Comprehensive Environmental Plan

  This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format. To access this file, Adobe's Acrobat Reader is required and is distributed free over the Internet from the Adobe Web Site. Note: the above file is over 8 mb in size and requires a broadband connection. For a condensed version of the document without maps (272 kb), click here.

Contents:

• Preface

• Acknowledgments

• Introduction

• 1.0 Land Use

• 2.0 Building Design

• 3.0 Landscape

• 4.0 Community Facilities

• 5.0 Infrastructure

• 6.0 Public Safety

• 7.0 Regional Relationships

Preface

It’s an honor and a pleasure to be in the position of the Chair of the Board of Directors of The Sea Ranch Association as this revised Comprehensive Environmental Plan (CEP) is going to press. Work first started on the CEP in 1989. After substantial effort by our Environmental Planner, Bill Wiemeyer, the Planning Committee and Sea Ranchers too numerous to mention, the Board of Directors approved the first version of this plan in 1996.

With the advent of electronic media and a realization that the initial format of the plan didn’t lend itself to wide distribution, the Planning Committee undertook to rewrite and update the CEP starting in 2001. This updated version is available both in print and on the Association’s website. Many thanks again to Bill Wiemeyer, to all the members of the Planning Committee, Dibby Tyler who coordinated the update process and the many Sea Ranchers who commented during the three years of plan preparation.

You’ll find in this remarkable document a summary of background, current status and issues, and guidelines in each of seven elements: Land Use, Building Design, Landscape, Community Facilities, Infrastructure, Public Safety, and Regional Relationships. Each element also contains references, including URLs for documents on the TSRA website.

All Sea Ranchers are indebted to those whose countless hours of work have resulted in this document. The Board of Directors intends to use CEP 2004 as one guide for its decisions and expects that TSRA staff and committees will follow suit. For most Sea Ranchers it is a rich source of information about the community. Happy reading to all!

Martha Campbell
Chair, Board of Directors
The Sea Ranch Association

Acknowledgements

A plan is typically a community effort and this one is no exception. Unlike the usual community plan, this one was prepared almost entirely by volunteer members of TSRA Planning Committee. The Planning Committee was able to accomplish this because of the groundwork laid by the Comprehensive Environmental Plan (CEP) prepared in the 1990s by TSRA Environmental Planner, Bill Wiemeyer. His thorough research and full development of both background and guidelines provided a solid foundation for the Planning Committee’s updated plan. The original CEP remains a valuable resource document and the Planning Committee appreciates this work as well as the help and guidance Bill provided during the update project.

A full update of the CEP began in 2000 as a Planning Committee project to develop a new “master plan” for TSR. Planning Committee member Warren Radford, who no longer lives at TSR, led this effort and did the initial work that evolved into the update project. Planning Committee members and their roles in the project are:

• Jim Platt chaired the Planning Committee during the project, provided guidance and feedback and led the forums discussing the CEP.

• Dibby Tyler, a retired professional planner, led the project from outline through publication, wrote the introduction and Land Use Element, assisted with research to update the other elements, revised all the text for consistent style and wrote articles for Soundings to keep Sea Ranchers informed about the project.

• Art Dreyer drafted the Landscape and Community Facilities elements.

• Larry Bogovich drafted the Building Design Element and assisted with the Community Facilities Element.

• Phil Mowry drafted the Infrastructure Element.

• RC Vasavada drafted the Public Safety Element

• Don Kemp drafted the Regional Relationships Element—the only entirely new element in the plan.

• Marti Kambe, secretary for the Planning Committee, documented committee discussions and actions throughout the update process.

During the five years spent preparing the plan, three Board members served as liaison to the committee. In the initial stages, Kate MacIntyre helped define the scope of the project and provided detailed comments on early drafts of the introduction and first two elements. Pete Mattson brought encouragement as the committee worked through the rest of the elements and offered helpful suggestions about issues to include. At the end of the project, Rosemarie Hocker offered many comments about both content and writing and took the document to the Board for adoption. All helped keep the project on track and in tune with the entire community.

Several Sea Ranchers who are not Planning Committee members helped with the project. Conversations with veteran Sea Ranchers Janann Strand and Kathi Gordon provided history and context. The Utility Committee reviewed the draft Infrastructure Element and the Trails Committee reviewed the trails section of the Community Facilities Element. These reviews helped the Planning Committee reach a deeper understanding of the issues that needed to be covered.

Reva Basch advised about formatting the document for the TSRA website. Geologist Mike Lane created a Geological Information System (GIS) to produce maps for the plan. And Karen Ward proofread the final draft, catching unclear sentences, typos and errors. Under contract with the Association, Hall Kelley designed the publication. The plan is more useful, accurate and attractive because of their contributions.

Nearly every staff member at the TSRA office helped in some way and all were completely generous with their time and information. Jim Carruthers, Randy Burke and James Derbin reviewed the draft and provided needed corrections. Darla Buechner made sure Board members received drafts in their meeting packets. Dottie Doctor emailed data files to Mike Lane to use in creating maps. Jo Ann Dixon and Merry Marsh in the Department of Design, Compliance and Environmental Management gladly filled many requests for information and graciously endured countless interruptions to help us out. The front office staff directed calls, provided information and helped copy the numerous drafts of the CEP and handouts for the forums. A special thank you goes to Linda Weinstein, Sandy Sloan, Judith Papas and Paula Lim.

Dozens of Sea Ranchers attended the forums on the CEP and read the articles in Soundings about the CEP and took the opportunity to comment. The Planning Committee considered all comments and the resulting plan is clearer, more accurate and better reflects the wishes of the community because of them.

And finally, the Planning Committee thanks the Board of Directors for adopting the CEP on October 23, 2004. Members are: Chair Marti Campbell, Vice Chair Pete Mattson, Scott Nevin, Rosemarie Hocker, Leigh Mueller, Jim Jordan and Kay Dryden. We appreciate their vote of confidence in our work and hope they find the CEP a valuable resource document and guide.

Introduction

The Sea Ranch (TSR) is a special community, planned and developed with unusual sensitivity to its environment. It is an “intentional” community, conceived and designed by the developer to demonstrate that people can inhabit this beautiful and fragile land without destroying it.

Why Plan?
TSR is subject to plans and dictates of the State Legislature, Coastal Commission, Sonoma County, and a number of special districts. In addition, Sea Ranch Restrictions (1) and Sea Ranch Association Rules (2) govern TSR. The Sea Ranch Restrictions are TSR’s “Covenants, Condi­tions and Restrictions” and are usually referred to as the CC&Rs. With all these plans and regulations, some suggest that all the planning for Sea Ranch has been done.

Yet, Sea Ranchers want a voice in the future of their community. The Comprehensive Environmental Plan (CEP) comes from and belongs to Sea Ranchers. Within the context created by the plans of the developer, Sonoma County and the Coastal Commission, the CEP describes the many circumstances where TSR still has choices. The Sea Ranch Association (TSRA) through its Board of Directors, staff, Design Committee and other committees takes actions and makes decisions every day that determine the future course of TSR. The CEP expresses a consensus about where Sea Ranchers want to go and is, therefore, a useful and necessary guide to those actions and decisions.

Most of us want TSR always to be the way it was when we first saw it. Yet, this cannot happen. Growth and change is inevitable. The task of planning is to manage change to preserve and, if possible, enhance this special environment. Mother Nature brings some changes. The bluffs erode, beach sand migrates, and Monarch butterflies come or not. Someday, the San Andreas Fault on our border will snap and its fury on our land and buildings. Change also comes from new development on the coast, the influx of tourists, and timber harvesting. Sea Ranchers cannot directly control most of these changes.

