Report of the Interpretive Center
Task Force

Submitted for Consideration by TSRA Board at 2/22/03 Meeting

Task Force Members:  Dibby Tyler, Chair, Matt Adams, Reva Basch, Don Kemp, Jackie Knowles, Laurie Mueller, Gene Weston, and Dick Whitaker.  Staff Liaison:  Jim Carruthers.  Board Liaison:  Ann Harriman

Introduction
The idea of an interpretive center at Sea Ranch has been around for a long time.  The Sea Ranch Comprehensive Environmental Plan (CEP) uses the terms “library,” “repository,”  and “space within its community facilities” to describe a physical place where members and, perhaps, prospective members could go for information on The Sea Ranch design philosophy, development history, landscape design, plants and wildlife.  The underlying idea is that if members and prospective owners truly understand the special qualities of TSR natural environment and the reasons for the design philosophy, they will act to protect them.  CEP goals and guidelines pertinent to the idea of an interpretive center are listed in Appendix A.   

On June 21, 2002, the TSRA Board authorized Chairperson Ann Harriman to establish a task force to explore the idea of an interpretive center for The Sea Ranch. 

The Board charged the task force to study:

• What purposes or objectives an Interpretive Center (IC) might accomplish?
• Who might make use of the IC, e.g., members, potential members, architects, builders, scholars?
• What content should be included?
• Explore alternative options.

The ICTF held six meetings between July 2002 and February 2003.  At the beginning, the task force decided that “interpretive center” would be broadly interpreted to include a wide range of ways to communicate information about design and the environment at The Sea Ranch.  Also, from the beginning, discussion centered on how to convey TSR design concepts to a variety of audiences including prospective owners, members considering additions to their houses, realtors, architects and designers, and contractors. 

The task force recognizes that all Sea Ranchers need to know about the Sea Ranch environment—its history, the processes shaping it and the plants and wildlife inhabiting it.  The task force believes that effective use of the website, publications and space in existing community facilities can enhance understanding for all of us.

Lack of knowledge of the environment is manifested primarily as inappropriate house and landscaping designs.  In addition, with new staffing for design review and two new members on the Design Committee (DC), the time seemed right to explore in detail how people get and use information about design at TSR.  Thus, the task force limited its deliberations to design issues.  

Work Program
The task force began by developing a work program to guide its efforts.  The program lists 5 tasks:
 

• Identify problems and needs.
• Document problems and needs.
• Identify options for addressing problems and needs.
• Conduct or participate in a workshop or Forum.
• Prepare recommendations and report.

The sections below describe the results of work on these tasks.  Appendix B to this report contains the entire work program.

Identify Problems and Needs
The task force identified ten problems or needs to be confirmed and/or addressed:
 

1.      The DC receives some plans for houses that are inappropriate for Sea Ranch.  By the time the plans are submitted, the owners have already invested significant time and money and it is difficult to turn them down.  Some architects, designers, builders and contractors fail to comply with TSR design requirements.

2.      Realtors are in the business of selling lots and houses and some do not explain to prospective buyers the responsibilities of owning property at TSR.

3.      Space in the TSR office is cramped for both offices and storage.

4.      Visiting architects, landscape architects and scholars have no place to meet where they can review materials about the history and development of TSR.

5.      Current periodicals and other publications may fail to communicate properly to various audiences.

6.      Existing owners need continuing education especially as remodeling and additions become more frequent.

7.      TSRA fails to differentiate between TSR and other high-end real estate developments.

8.      Vacation renters and casual visitors have no way of learning about The Sea Ranch “concept” and what that means in terms of how we treat our environment.

9.      Owners need to learn how to choose and interact with architects and others involved in the design process.

10.  Non-compliance with landscape guidelines can change the character of TSR environment.

Review of information available to prospective buyers
The task force reviewed both historic and current literature explaining Sea Ranch.  Oceanic California, Inc. prepared several attractive and interesting publications to explain and promote Sea Ranch.  Since the Association took control, no publication of comparable quality has been created to explain the natural environment and design philosophy shared by Sea Ranchers.  The Sea Ranch is no longer a real estate development, but a community.  The need now is not for promotional literature, but for material to inform prospective and new members about the Sea Ranch design philosophy and the responsibility shared by all members to protect the special environmental qualities of TSR as they build in and enjoy the community.

