Digest of email communications
Since October 2025, our group has sent regular email updates to fellow Sea Ranchers tracking the proposed North End cell tower project. The archive below collects each of those communications in chronological order, covering the board's rationale and process, the financial and legal analysis our members have conducted, key votes and meetings, and the May 2026 board election. Together they document how the project has unfolded and how the community has responded. Click any title to read the full email.
Emails:
Oct 22, 2025: Initial email to ALL TSRA members
The opening communication to the TSRA membership. A group of concerned Sea Ranchers introduces the board-proposed 155-foot industrial cell tower at the dog park site and recaps the August 2025 board vote that allocated up to $40,000 toward the project over community opposition. The email lays out the case for pausing the project and referring it to the Planning Committee for genuine community input, and calls on members to attend the October 25 board meeting and sign the petition.
Nov 3, 2025: Follow up to Oct 25 Board of Directors meeting
A status update on the October 25 board meeting, where the open comment section did not begin until past the three-hour mark and most members had already gone home. The board signaled that a December 13 "open session" might precede a vote that same day, prompting concerns that member feedback would have no real path into the outcome. Over 200 Sea Ranchers were now subscribed to the list.
Nov 25, 2025:Website launch
The launch of tsrcelltower.org, a central hub for project documents, board materials, and member analysis. This email also pulls back the curtain on the board's three rationales for the tower (coverage gaps, public safety, revenue generation), shares the results of member field tests that found no dead spots in the north end, and walks through projected tower costs of $700,000 to $1,000,000 with TSRA staff itself flagging high overrun risk.
Dec 8, 2025:Financial model of cell tower project
A first-principles look at the numbers behind the tower. Under TSRA's own best-case scenario, the financial benefit to each member works out to between $2.48 and $3.55 per month, less than 1% of current dues. Meanwhile, TSRA staff flagged "high" risk of cost overruns, banks indicated they "may not lend" for the project, and the homeowners nearest the tower could see property values fall by $75,000 to $150,000. A modest upside, an outsized downside, and a small group of neighbors quietly subsidizing the rest.
Dec 10, 2025:Opinion Piece: THE BEGINNING OF THE END:DISMANTLING 60 YEARS OF THE SEA RANCH ETHOS
An opinion piece responding to Chair Fulkerson's 4.5-page letter denying a member request to refer the project to the Planning Committee. It documents a pattern of off-limits executive sessions, dismissive responses to member concerns, and what appears to be a board using cellular carrier interests (Verizon's in particular) as a proxy for homeowner input. Within a half-mile of the proposed tower sit approximately 108 homes; at a conservative 5 percent value reduction, the potential wealth transfer from those owners to TSRA could reach $8.8 million.
Dec 18, 2025: Clarification of facts: Response to Board member comments and Dec community workshop
A documented email exchange between a concerned homeowner and two board members regarding the possibility of a data center at the tower site. Board responses ranged from outright denial ("Hogwash") to mid-correction apologies once the source documents were produced. TSRA's own architectural drawings show four buildings on the site, and the board's telecom counsel openly described opportunities to serve "hyper-scalers" like Google, Facebook, and Netflix at the edge. The much-promoted December 13 "workshop" itself ran approximately 90 percent board presentation and 10 percent member input.
Feb 24, 2026: Legal challenges and the Remnant Land deed restrictions
The first communication about the formal legal effort. Our retained attorney has raised substantive concerns to the TSRA Board on deed restrictions, reasonable necessity, alternatives, and CEQA exposure. The board's attorney has now responded, primarily by arguing that individual members lack standing to enforce the 1993 deed, sidestepping the underlying legal questions. The coalition is organized and prepared to engage at County permitting, CEQA review, and every other available forum.
Feb 26, 2026: Notice to attend Feb BoD meeting
A short, urgent alert ahead of the February 28 board meeting. The agenda includes a vote to formally approve the Dog Park location for the 155-foot tower and to authorize permit submissions to Sonoma County and the California Coastal Commission. If approved, the project advances despite unresolved deed restrictions and significant legal concerns. Member presence at the meeting matters.
Feb 27, 2026: To ALL TSRA MEMBERS: A call to action
A broader call to action sent ahead of the February 28 board vote, addressed to the full TSRA membership rather than just the opposition list. The email lays out the deed restriction issue, the board attorney's standing argument, and the coalition's commitment to participate fully in County permitting, CEQA review, and Coastal Commission proceedings if the project advances. Saturday is the difference between a quiet vote and one the board has to defend in public.
Mar 28, 2026: Notice to attend: Meet the candidate forum
A community update covering three threads at once: the candidate Q&A event happening that afternoon, the outcome of the February 28 board vote (4 to 3 in favor of moving forward with the Dog Park location despite the deed restriction), and how members can support the Live Lightly on the Land legal fund. Board member Gina Hubbell, an attorney by trade, voted against the measure and laid out her reasoning on the record at the 2:55:00 mark.
May 13, 2026: Summary of candidate positions on North End Cell Tower
Just ahead of the May 22-23 ballot deadline, a candidate-by-candidate analysis of where each of the four board candidates (Dane Jasper, Linda McCabe, Neil Moran, Nitin Rao) stands on the cell tower project. Built from direct quotes across three public forums in March and April, each candidate is placed on a pro-tower to anti-tower scale with our review of their positions. No endorsements; the goal is to give members the information they need to vote thoughtfully.