The Sea Ranch Association can, however, manage the impact of new and remodeled houses, control tree planting and removal, and establish management plans for various landscapes. The Association can plan for the needs of Sea Ranchers for roads, water, waste disposal, communications, trails, recreation, and community facilities. With careful planning, TSR can absorb its build-out population without sacrificing its open meadows, forested hillsides and both aesthetic and cultural amenities. The CEP, coupled with the CC&Rs, is a powerful tool to accomplish this.

From 2000 through 2003, an average of 175 TSR properties changed hands each year. That means that 30% of the members in 2004 were not members in 2000. TSRA needs to continually transmit the Sea Ranch philosophy to new owners and update old concepts to account for new realities. Sea Ranch members are a diverse and far-flung group of people with differing values and different relationships with the community. Members include:

• full-time residents, part-timers, investors

• retirees, telecommuters and families with children

• abalone divers, bird watchers, seal docents

• artists, entrepreneurs, professors

At any one time 2,000 to 3,000 guests and renters may be sharing this special place with members. In preparing this plan, the Planning Committee listened to the perspectives of members and considered benefits to the community as a whole in framing guidelines.

Evolution of the CEP
The CEP had a long history before a word was written, as indicated by the brief chronology in Table 1. The idea that TSR might have its own plan surfaced in the Halprin workshop, Taking Part, in 1983. Then, in 1985, the Professional Consultant Group (PCG), composed of architects and landscape architects, met to explore design directions for TSR (3). The resulting report recommended an environmental plan. The Planning Committee had long been urging the Association to hire an environmental planner. In 1988, the Association hired a director for the Department of Planning and Design and in 1989 an environmental planner was added to the staff. Over the next several years, the environmental planner worked with the Planning Committee to write the CEP. The Planning Committee held many public meetings to discuss the plan and the Board adopted it element by element, completing the process in 1996.

As custodian of the CEP, the Planning Committee is required by the Board to periodically update the plan. Since the CEP was completed, one update was conducted in 1999 with the results incorporated as addenda to the original elements. You are now reading the second update of the CEP: CEP 2004. Table 1 outlines the CEP Chronology

CEP 2004
The original 200-page CEP is contained in a three-ring binder and consists of six elements: Planning and Design, Land Use, Natural Resources, Cultural and Recreational Resources, Infrastructure, and Public Health and Safety (4). Each element is divided into subsections and the text for each subsection includes a summary, introduction, background, analysis and goals and guidelines. The document contains no graphics or maps. The Association provides copies to Board members and members of the Planning Committee and keeps copies at the office for members to borrow or review there.

This update, CEP 2004, is a stand-alone supplement to the original. It summarizes and updates the background and analysis in the original and revises the guidelines. In preparing this version, the Planning Committee intended to create a readable and illustrated plan accessible to all Sea Ranchers. CEP 2004 has been explicitly designed for The Sea Ranch website.

CEP 2004 reorganizes and renames some of the elements in the original CEP. It has seven elements, each drafted by a member of the Planning Committee:

• Land Use

• Building Design

• Landscape

• Community Facilities

• Infrastructure

• Public Safety

• Regional Relationships

Each element was revised for consistent style and format and then reviewed and approved by the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee sought comments from Sea Ranchers through articles in Soundings in Summer 2003, Fall 2003, and Spring 2004 and Bulletin announcements. Then, the Planning Committee presented the elements at TSR forums in July and October 2003 and February 2004 to get comments from Sea Ranchers. Drafts of the elements were posted on the TSRA website. The Planning Committee carefully considered all comments, revised the elements and posted the revised elements on the TSRA website prior to a public hearing held on April 10, 2004.

The Planning Committee expects that staff, the Board of Directors and the Association’s various committees and task forces will use CEP 2004. It is both a resource document and a policy document. As a resource document, the CEP summarizes many studies and reports by and for the Association. These materials (including demographic studies, land use and landscape analyses, engineering studies and maps) are identified in the text by bold face numbers in parentheses keyed to the reference lists at the end of each section. The section lists are combined into a consolidated reference list found at the end of the plan. The references include the URLs for documents available on TSRA website. When reviewing CEP 2004 online, the website documents can be directly accessed by clicking on the blue reference number in the text. All the material referenced can also be reviewed at the Association office. Using this reference system, staff and other interested Sea Ranchers should be able to quickly access most materials relevant to specific TSR issues.

CEP 2004 is also a policy document as each element includes guideline statements. The guidelines are non-binding policy statements indicating the Association’s general approach to each issue. Each guideline starts with a verb. In all cases, The Sea Ranch Association is the subject of the sentence. After the CEP is adopted, the Planning Committee will prepare an implementation plan to outline the steps and assign responsibility for putting the guidelines into practice.

Studies and Data
Information and analysis about the past and present is the bedrock underlying any good plan. From this foundation, it is possible to make informed guesses about the future to guide the planning. Planning often starts with a review of demographics and projections of growth. Demographic data from the 1990 and 2000 U.S. censuses was summarized for TSR in articles in Soundings, Spring 2002 (5) and Summer 2003 (6) and Winter 2003 (7). The number of houses, occupied houses and full-time residents was projected to 2010 and 2020. Full-time population in 2010 and 2020 is obtained by projecting the number of new houses, the percent of houses likely to be occupied by full-time residents and the number of persons per occupied house. Since 1996, an average of 30 houses have been added to TSR every year. That rate of building is assumed to continue to 2010 and then drop to 25 per year from 2010 to 2020 as the supply of lots dwindles. Table 2 summarizes data on 1990 and 2000 housing and full-time population, projected to 2010 and 2020.

Table 2 shows that TSR full-time population could reach almost 1,900 by 2020, an increase of 64% over two decades. In addition to the 904 houses with full-time residents, about 400 houses are likely to remain on rental programs and the rest, 548 houses, will be used occasionally by their owners and guests. On a holiday weekend in 2020 with 90 percent of the rental and part-time houses occupied by an average of 2.3 persons, the total number of people at TSRA could be over 4,000.

The guidelines in the CEP elements are intended to help TSRA cope with growth of this magnitude and still protect the qualities that make The Sea Ranch unlike any other coastal community in California, perhaps the world. Mother Nature overachieved when she created this stretch of coast. TSR’s original designers strove to create a community where people could experience the environment without diminishing its beauty. Our job today is to honor the original design concepts while planning for new generations to enjoy The Sea Ranch.

References
Available at TSRA Office and on TSRA Website where URL noted.

1. The Sea Ranch Association, The Sea Ranch Restrictions, A Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants and Conditions, Recorded May 10, 1965. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions.htm

2. The Sea Ranch Association, Rules (periodically revised). http://www.tsra.org/Rules.htm

3. The Professional Consultant Group, Process for the Future of The Sea Ranch, April 1985. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/PFTF.pdf

4. The Sea Ranch Association, Comprehensive Environmental Plan, 1996.

5. Tyler, Dibby, “2000 Census Describes Sea Ranchers,” in Soundings, Spring 2002. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive96.htm#Census

6. Tyler, Dibby, “Sea Ranch and Gualala by the Numbers,” in Soundings, Summer 2003. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive129.htm#Census

7. Tyler, Martha “Dibby,” “Housing Trends Bring Projections for Future” in Soundings, Winter 2003. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive139.htm#Housing

1.0 Land Use

This element discusses past, present and future land uses at The Sea Ranch (TSR). The objective of the element is to ensure that future land development at TSR is consistent with the Sea Ranch Restrictions (CC&Rs) and design philosophy.

Development History
Oceanic California, Inc. (OCI), a subsidiary of Castle & Cooke, purchased the 5,200-acre Del Mar Ranch from the Ohlson family in 1963 and promptly renamed it The Sea Ranch. The developers planned villages at either end of the ranch, a golf course in the middle where Unit 18 is now and ample open space.

Sonoma County approved a development plan for the southern 1,800 acres in 1964 and for the northern 3,400 acres in 1968. The approved plans were for 5,200 single-family and multifamily units clustered to leave at least half of the site as open space. Overall density was about 1 unit per acre. With approval of the second development plan, 149 acres were deeded to Sonoma County for Gualala Point Park and the campground east of Highway 1 to satisfy requirements for public access to coastal beaches included in the Dunlap Act, adopted by the California Legislature in 1968.