Problems noted include: 

• Clients sometimes spend less time at Sea Ranch before deciding to buy than they did in the old days.  
• Increasing numbers of clients are using the web to screen properties.
• Buyers get plenty of information, especially at closing, but may not read it.
• The number of agents has grown rapidly in this boom market and many are not as familiar with Sea Ranch as the “old timers.”
• People do not have “standing” to get information about lots from the Association until after they buy property.  Realtors cannot (and should not) answer specific questions about what the Association would permit on a given lot.
• Clients experience inconsistency with design review decisions.  The process is not clear.
• In the early days, realtors had promotional packets with lots of graphic materials including the design manual.  Prospects were given tours of The Sea Ranch.  The concept was sold—not just lots.  Now realtors give out a brochure and map and most do not conduct a tour.
• The space used by the Design Department and Design Committee is poor and gives a bad impression.

Suggestions include:

• Several realtors routinely refer clients to the TSRA website for information.  It would be good to have a section specifically for prospective buyers including illustrations of good design.
• Some of the information distributed at the time of the site visit might be provided earlier in the process.
• A center would be good—someplace with visuals to clearly explain why “less is more.”
• Organize Sea Ranch “old timers” to help answer questions from prospective and new owners.
• The Association could hold a periodic meeting for realtors to give them up-to-date information about design review (and other issues) so the realtors can give accurate information to their clients
• When important changes occur, like the appointment of Dick Whitaker, an email announcement could be sent to realtors via the multiple listing service.
• Clients need and want more information about the Sea Ranch concept and design review.  The new design manual should contain more graphs and visuals.
• Rent Obie Bowman’s old office for the Design Committee and the upstairs of the old Henley Gallery for an interpretive center.

Interviews with Architects
Dibby Tyler interviewed Fiona O’Neill and Don Kemp interviewed Ralph Matheson about their experiences with design review.   Copies of the interview summaries are included in Appendix C to this report.

Suggestions include:

• People need more discussion, earlier in the process, about design possibilities and constraints of their particular lots.
• Letters to applicants from the DC should be clear, tactfully worded, and state the reasons for decisions.
• Dick Whitaker should be authorized to permit small changes in design.
• Owners need clearer guidelines and more information about designing “infill” projects.
• Clients expect that design issues can be negotiated.  If that is not the case, then this needs to be communicated to applicants and their designers.
• Design criteria and changes in emphasis by the DC need to be clearly conveyed to the local design community.  The design manual should include a clear discussion of house size.
• The DC should consider opening meetings to architects and designers when their projects are being reviewed.
• Periodic meetings of the DC and staff with the design community would be helpful.

Telephone survey of owners
The task force developed a questionnaire and Matt Adams, Don Kemp, Jackie Knowles, Laurie Mueller and Dibby Tyler conducted a telephone survey of owners about their experiences with design review.  A copy of the questionnaire with a tabulation of the responses is included as Appendix D to this report.

The sample included 50 Sea Ranch owners:  40 of the 64 owners who received building permits for new houses in 2000 and 2001 and 10 of the 50 owners who received building permits for additions in 2000 and 2001.  Of the 50, 39 (78%) were interviewed—30 who built new houses and 9 who added to existing houses.  Fifteen of the respondents are full time Sea Ranchers, 18 use their homes part time and 5 had houses still under construction.  About 64% had been long-time renters before they bought at Sea Ranch and about 74% had spent more than a month at Sea Ranch before buying.

Key results are:

• Realtors were the main source of information about Sea Ranch for 82% of the respondents before they bought property.
• Architects and designers were the main source of information about design review for 77% of the respondents.
• Respondents ranked contacts with TSRA staff (62%), TSR publications (59%) and the TSRA website (49%) as effective ways to convey information about design.  Videotapes or CDs, meetings, and displays at a specific TSR site were each considered effective by 33% of the respondents.
• Thirty-three of the 39 respondents used architects or designers who had designed other Sea Ranch houses and 37 used local contractors.
• In almost 75% of the cases, the DC approved original plans with only minor changes.   Five owners had initial plans rejected.
• Only 3 respondents (less than 1%) had a generally negative response to design review and only 1 was totally negative.
• When asked for positive aspects of design review, many praised TSRA staff using terms such as fair, accessible, professional, careful, friendly, responsive, and flexible.  The process was deemed clear, painless, predictable, reasonable, and quick.  Four noted that DC comments resulted in a better house.
• When asked about negative aspects of design review, different people viewed the same staff as arrogant, inflexible, rude, dogmatic and inaccessible.  Some criticized the process as slow, too detailed, arbitrary, inconsistent, frustrating, and trendy.   Others noted inadequate reasons given for decisions.
• Suggestions for improvement included: 

• information on TSR concept and design for realtors and rental agents

• updated design manual, organized by topic, with summaries and a flow chart

• adherence to The Sea Ranch “concept” and better enforcement

• notices to neighbors about resubmitted plans

• open Design Committee meetings

• changes in standards especially regarding new materials and eaves

• better information about landscaping and tree removal.

