Deed Restrictions: A Clear Conflict at the Proposed Tower Site
A central issue in evaluating the proposed North End cell tower is the legal status of the land itself. The Board-approved cell tower site, commonly referred to as the “Dog Park” or “Remnant Land”, is subject to a recorded deed restriction that places firm limits on how the land may be used.
When this parcel was transferred to The Sea Ranch Association (TSRA) in 1993, it was explicitly restricted to recreational, open space, and community-oriented uses, and further prohibits commercial gain or exploitation. These are not guidelines. They are binding legal covenants that run with the land.
A commercial cell tower directly conflicts with these restrictions.
The project under consideration is a permanent, revenue-generating telecommunications facility, typically involving lease agreements with private carriers. It introduces industrial infrastructure, ongoing commercial activity, and long-term visual impact, none of which align with the deed’s clear intent.
Independent legal review obtained by members has identified serious legal issues with advancing this project at this location. These concerns were also presented in well-researched detail to the Board by TSRA Board Member and Gina Hubbell during the February 28 Board meeting (see recording beginning at 2:55:00).
The Board nevertheless voted to proceed.
Advancing the project despite these restrictions exposes the Association to:
Costly Legal challenges over improper use of deed-restricted land
Potential breach of fiduciary duty
Significant financial risk from pursuing a site that may ultimately be disallowed
This is not hypothetical. Multiple groups, funded by dozens of Sea Ranchers have already retained legal counsel and are prepared to challenge the project at every stage, including County permitting, CEQA review, and Coastal Commission proceedings.
This issue is bigger than a single tower. It is about whether deed restrictions, core to Sea Ranch’s founding principles, will be upheld or disregarded.
A prudent path forward is clear: do not commit member resources to stubbornly advancing a legally encumbered site, particularly when both the need for and financial viability of the project remain in serious question.