OCI dropped the “villages” idea after Sonoma County insisted on separate septic fields for each home, entailing larger lots than originally planned. In addition, units at Condo 1 proved harder to sell than single-family homes. These facts dictated the resulting development pattern of single-family homes on lots arranged around significant open spaces. By the end of 1972, Sonoma County had approved subdivision maps for 28 units with a total of 2,124 lots. About 530 homes had been built.

Bane Bill
Then, California voters approved Proposition 20 to control development in the coastal zone. This measure established temporary state and regional coastal commissions and initiated a planning process for the coastal zone culminating in 1976 with adoption of the California Coastal Plan. The legislature adopted the California Coastal Act of 1976 extending the life of the state Coastal Commission. Land use controls over coastal development reverted to cities and counties when they adopted local coastal plans and programs certified by the state Coastal Commission as consistent with the California Coastal Plan.

From its beginning, the Coastal Commission declared that construction of any new house at TSR required a coastal development permit that it would not issue unless OCI and The Sea Ranch Association (TSRA) agreed to provide additional public access and meet other conditions. This virtually stopped construction at Sea Ranch for 8 years. In 1979, the Coastal Commission adopted “Overall Conditions to Development” for TSR (8). TSRA objected to the conditions, particularly pertaining to public access, and sued the Coastal Commission. In 1980, the California State Legislature resolved the dispute by passing the Bane Bill, as Section 80610.6 of the California Coastal Act (9).

Under terms of the Bane Bill, OCI and TSRA granted 5 easements for public access to the beaches and the northern part of the bluff trail, 15 easements for view corridors from Highway 1, and easements along Highway 1 for left turn lanes, turnouts and a bike path from the north end of Sea Ranch to the public access trail at Walk-On Beach. The Caltrans easement for the bike path is the only one that has not been used. Whether or not this short segment is developed is up to Caltrans. In exchange for the easements, the Association received $500,000, the right for owners to develop the existing lots without needing a permit from the Coastal Commission, and a guarantee that no further public access would be required.

The Bane Bill required the Coastal Commission to establish criteria for height, site and bulk of new houses in the view corridors from Highway 1. The lots in these corridors, called “Bane Bill” lots are shown on Maps 1A and 1B). The Bane Bill also required oversight of septic construction, operation and monitoring. Other issues in the “Overall Conditions” were settled by negotiation and incorporated into the Sonoma County Coastal Plan in 1982 (10). OCI and TSRA agreed to:

• Reduce maximum development from 5,200 units to 2,329 units—a 55% reduction.

• Resubdivide or redesignate condominium sites for single-family houses (Units 18, 19, 34C, 35E and 35F).

• Deed the 30-acre “transfer site” (now Unit 39A & B) to the Coastal Conservancy to receive up to100 units transferred from other coastal subdivisions in Sonoma County.

• Provide 45 units of low-cost housing for “service workers” in exchange for a 100-room Lodge expansion.

• Provide supplemental water supply to avoid drawing from the Gualala River during times of low flow to protect the steelhead and Coho salmon runs.

• Develop a septic system monitoring program.

With these agreements in place, building at TSR resumed. In May 1985, David H. Murdock, Chairman of Flexi-Van, bought out the financially troubled Castle & Cooke and merged the two companies, becoming chairman and chief executive of Castle & Cooke. In doing so, he acquired the land holdings of Oceanic Properties, including the remaining land at TSR. In 1988, Murdock sold the three Timber Production Zones (TPZs) along TSR’s eastern border to Traveler’s Insurance Company and later sold the Lodge property and the golf course to a consortium of local investors (Sea Ranch Village, Inc.). The Lodge property was subsequently resold. In 1990, TSRA bought back the 282-acre Central TPZ.

Precise Development Plan
In 1964, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors designated all 5,200 acres of Sea Ranch, including the Timber Production Zones, a “Planned Community” (PC). As required by its Zoning Code, Sonoma County adopted the Precise Development Plan for The Sea Ranch (11). The Precise Development Plan establishes the land uses and conditions for development at TSR. This plan was amended in 1982 to include changes imposed by the Bane Bill, Sonoma County and the Coastal Conservancy to end the 8-year building moratorium. The plan is brief, containing 8 pages and a map designating land uses. The Precise Development Plan is adopted as part of the Sonoma County General Plan and Local Coastal Plan.

Annexation
Not all the parcels at TSR are annexed to the Associa­tion. This means that they are not subject to TSRA CC&Rs and the owners do not pay Association dues. Annexation occurred unit by unit as final subdivision maps were filed with Sonoma County. All land covered by the Precise Development Plan is annexed except the North and South TPZs, the Lodge and golf course properties, the former church site (Unit 42A), lots on Verdant View, including the California Department of Forestry (CDF) station, TSRA office and annex building on Annapolis Road and the TSRA corporation yard. The Association owns the TSRA office and corporation yard sites.

Section 2.02 of the CC&Rs defines the procedures for annexing land to TSRA (12). In 2002, the Board approved a fee of $10,000 per lot for annexations to recognize the added value of being part of TSRA. (13).

For more background on TSR development, see Clark (14) and Gordon (15).

Current Land Use
The area of TSR covered by the Precise Development Plan has about 5,200 acres. In 2004, these acres were distributed by use approximately as shown in Table 3.

Residential
Bane Bill agreements limit the number of residential lots to 2,329. The Bane Bill allows for an additional 100 housing units in Unit 39A and B, but in 2004 these units had 8 lots for a total of 2,337 lots. Forty-nine lots have been lost through lot consolidations. As shown in Table 4, the number of lots in Fall 2004 was 2,289.

Section 9.04 of the CC&Rs allows lots with 2 or more acres to be split (16). In 2002, the Board set a fee of $20,000 for each new lot created through lot splits (17). Consolidated lots cannot be split again. In 2004, TSR had 26 lots, including Unit 39B, that could be split as shown in Table 5. Consolidated lots and lots that can be split are shown on Maps 2A and 2B.

• Map 1a - Bane Bill Lots Northern Section

• Map 1b - Bane Bill Lots Southern Section

• Map 2a Lot Consolidation & Potential Lot Splits Northern Section

• Map 2b Lot Consolidation & Potential Lot Splits Southern Section

If all these potential lots were created, the total number of TSR lots would be 2,361—less than the Bane Bill limit of 2,429 (including 100 units in 39A and B). In reality, many of these splits are unlikely to occur for the following reasons:

• Eleven of the 15 lots in Units 10 and 10A and the single lots in Unit 19 and 30A and 34A are already developed.

• Lots in Unit 10, 18, 19 and 30A require septic leach fields—a possible constraint to splitting.

• The DC and TSRA Board approved a 3-lot subdivision for the Unit 18 parcel (Mariner’s Drive), but the subdivision has not yet been recorded with Sonoma County.

• The Unit 30 lots are dubbed the “horse lots” because they meet the 3-acre minimum size for keeping a horse as defined in CC&Rs Section 301(f) 1 (18). Two already have houses.

The parcels in Units 18, 30A and 34A are the most likely to be split. TSRA Resolution 157, adopted by the Board in 2000, defines the process for splitting lots (19). Under the guidelines in Resolution 157, an owner wishing to split a lot must obtain the endorsed consent of the Design Com­mittee and demonstrate to the Board that the split is compatible with TSR, the lot is physically suitable for more than one house and environmental impacts are acceptable.

The only sizable residential parcel susceptible to splitting is the 23-acre Unit 39B. This parcel could be subdivided into a maximum of 23 lots under CC&Rs Section 9.04 (20) and the lot split guidelines. It might also be developed as a “project” like the condominiums (Units 2 and 11A) under CC&Rs Sections 3.08 (21) and 3.09 (22). If Unit 39B were developed as a project, density would be limited by CC&R Section 9.04 to 8 units per acre or a maximum of 184 units.

