tied Murdock's request to the permit mentioning the removal of the billboard. Clear Channel also demanded compensation for the loss of the billboard. They referenced Section 5412.6 of the California Outdoor Advertising Act that mandates that any governmental entity that requires the removal of a lawfully erected billboard as a condition of a permit be required to compensate the billboard company for the removal.

On February 27, 2015, Goldsmith sent a letter to Murdock citing the indemnity provision in the site-development permit — essentially throwing all responsibility for Clear Channel's compensation into Murdock's lap.

On April 10, 2015, Murdock met with Jackson to ask for his support in removing the billboard language from the permit. The Murdocks also told Jackson that Clear Channel had offered them $20,000 to keep the billboard. Clear Channel charges advertisers between $38,600 and $191,070 to have a billboard in San Diego for four weeks.

On July 16, 2015, Murdock asked the community planning board to remove the billboard from the agreement. The board unanimously opposed taking the billboard out of the equation.

On July 29, 2015, the city released a public-hearing notice set for August 12, 2015, to discuss removing the billboard from the permit.

Lynda Pfeifer on behalf of the city's development services department said on March 24 that the August 2015 hearing was canceled after Murdock pulled his application to have the billboard condition removed. He did this after being told that the department would not recommend approval of his request. Pfeifer also said, "While the project description includes the removal of the existing billboard, there is no specific condition which requires the removal of the billboard within a specific time frame."

I talked to Alan Murdock (son of Holly Murdock) on March 25. He would only say, "There are two sides to every story. I just can't talk about it at this time."