Timeline of 2023-2025 Board Activities

Nov 30, 2023 — Community Manager Report to the Board

“Draft RFI prepared for North End cell tower.” (Community Manager Report, p. 1 in 12/6/2023 Board agenda)

Sep 30, 2025 – Member Email

Two Dog Park neighbors sent separate requests to the Board to refer the project to the Planning Committee as a more appropriate venue for member engagement and input than Board meetings. The first was sent on September 30 and the second on October 11.

Excerpt from the First Member Request for a Planning Committee Project Referral:

“From the outside looking in, It certainly appears that Board members are wanting to make the decisions for homeowners without homeowner input. The cellular companies are telling TSRA what they want and where they want it The Board is telling members, you want this, you need this and this is where it must be located. This a huge project, a controversial project, a costly project that will be with Sea Ranchers for years and years. This is not like the solar panels that could be put in a warehouse and dealt with at a later date. Once built, it is here to stay. The Board has ‘implied’ it will refer the Dog Park Cellular Tower to the Planning Committee. I’m skeptical. This Board seems to have a habit of ‘skirting the issues’ when it comes to getting any kind of definite answer. The Board is supposed to represent the homeowners. You cannot properly represent homeowners if you don’t find out what we’re thinking. Projects such as this should be referred to the Planning Committee.”

There was no response to this request.

Oct 11, 2025 – Member Email

Excerpt From the Second Request:

“Bringing the proposed cell tower project to the Planning Committee is good for the entire community—membership, board and staff—to ensure open communication and transparency. Members want to be involved and have input in their community and the direction it’s taking, as well as to feel they are in a high trust environment with the board and staff members. Sentiment on the ground, currently, seems to be one of low trust. It seems like a win-win to have more open dialogue and transparency for such a major project. Someday, other homeowners will become board members. Would you want a large cell tower or other industrial project near your home without your input? Some folks work hard their whole lives to be able to afford a home here at the Sea Ranch and want to live peacefully in the tradition and promise of ‘living lightly on the land.’"

Excerpt from Chair Fulkerson’s Response to the Second Request:

I’d like to approach the question of using the Planning Committee from a different set of perspectives. Given the factors described below, we do not believe that it would best serve the membership for the Board to delegate the responsibility of evaluating the efficacy of a cell tower on TSR to the PC.

1. Significance and Singularity. First, building a cell tower at TSR would be one of the more significant permanent installations at TSRA (other such projects would likely include our reservoir, Del Mar Center & Hall, and SR Connect). Second, the cell tower is a “one off” project (ie – the Board is not thinking about installing another cell tower on TSR). Since TSR already has an existing cell tower at the South end of TSR, a North end tower would help ensure adequate coverage would be provided across all of TSR. Given the nature of this project, it seems imperative that the Board lead the review, evaluation and decision-making process in order to have the most educated and comprehensive knowledge of all the information and considerations that affect this singular and major long-term decision.

2. Expertise. While it may not be readily apparent, the cell tower project has many different moving parts. There is technological engineering, construction, financial considerations, legal negotiations, community welfare, environmental concerns, aesthetics, and consistency with SR values and principles among them. If the Planning Committee were comprised of folks with relevant cell tower expertise, maybe we could all benefit from their knowledge. In this case, however, it’s members of our own Board who have significant relevant cell tower expertise. Collectively, our board members and staff bring professional and personal expertise in the areas of technology, environmental study, engineering, financing, as well as a long association with, and deep knowledge of, our TSR values. This board is sensitive to the community’s welfare and aesthetics. Our staff also has experience in regulatory and environmental related processes, construction and other project elements. Finally, our outside consultants have been engaged to help supplement the Board’s and staff’s capabilities. Working in collaboration with staff and consultants, the Board believes we have adequate capabilities to evaluate the various elements of this proposed project.

3. Efficiency and Timing. Given the complexity, importance and sensitivity of this project, keeping the review, analysis and decision making at the Board level will likely save time and resources. It’s also likely to result in a more comprehensive, cohesive decisionmaking process. The cell tower is front and center on the Board’s agenda. The only other major decision we need to make in the relative near future is our upcoming 2026-27 Annual Budget, which will begin in December/January.

4. Execution. Policy committees can’t direct staff. That responsibility remains with the Board. As such, to give the most efficient and effective direction to staff, the Board should have the most complete knowledge as possible of the components of the decision to develop the most effective analytical framework. The decision requires consultation with lawyers, experts in the field, regulators, construction companies, engineers, etc. Staff should have the most comprehensive set of instructions to operate efficiently and effectively in terms of project management, resource allocation and financial expenditures.