TSRA owned a 2.2-acre parcel near the intersection of Highway 1 and Annapolis Road reserved as a church site, but no church expressed interest. In 2000, the Board of Directors sold the site for one single-family residence. The parcel is not yet annexed to TSR, but will be annexed as Unit 42A before it is developed.

Table 6 shows the number of lots, number of houses built or under construction in 2004 and the percent of lots in each unit with houses. Of the 2,289 residential lots at Sea Ranch, 1,680 were developed or under development by the end of August 2004. That leaves 609 vacant lots. In August 2004, TSR was 73% built out, but Table 6 and the accompanying map (Maps 3A, 3B, 3C) show considerable variation by unit.

Most of the lots are for detached single-family homes. The only attached houses are the 14 in Condo 1 and Condo 2 south of the Lodge and a few of the “cluster” and Burbank housing units. The clusters, walk-in cabins and Burbank housing have small lots, but most are still developed as single-family homes. The Burbank development, sometimes called The Sea Ranch Apartments, consists of 45 low-income units owned and managed by Burbank Housing, a non-profit housing corporation. TSR has an average of .58 acre per housing unit.

Table 7 summarizes the uses of TSR houses as of June 2004. The 2000 US Census shows that full-time residents occupied 577 or 37% of the 1552 houses at TSR. By August 2004, TSR had 1680 houses. If 37% were occupied by full-timers, about 622 would be full-time residences. About 400 houses are on rental programs. That leaves about 658 houses for occasional use by owners and guests.

The density reduction dictated by the Bane Bill influenced the development pattern of Units 34 and 35 at the north end of TSR. Having lost over half the planned units including all the planned condominiums, the developer sought to recoup losses by creating more high-value lots along the bluff. These units are on sewers and, because they do not need leach fields, the lots are smaller than in other units.

Commons (See also Landscape and Community Facilities elements)
Each Sea Ranch member shares non-exclusive use of the commons—almost 60% of Sea Ranch acreage. The Sea Ranch development fits into commons and it is the commons more than the houses that define the Sea Ranch concept. The most important use of commons is open space. Other uses of commons permitted in the Precise Development Plan include roads, utilities, community facilities, trails and other recreation uses. About 107 acres are used for roads. Commons are also used for septic leach fields in cases where these cannot be provided on private lots. These other uses are described in the Community Facilities and Infrastructure elements of CEP 2004.

• Map 3a Developed Lots Northern Section
• Map 3b Developed Lots Central Section
• Map 3c Developed Lots Southern Section

As shown in Table 8, 22 parcels with slightly more than 600 acres are designated “starred” commons. These sites are shown on subdivision maps as “reserved for the development of recreational facilities” (See Map 4).

Except for the Environmental Play Park at The Sea Ranch Apartments and the Chapel, TSR’s community and recreation facilities are on starred sites: Moonraker, Ohlson and Del Mar centers, Hot Spot, One-Eyed Jacks, the Equestrian Center, Knipp-Stengel Barn, the Del Mar School house, dog park, and the air strip and hangars. Twelve small sites with a total of 54 acres are undeveloped. In 2002, TSRA completed the annexation of the central TPZ and the remnant lands as starred commons for “recreation and Sea Ranch related community facilities.” Prior to the annexation, the Board adopted procedures for considering proposed uses of starred sites (23).

In 1999, a Board committee reviewed uses of commons. The committee reaffirmed “commitment to the preservation of the natural environment” and established procedures for use of commons for group activities (24).

Community Facilities (See also Community Facilities Element)
Most of the community facilities are located on starred commons as noted above. The TSRA offices, corporation yard and chapel parcel are owned by TSRA, but are not on commons. TSRA offices on Annapolis Road are crowded, but anticipated needs can be met adequately with an extension of the second floor and a possible addition in front of the building. In 2003, Association staff was planning these building modifications. The office site is not annexed to TSR; however, the Design Committee must approve any building modifications.

The remnant land (Unit 45), between the Sea Ranch Chapel and Deer Trail, consists of 147 acres reserved by the developer to meet future needs. When the developer left, the Association acquired the remnant land. The Horicon School District obtained an option on 8 acres within the remnant lands for possible use as a school site. In 2002, the school district exercised its option and now owns the site. Any development on the remnant land, including the Horicon site, is subject to Design Committee approval. In addition to the restriction in use carried with the “starred commons” designation, the property is subject to a deed restriction that prohibits use for “commercial gain or exploitation.” Within these limits, the remnant land is the only sizable parcel held in reserve for future community facilities.

Commercial
Six private lots in Unit 26 on Verdant View, the Lodge and Golf Links are the only commercial properties at TSR. The Verdant View lots provide office, storage and retail space to serve both Sea Ranchers and non-Sea Ranchers. This commercial center has vacant and underused space. Because it is in the glide path for the airstrip, uses involving public assembly are restricted. However, minor expansion of retail uses here could provide TSR some needed services. These commercial parcels are not annexed to TSR, but the Design Committee must approve any development.

Both the Sea Ranch Lodge and the Golf Links are in private ownership and are not annexed to TSR. However, the Design Committee must approve any development and TSRA has a development agreement specifying the limits of development on both properties (25).

Infrastructure (See also Infrastructure Element)
Most TSR infrastructure is on commons: the roads, utility easements, sewage treatment plants and airstrip. The reservoir and water treatment plant are located on land purchased from Gualala Redwoods, Inc. (GRI) in the North TPZ. The Association has an easement from GRI for access. The California Department of Forestry (CDF) station on Annapolis Road (not on commons) is owned by CDF and is not annexed to TSR. Develop­ment is subject to approval of the Design Committee. The fire station on Highway 1 is owned and operated by The Sea Ranch Volunteer Fire Department. This parcel is annexed to Sea Ranch and subject to design review.

• Map 4a Starred Sites Northern Section

• Map 4b Starred Sites Southern Section

Timber Production Zones (TPZs)
The North TPZ, owned by GRI, brings logging to TSR borders. The Board has entered into long-term negotiations with GRI to reduce the visual and environmental impacts of logging. The South TPZ contains one large house—not a part of TSR.

The Central TPZ was annexed to TSR in 2002 as “starred” commons. It is presently being held as open space with no use aside from trails. TSRA Rule 12 (26) permits hiking and horseback riding, bicycling on fire access trails, and picnicking. No motorized vehicles, camping, woodcutting, smoking, fires, roller-skating, or skateboarding are permitted.

Owners of land in TPZs pay reduced property taxes as long as the land is in timber production. Other than timber production, the land can be used for resource management, education, and recreation such as swimming, hunting, fishing and occasional camping. Residential development is limited to 1 house for every 160 acres with a minimum parcel size of 640 acres. It takes at least 10 years to remove land from a TPZ. An owner can speed up the process by paying penalties and back taxes, but would still need approvals from the Board of Supervisors and State Forestry Board.

Issues
 

Lot Consolidations
The Association Board, Design Committee and members generally favor lot consolidations as a way to reduce the impacts of building at TSR. Under Board policy, an owner who consolidates two lots may build one house with square footage not to exceed that allowed on the larger of the two lots. The argument against consolidations is that the Associa­tion loses dues from the consolidated lot. The main argument for consolidations is that they provide more open space and help to maintain the open feel of TSR. In 2001, the Board reduced the fee to consolidate lots from $2,500 to $1,000 while at the same time adopting a fee of $20,000 per lot for lot splits (27). These fees indicate the Board’s preference for reducing, rather than increasing, the number of lots at TSR.

Lot consolidations could be especially valuable in units where septic field limitations are looming or in the north end where lots are smaller. The Association might consider incentives to encourage consolidating in such locations.

Under the Bane Bill limits, when lots are consolidated, the lost units could conceivably be constructed elsewhere within the boundaries of the Precise Development Plan. The only way this could happen is through splitting parcels that are 2 acres or larger. As noted above, except for Unit 39B, few realistic opportunities exist at TSR for splitting lots. So, for all practical purposes, the reduction in the number of lots through consolidation is a permanent reduction in TSR capacity.

Development of Unit 39B
After passage of the Bane Bill in 1980, Sonoma County required OCI to donate 30 acres to the Coastal Conser­vancy. As stated in a 1989 Coastal Conservancy staff report (28): “The 30-acre parcel has no relation to the purposes of the Conservancy other than its value as a financial asset and the consequent ability to facilitate other Conservancy projects by its sale.” The Conservan­cy purchased coastal lots elsewhere on the Sonoma coast and looked to the sale of the “transfer site” for funds to pay for them. The Sea Ranch Design Commit­tee and Sonoma County approved a 100-unit tentative subdivision map for the site.

In October 1984, the Association annexed the “transfer site” as Unit 39 and in November 1994 entered into a covenant with the owners, Sea Ranch Ventures, Inc. not to oppose development of 60 units on the 30-acre parcel on the basis of the number of units (29). Then, the Design Committee approved a 7-unit subdivision for seven acres of the site designated Unit 39A. That left Unit 39B: 23 acres with a maximum development potential of 53 units, depending upon applicable site constraints. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) done in 1992 in support of the property sale by the Coastal Conser­vancy identified wetlands covering about one-third of Unit 39B. Development of the wetlands is now prohibited by a conservation easement held by the Coastal Conservancy. The Conservation Easement is one of the site constraints limiting development. Table 9 gives a chronology of major actions pertaining to the site.

TSRA’s position is that the Coastal Conservancy achieved its objectives when it sold the site. In light of the 1995 subdivision and approval of Unit 39A development and donation of development rights to the Sea Ranch Foundation, it is uncertain how many units may be developed on the site. Unless Unit 39B is subdivided as specified in TSRA lot split policy or developed as a project under Sections 3.08 and 3.09 of the CC&Rs, it can accommodate one house.

Senior Housing
Many Sea Ranch full-timers arrived at TSR after retirement expecting to spend the rest of their lives here. However, the lack of specialized medical services nearby, difficulty getting around without driving, and problems stemming from house design and maintenance requirements sometimes make that impossible. The last decade has brought many improvements to medical care on the Coast and organized efforts, through a volunteer organization, Community Resource Connection, to provide rides for those who no longer drive. But, little progress has been made in providing housing specifically designed for older people. Sites at TSR that might be suitable for such housing include Unit 39B, and possibly the Corporation Yard or Verdant View area.

Future of Timber Production Zones
TSRA purchased back the Central TPZ, but the other two TPZs remain in private hands. The 1,078-acre North TPZ is owned and logged by Gualala Redwoods, Inc. (GRI). In 1997, GRI proposed a timber harvest plan for several areas next to TSR. A group called The Sea Ranch Advocates for the Environment formed to oppose the logging. Partly because of local opposition, the State Forestry Board rejected the GRI plan. Then, GRI, the TSRA Board of Directors, and the Sea Ranch Advocates for the Environment entered into negotiations leading to Board endorsement of a revised logging plan and a template to govern future logging in the North TPZ and in other places where GRI lands abut TSR. The template prevents logging within 100 feet of residential lots on Sea Ranch, provides some environmental protections for riparian areas, and limits working times. Subsequent negotiations culminated in a “non-binding” agreement on a process for reviewing logging in the North TPZ over the next 24 years. GRI expects to clear cut some land west of the ridge and visible from Highway 1. A detailed visual analysis indicated some disturbance of the visual backdrop, but at levels the negotiating team found acceptable.

Sea Ranchers concerned about the logging on TSR borders formed Friends of the Forest to pursue purchase of all or part of the North TPZ as the surest way to protect TSR from the impacts of logging and the possibility of development in the future. Although the land was not for sale in 2004, the group remains intact to act when the time is right. The Association has not taken a position on reacquiring the North TPZ.

Need for a Commercial Center
Commercial development at Sea Ranch is limited to the Lodge, golf course and the center on Verdant View. The Lodge and golf course provide visitor-serving commercial services. The Verdant View commercial center has a more local clientele. Space is currently underused. The Association could encourage revitalization of this center to include outlets providing some basic services to the community. Uses might include a post office, copy service and coffee shop.
 

Lodge and Golf Course Expansion
Development of the Lodge and Golf Links properties is subject to Design Committee approval, but not approval of the Sea Ranch Board. However, future uses of both sites are limited by the 1991 agreement between Sea Ranch Village, Inc. and TSRA (31). In 2003, new investors proposed substituting hotel rooms with 3-bedroom, 3-bath time share units each with 8 to 10 owners. In April 2004, the Board of Directors rejected amendment of the 1991 agreement to accommodate the change in use. Lodge owners are still considering their options. Expansion of the Lodge could provide some amenities, but would also trigger a need for new waste disposal systems, increased traffic on Highway 1 and greater use of Sea Ranch trails, particularly at the south end. TSRA continues discussions with the Lodge owners to mitigate impacts of any expansion projects on TSR, especially properties near the Lodge.

The Golf Course is also subject to the 1991 agreement with the Association specifying what facilities may be developed. According to the agreement, if the owners ever close the golf course, the land would revert to open space, but could be reopened as a golf course.

Burbank Housing
As part of the Bane Bill agreements, OCI was required to provide 45 units of low-cost housing as a condition for a 100-room expansion of the Lodge. As initially conceived, the housing would be available to service employees at the Lodge and elsewhere on Sea Ranch.

Fifteen units were built by OCI at the northeast end of Sea Ranch. After the Sea Ranch Villages, Inc. purchased the Lodge and golf course, it added another 30 units and replaced one of the original units destroyed by fire. William Turnbull designed all the units. Although the complex is called “The Sea Ranch Apartments,” most of the units are single-family homes; a few have common walls. Burbank Housing Corporation owns and manages the complex. Rents are subsidized through federal housing programs and units are available to anyone meeting income and other eligibility requirements.

As housing prices escalate at Sea Ranch and in surrounding communities, the units at Burbank Housing have become an increasingly important asset. Full-time residents, part-time owners and visitors all rely on services provided by people who rarely make incomes high enough to afford decent housing in the region. The Sea Ranch depends on the services and has an interest in assuring the continued availability of these low-cost housing units.

All the residents of this enclave within TSR are full-time with incomes low enough to qualify for assistance. The majority of residents are Spanish speaking and most are families with children. Almost 60 children live on the three blocks comprising the development. Although the residents enjoy the privileges and amenities available to all Sea Ranchers, efforts to integrate these residents into TSR life have not been successful. Spurred by the organization, Matrix for Change, Sea Ranchers and others constructed an environmental play park for the children and Sea Ranchers volunteer in a local tutoring program. TSRA Security works closely with the on-site managers and residents and is helping to establish a Neighborhood Watch program.

Guidelines

1.1 Manage commons for the beneficial use of Sea Ranch members in accord with the Sea Ranch Restrictions and Board policy. When conflicts arise over use of commons, they shall be resolved in favor of the interests of the community at large and protection of resources.

1.2 Support lot consolidations throughout TSR to increase open space. Encourage consolidations in the north end of Sea Ranch where the lots are small and in the parts of Sea Ranch without sewers and with poor conditions for septic leach fields.

1.3 Encourage development of the 23-acre Unit 39B as a “project” under Sections 3.08 and 3.09 of the CC&Rs, leaving at least half the site, including the conservation easement, as open space. With the exception of a few units in the Clusters and at Burbank Housing, no multifamily housing has been added to TSR since Condo 1 and 2 were constructed in the 1960’s. Development of Unit 39B is TSR’s best chance to realize the developer’s vision of a mix of housing types at TSR. The excellence of project design and compatibility with TSR concept is more important than density.

1.4 Explore sites and ways to develop housing designed for seniors. Criteria to consider include:

• Multifamily or small single-family, one-story units

• Individual ownership of units

• Availability to seniors who already own TSR property

• Affordability

1.5 Be alert for opportunities to acquire full title or easements to all or part of the North TPZ (and possibly part of the South TPZ) by keeping contact with the owners, identifying funding sources and considering options for land use and management.

1.6 Define acceptable and unacceptable uses for the Verdant View commercial area and explore ways to attract desirable uses.

1.7 Use available legal and planning tools to ensure that future development of the Lodge and golf course properties is compatible with TSR concept and minimizes adverse impacts on TSR community.

1.8 Work with the owners, managers and residents of Burbank Housing to improve:

• The flow of information about TSRA CC&Rs, use of TSRA facilities and events to apartment residents, including, perhaps, a newsletter in Spanish,

• The maintenance of the residences, the play park and grounds,

• Security for residents.

References (Available at TSRA Office and on TSRA Website where URL noted)

8. California Coastal Commission, “Overall Conditions for Development”, 1979.

9. California Legislature, The Bane Bill, Section 80610.6 of the California Coastal Act, 1980. http://www.tsra.org/Bane.htm

10. Sonoma County, Sonoma County Coastal Plan, 1982.

11. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, The Sea Ranch Amended Precise Development Plan, adopted July 7, 1982. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/PreciseDevelopmentPlan.pdf

12. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Section 2.02, The Sea Ranch: Annexation of Subsequent Developments. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions2.htm#ArticleII

13. The Sea Ranch Association, Board of Directors Minutes, October 2001. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive86.htm

14. Susan M. Clark, History of The Sea Ranch, August 1996. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive6.htm

15. Kathi Gordon, “Plans Reflect TSR History,” in Soundings, Spring 2000. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive52.htm#History

16. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Section 9.04 Lot Splitting; Consolidation. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions4.htm#ArticleIX

17. The Sea Ranch Association, Board of Directors Minutes, October 2001. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive87.htm

18. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Section 3.02(f)1, Private Area: Uses; Restrictions. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions2.htm#ArticleIII

19. The Sea Ranch Association, Resolution 157, Lot Split—Guidelines for Acting on Proposals, April 2000. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/Res157.pdf

20. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Section 9.04 Lot Splitting; Consolidation http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions4.htm#ArticleIX

21. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Section 3.08 Project Area: Uses; Restrictions. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions2.htm#ArticleIII

22. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Section 3.09 Project Area: Construction and Alteration of Improvements; Excavations, etc. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions2.htm#ArticleIII

23. The Sea Ranch Association, Starred Site Procedures, 2002, revised 2004. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/starredsites.pdf

24. The Sea Ranch Association, Policy on Use of Commons, 1999. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive37.htm#Commons

25. The Sea Ranch Association, Declaration of Restrictions for Sea Ranch Lodge and Golf Course Properties, March 30, 1991. http://www.tsra.org/GolfRestrictions.htm

26. The Sea Ranch Association, Rule 12.00 Central Timber Production Zone (TPZ). http://www.tsra.org/Rules.htm#TPZ

27. The Sea Ranch Association, Board of Directors Minutes, October 2001. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive86.htm

28. Terri Nevins, California Coastal Conservancy, Memorandum, 8/18/1989.

29. The Sea Ranch Association and Sea Ranch Ventures, Inc., Mutual Covenant, November 11, 1994. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/MutualCovnantUnit39.pdf

30. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, The Sea Ranch Amended Precise Development Plan, adopted July 7, 1982. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/PreciseDevelopmentPlan.pdf

31. The Sea Ranch Association, Declaration of Restrictions for Sea Ranch Lodge and Golf Course Properties, March 30, 1991. http://www.tsra.org/GolfRestrictions.htm

2.0 Building Design

The objective of this element of the CEP is to ensure continued adherence to TSR’s original design philosophy while, at the same time, remaining open to innovative design, new building technology and the changing needs of Sea Ranchers.

Background
The Sea Ranch has a long tradition of excellence in architecture. Oceanic California, Inc. retained Moore, Lyndon, Turnbull, and Whitaker (MLTW) to design the now famous Condo #1 and Joseph Esherick and Associates to design the Hedgerow Houses and the original Sea Ranch Lodge. These early buildings, the clusters, walk-in cabins and some individual houses won awards for architectural design. The style of these awarding-winning structures evokes the historic barns and sheds of the northern California coast that were designed to withstand the elements. The basic concept is that buildings complement rather than dominate their settings.

Sea Ranchers remain committed to this design philosophy, often expressed as “living lightly on the land.” Dick Whitaker, Director of Design Review, describes this as “responding to the specific setting, environmental factors, and existing and future buildings” (32). However, several factors conspire to make it difficult to adhere to the philosophy:

• The cost of land on the California coast rose sharply during the 1990s. This is especially true in places like Sea Ranch—one of few coastal locations with infra­structure for houses already in place. Some people, after paying a big price for a parcel, expect to be able to build a big house.

• The cost of redwood and cedar, the historically preferred siding at Sea Ranch, has also risen sharply since the 1970s. Coupled with environmental concerns, this leads people to seek approval for alternative materials and to use pigmented preservatives to extend the life of wood siding.

• Sea Ranch was originally envisioned as a second home community with houses suitable for weekend retreats. However, a growing percentage of Sea Ranchers (25% in 1972, 31% in 1990 and 37% in 2000) are full-time residents who want more space than part-timers for living, guests and storage.

• An average of 175 properties change hands at TSR every year bringing new people to TSR. The need for design education is ongoing.

Design Review
Article IV of CC&Rs (33) establishes an autonomous Design Committee (DC) composed of three members, one of whom must be an architect. Three alternates, all architects or landscape architects, fill in as needed. The Board appoints members of the DC, but did not have the authority to modify its decisions. Under Article III (34), the DC must approve plans for all new construction, exterior modifications and remodels, tree removal, alterations of natural drainage courses, and other “improvements” including landscaping on both private lots and commons.

The design philosophy and guidelines for The Sea Ranch are described and illustrated in the Draft Design Manual—updated by the DC and staff and under review by the community in 2004. Design Committee Rules, an extension of the CC&Rs, further explain the requirements, fees, construction regulations, tree removal, and other items pertaining to land development. The Draft Design Manual (35) incorporates the Design Committee Rules that used to be in a separate document.

The Association design review staff has been through several reorganizations and name changes, emerging in 2002 as the Department of Design, Compliance and Environmental Management (DCEM) with a director. A separate position of Director of Design Review was also created. This person, an architect, is a resource for members about TSR design and is the primary staff to the DC along with another architect on staff to assist with project review, public education and evaluating alternative building technologies.

Article III of the CC&Rs and the Draft Design Manual describe a five-step design review process:

1. Preliminary Site Visit. A member of the design staff meets on the lot with the owner and architect/designer to review procedures and identify site constraints and opportunities. TSRA staff provides owners with copies of the Design Manual, Design Rules, submittal checklists, and lists of approved building materials and indigenous plants.

2. Conceptual Plans. Owner/architect/designer prepares sketch plans for informal, non-binding DC review.

3. Preliminary Plans. Architect/designer submits a site plan for DC review. At this time, TSRA review fees are paid and the lot is staked to show the proposed footprint of the house and/or other improvements. The Association notifies all owners within 300 feet of the proposed project giving them an opportunity to comment.

4. Final Plans. Owner/architect/designer submits construction drawings for DC review and approval. After the DC has approved the plans, the owner must submit them to Sonoma County for a building permit.

5. Inspections. During construction, TSRA staff periodically inspects to ensure that work conforms to approved plans. A Sonoma County building official also inspects for compliance with building codes and county ordinances.

Issues
 

Communicating TSR Design Message
In 2002, perceiving that Sea Ranchers and prospective Sea Ranchers were not fully aware of the Sea Ranch design philosophy, the Board appointed the Interpretive Center Task Force to explore the possibility of an interpretive center (physical or virtual) to explain and foster design consistent with the Sea Ranch concept. Task force members interviewed real estate agents, architects and owners who had been through design review. The task force concluded that a center was not needed, but that TSRA could take several relatively simple steps to communicate design concepts, particularly to prospective buyers. In June 2003, the Board adopted the program recommended by the task force and chartered a permanent operating committee, the Vision Interpretive Program (VIP) Committee to implement the program (36). By summer 2004, the VIP committee had accomplished the following:

• Produced a booklet, The Sea Ranch: Concept and Covenant, for distribution to prospective owners through real estate firms, rental agencies, the TSRA office and local shops (37). The booklet is on TSRA website as the first piece in a new section designed for prospective owners.

• Planned periodic meetings with local real estate bro­kers and agents, architects and designers and contractors who are the primary sources of information for people considering buying and building at TSR.

• Designed a display to be installed at the Sea Ranch Lodge or the Association office and, in smaller versions, real estate offices serving TSR. The display will graphically explain The Sea Ranch concept and covenant. Local real estate firms have offered to pay for construction and installation at their offices.

• Initiated a “design docent” program to train volunteers to conduct tours of TSR for members and prospective members with a focus on design.

The VIP committee is also exploring ways to increase communications among the Design Committee, owners and their architects and TSR community and to improve access to the DCEM staff. Future projects will include preparing supplements to the design manual to cover landscaping and remodeling.

Additional approaches, to keep existing owners excited and informed about Sea Ranch design history and concepts, include holding design workshops and recognizing good design through an awards program. In 1983, 1993 and 2003, Larry Halprin conducted design workshops at TSR. The most recent one explored the “core values” of Sea Ranch and generated enthusiasm for maintaining the original Sea Ranch vision. The DC has sporadically (1972, 1974, 1978, and 1998) given awards for architecture in keeping with the Sea Ranch philosophy. Publicizing the awards gives a chance to discuss the qualities that define TSR’s special architecture.

Preserving Historic Buildings
Historic structures and districts on TSR impart a sense of continuity to the landscape. Historic districts are: The Black Point Area, Knipp-Stengel Barn Area (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) and the Del Mar Ranch Area. Historic features include the Del Mar School House, One-Eyed Jack’s playground, sheep pens, gravesites, fences, and red pasture gates along Highway 1. With sweat and devotion, TSR volunteers restored the Knipp-Stengel Barn and the Del Mar schoolhouse. Regular maintenance is needed to keep these buildings and other historic features a part of the Sea Ranch scene.

The early Sea Ranch buildings are another category of important buildings that may need protection. Examples include Condo #1, the Hedgerow Houses, Binker Barns, The Sea Ranch Lodge, and other miscellaneous houses that over time have become trademarks of TSR design. These buildings are privately owned and not yet old enough to qualify for official historic status, but together they constitute the community’s architectural heritage. The owners are solely responsible for protecting their historic integrity.

New Building Materials
The Association recognizes the need to evaluate new building materials and structural and mechanical systems appropriate for The Sea Ranch and, in fact, has hired an assistant architect for that purpose. Synthetic materials (fiber cement siding, e.g.) can be ecologically sensitive alternatives to wood, offering superior weather and fire resistance. Improvements to the appearance of some types of artificial siding make them a possibility at TSR. Designing for energy efficiency and fire resistance is also important. The Draft Design Manual (38) allows the use of alternative siding materials (Section 5.3.1) and both passive and active solar design (Section 5.6). Approval of any new materials and technologies rests with the Design Committee; however, the Board, exercising its responsibility to communicate priorities and views to the DC, adopted Resolution 199 in March 2004 encouraging the use of alternative siding materials and innovative construction techniques (39).
 

Large Houses
Most of the original Sea Ranch houses were small second homes nestled against the hedgerows. Over the years, the houses have become larger reaching an average size of 2,146 square feet for new houses in 2000. Since then, the average size for new houses has dropped slightly. However, the square footage of a house is not the whole picture. Most houses now come with garages. In 1995, 35 houses were built—20 of them had garages. In 2001, 36 houses were built—33 of them had garages. Elevated decks and covered porches add more square footage. In addition, more owners are joining the structures on a lot with fencing creating large courtyards. The result is the “compound” look where lots appear almost totally covered with structures.

The problem is primarily one of context and design. Some lots can readily accommodate houses larger than 2,000 square feet. And a well-designed 3,000 square-foot house can appear no larger than a poorly designed 2,000 square-foot house. However, as “build out” approaches, each new house is being shoehorned into an existing neighborhood. Issues of size, bulk, views and privacy require increasingly sensitive treatment.

Attendees at the April 2003 Halprin workshop seemed in agreement that some houses had become too large and viewed this as a major challenge facing TSR Design Committee. The DC sometimes requires neighborhood bulk and view studies to ensure that new construction is in scale with nearby houses and respects established view corridors.

Remodels, Additions and Demolitions
The general increase in house size plus the conversion of many weekend homes to full-time residences has brought proposals for large additions to existing homes. The first demolition of an old house to make way for a totally new one has already occurred. Some older houses may be reaching the end of their life-cycle and others may be targeted for demolition by new owners who “love the lot, but hate the house.” Additions and replacement houses can substantially change the character of existing neighborhoods.
 

Guidelines
2.1 Implement the VIP Committee design education program including:

• Prepare new manuals to guide remodeling and landscaping.

• Distribute The Sea Ranch: Concept and Covenant.

• Hold meetings on a regular basis to educate and update new and existing owners, architects and designers, real estate agents, and contractors about the TSR design philosophy, design review requirements, and construction regulations.

• Provide displays for the Lodge, Association office and real estate offices explaining the “concept and covenant.”

• Train “design docents” to conduct architectural tours of Sea Ranch.

• Institute procedures to improve understanding of and accessibility to the design review process.

2.2 Urge the Design Committee to exercise special sensitivity to views, privacy and neighborhood character in approving infill houses.

2.3 Institute a regular design award program with the Design Committee making nominations and a separate jury of peers selecting the award-winning homes.

2.4 Develop specific criteria and methods to officially designate early Sea Ranch structures that exemplify the use of architectural elements, materials and style that have become characteristic of TSR. Explore funding sources to help private owners preserve and maintain these buildings.

2.5 Publish a guide to the early buildings on TSR that includes descriptions of innovative design and site solutions, backgrounds on the designers, and other relevant information.

2.6 Communicate to the DC, the Association’s desire to allow the use of new building materials and concepts that are ecologically sensitive and resistant to the elements, energy efficient and, at the same time, will preserve the Sea Ranch design vernacular.

2.7 Explore the applicability at TSR of “universal design concepts” that promote housing designed for all ages.

References (Available at TSRA Office and on TSRA Website where URL noted)

32. Richard Whitaker, “Midwinter Meeting Meaningful,” Soundings, Spring 2003. http://www.tsra.org/archives/Archive122.htm#Midwinter

33. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Article IV. Design Committee. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions3.htm#ArticleIV

34. The Sea Ranch Association, CC&Rs, Article III. Land Classifications, Use and Restrictive Covenants. http://www.tsra.org/Restrictions2.htm#ArticleIII

35. The Sea Ranch Association, Draft Design Manual (including Design Rules), 2004. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/DesignManual.pdf

36. TSRA, Vision Interpretive Program Committee, Work Program, May 2003. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/VIPWorkPlan.pdf

37. The Sea Ranch Association, The Sea Ranch: Concept and Covenant, February 2004. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/VIPBooklet.pdf

38. The Sea Ranch Association, Draft Design Manual (including Design Rules), 2004. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/DesignManual.pdf

39. The Sea Ranch Association, Resolution 199, Use of Alternative Siding Materials and Techniques, February 28, 2004. http://www.tsra.org/pdf/Res199.pdf

3.0 Landscape

One reason people come to Sea Ranch is its landscape—the Pacific Ocean, coastal bluffs, beaches, meadows, hillsides, redwood forests, streams and the Gualala River. This element recognizes the continuing responsibility of the Association, its members and the Design Committee to protect and enhance the beauty of the Sea Ranch landscape. The objective of early landscape planning at TSR, stated by Halprin Associates, was “to preserve that which was valuable ecologically, so as to make the property more livable without destroying its natural beauty.”

Although “landscape” broadly defined includes the landforms, soils, water features, scenery and vegetation of a site, this Landscape Element focuses on vegetation—the aspect of the landscape that can be most easily managed. The Association manages the landscape to preserve the beauty of the site, provide space for homes, roads and facilities, blunt the winds, enhance wildlife habitats, create privacy, provide views, remove hazards and reduce the potential for wildfires.

Background
When Oceanic California, Inc. (OCI) purchased the land that is now The Sea Ranch, it was a sheep ranch. The meadows on both sides of Highway 1 were overgrazed and essentially barren, the vista broken only by scattered ranch buildings, grape-stake fences and the cypress hedgerows planted as wind­breaks. Loggers had removed most of the old growth redwood from the forests, leaving eroded stream channels and regenerating forests. It was not a pristine environment.

TSR started with this managed landscape and reworked it to make it suitable for a community. OCI initiated studies of TSR environment to guide land planning and landscape management. Developer Al Boeke often says “fixing” the landscape for building cost more than the land itself. OCI planted thousands of trees (mostly Bishop and Monterey pines), lined the stream channels with willows, thinned the forest under­story and restored the meadows by planting a mixture of grasses and wildflowers, including Douglas iris. These efforts created what we now enjoy as the Sea Ranch landscape.

Landscapes evolve. The pines grew; the hedgerow trees aged; unwanted plants appeared in the meadows; underbrush accumulated in the forests and people added more exotic plants. These changes to the landscape, especially the spread of forests to open hillsides and meadows, raised two issues—lost views and increased fire danger. These issues spurred the Association to engage seriously in landscape management, starting in 1979 when Chris Bowen prepared the Land Management Plan for the Sea Ranch (40). Then, in the early 1980s, TSRA staff members engaged in a unit-by-unit landscape planning process that culminated in The Sea Ranch Landscape Management Plan (41). In 1989, Eldon Beck prepared a plan with a focus on fire management (42).

Sea Ranch is a mosaic of distinct landscapes. Table 10 on page 3-2 describes the landscape types and management goals for each landscape type. Strictly speaking, private lots do not form a distinct landscape zone, but they are listed separately in Table 10 because the major management responsibility rests with the owners rather than the Association.

In 2002, TSRA began implementing a comprehensive program to reduce fuel loads throughout TSR. The Fuels Management Program (FMP) (43) includes removing underbrush, shrubs, and low tree branches along major roads east of Highway 1, on hillsides downslope from residences, and selected areas on both sides of the highway. The program also calls for annual clearing of a firebreak along Highway 1, removing conifers and planting willows and other riparian vegetation along stream corridors, and grazing sheep and goats in the meadows on both sides of the highway. In 2002, in a separate, but related action, Sonoma County trimmed and removed trees in the Bane Bill view corridors along Highway 1 (44).

Issues
 

Too Many Trees
One unambiguous consensus at the April 2003 Halprin workshop was that TSR now has too many trees that block views, intrude on open spaces and pose a fire hazard. When the original developers planted thousands of trees, they expected a higher mortality than actually occurred. TSR has the wrong species of trees in the wrong places, often too close together and in poor condition. Older trees and those in poor condition can lose branches or topple in high winds endangering people, structures and other vegetation. Seedlings from existing trees have spread into meadows throughout TSR. As a result, many properties on the hillsides and upper meadows have lost their views of the ocean and solar access.

As noted above, Sonoma County removed trees along Highway 1 and TSRA crews are trimming lower branches of trees as part of the Fuels Management Program. The sheep and goats are eating some shrubs and seedlings. But, aside from the FMP, TSRA has no comprehensive program with priorities and an annual budget to reduce the number of trees in the meadows or to prevent the spread of the forests.

Disappearing Views
This issue is primarily a product of too many trees in the wrong places. TSRA generally assigns higher priority to tree work needed to reduce hazards and fuel loads than to restore views. In 1989, TSRA adopted a “procedure for view restoration, tree removal or trimming.” (45) Under this procedure, a Sea Rancher may apply to have a tree removed or trimmed on his own or a neighbor’s property or on commons. In all cases, either staff or the Design Committee may act on the application and the applicant (maybe with a neighbor) pays for approved tree work. TSRA forwards an application to trim or remove a tree from a neighboring property to the neighbor for a signature approving the work. When TSRA receives an application to trim or remove trees on commons, it notifies all property owners within 300 feet. In “genuinely extraordinary” circumstances, the Community Manager may authorize spending Association funds for tree removal on commons for view restoration.

Sec. 6.5.3 of the Draft Design Manual declares that trees and shrubs are subject to the same height limits as buildings on a site and owners are responsible for keeping plants at or below the height limit (46). However, TSRA has found this provision hard to enforce. It may only pertain if it can be shown that the tree or shrub was planted as part of a plan approved by the Design Committee. Thus, Sea Ranchers may have little recourse when trees on other private lots are blocking views and the owners do not wish to trim or remove them.

Bluff Cypress
The developer planted Monterey cypress along the bluff edge in selected locations to help control bluff erosion. These beautiful windswept trees frame views and sunsets and offer refuge from the wind to bluff trail hikers. When they are young with dense low growth they also inhibit bluff erosion. However, as they grow tall, the upper branches act as sails catching wind that rocks the trees causing the roots to move and loosen the soil. The taller trees may fall, taking huge chunks of soil with them.

In his 1991 report (47), Joe McBride recommended replacing the bluff-edge cypresses when they lose their lower branches with shore pine and low-growing shrubs and ground covers. Until they reach that point, the height and spread of the trees should be controlled.

A 1995 plan (48) details management requirements for each stand of bluff-edge cypress. The plan recognizes the need to eventually replace the trees with low-growing native plants. Although adopted by the Board, the plan has been only sporadically implemented.

Bluff Erosion (See also Trails Section of Community Facilities element)
The Sea Ranch bluff, the centerpiece of its landscape, is generally stable and eroding at rates that will not cause problems for many decades. However, in several areas where the rocks are fractured, the bluff is being cut back during winter storms.

In 1998, Geologist Ted Konigsmark evaluated 32 possible erosion sites along the bluff—24 next to the public access easement north of Walk-on-Beach and 8 south of Walk-on-Beach. (49) Konigsmark concluded that 10 locations pose near-term problems because of erosion (See Map 5). Subse­quent storms have caused additional erosion or collapse of the bluff in some of these problem areas. In particular, erosion has removed the entire public access easement at the end of Sea Pine and threatens private lots. The impacts of bluff erosion on the bluff trail and the public trail easement is discussed in the Trails section of the Community Facilities element.

Bace Geotechnical reviewed the 10 problem areas identified in the Konigsmark report and essentially recommended additional studies to verify the causes of the erosion and assess possible mitigations including drainage improvements, shotcreting, retaining walls or riprap (50). Neither the Coastal Commission nor the Association is likely to approve structural mitigations other than drainage modifications. Where commons are available, moving the bluff trail inland is the easiest and least expensive and environmentally disruption solution. The most difficult problems are where private property comes close to the bluff edge. Sooner or later, private lots and even houses will be endangered. The Associa­tion has no plans for dealing with this eventuality.