Participate in Forum
The task force recognized the importance of considering the views of all interested Sea Ranchers in the study.  All meetings were open and listed in the Bulletin and minutes of the early meetings appeared on TSRA website.  Two articles about the task force appeared in the Bulletin and the results of the survey were presented at the Forum on Design Review on December 1, 2002.

The task force prepared a brief questionnaire handed out to forum attendees to give them a chance to contribute their views about design review at TSR.  The questionnaire asked for the most positive and negative aspects of their experience and suggestions for improvement in the design review process.  Twelve questionnaires were turned in at the end of the meeting and the results paralleled those of the telephone survey.   All reported an essentially problem-free experience with design review.  Several mentioned that their architect or designer handled the process.  Positive aspects (other than “no problems”) included:

• Brochures, workshops during pre-planning
• A local architect
• On-site discussions
• Strict, clear CC&Rs and DC Rules
• Consistent communications

Negative aspects included:

• Change in staff during process
• Inconsistency in decisions
• Lack of explanation of DC decisions
• Length of time
• Analysis required to remove trees

Suggestions were:

• Provide better information to prospective and new owners.
• Provide information to rental agents and realtors for prospective buyers.
• Conduct workshops for owners before they begin designing.
• Be consistent in design decisions.
• Consider alternative building materials.
• Update the design manual.
• Do not issue so many variances.
• Explain TSR characteristics that influence design.
• Communicate DC thinking to membership.
• Study landscape architecture principles.
• Notify neighbors of resubmitted plans.
• Withhold occupancy permits from owners who violate CC&Rs.

Findings

After reviewing all the information gathered, the task force reached the following findings:

1. Most buyers of property at Sea Ranch know about the community and its design philosophy.
2. Before they buy, most people get information about Sea Ranch primarily from their realtor.
3. When planning to build or add on to a house, most people get information about design review primarily from their architect or designer.
4. Most members have little or no difficulty with design review.  Those few that have problems usually sell their lots and move on.  In this sense, the process succeeds in weeding out those whose design views are not congruent with TSR concept.
5. Many of the difficulties cited with design review stemmed from staff changes and vacancies.  Ted Smith’s retirement more than two years ago left a gap in staffing that was not filled until recently.
6. More Sea Ranchers are disturbed by what they perceive as laxness in design review than by the difficulty of going through the process.
7. The greatest unmet need is for more and earlier contact with staff or knowledgeable people about issues specific to a lot.
8. As Sea Ranch approaches build out, the relationship of each new building to those around it becomes more important.
9. TSRA provides little design guidance specifically for remodels and additions.
10. Many design controversies involve landscaping, especially tree removal.  Members need better guidance. 
11. Members look primarily to traditional ways of getting information about design review—TSRA staff and the Bulletin and Soundings.
12. The TSRA website was not used much by the survey respondents, but many thought that as it continues to add content, it will be a more important medium to inform both prospective buyers and existing owners about design issues.
13. An “interpretive center” as a separate structure does not appear needed to help resolve issues with design review.  The problems that arise are mostly related to specific site conditions and with very few exceptions do not stem from a lack of understanding of “the Sea Ranch concept.”  Simpler, less expensive solutions can effectively resolve the problems.
     

Recommendations

1.   Create a clear, concise, colorful and visually-exciting booklet to convey TSR design principles to prospective buyers.  Provide copies to realtors for distribution to clients as a complement to the currently used black and white pamphlet (1999).

2.   Add a section to the TSRA website for prospective buyers.  The text and graphics could be similar to, or the same as, the booklet.

3.   In remodeling TSRA offices on Annapolis Road:

·        Provide space for visual displays of excellent design at TSR.  If a design awards program is established, consider displaying models and photos of award winning houses coupled with a brief explanation of why the design was chosen for an award.  Similar visual material should also be available on TSRA website.

·        Consider improving direct Sea Rancher access to the design support staff.

4. Improve availability of design department staff to talk with owners and their architects early in the design process in order to avoid expensive redesigns later.

5.   Convene an annual meeting with realtors to describe any changes in policies, design criteria or procedures that a prospective buyer should know.  The meeting would also introduce new realtors to Sea Ranch and consider any issues relevant to the two groups.  Appropriate TSRA staff, Board members and or committee members would participate.

6.   Convene an annual workshop between TSRA Design Committee members and staff and local architects and designers for a dialog about any changes in design criteria or shifts in emphasis, procedural problems, use of new materials, etc. 

7.   Hold an annual meeting for contractors to keep them up to date on design and building issues at TSR and the use of new materials.  The meeting also would introduce new contractors to TSRA procedures.  It might be combined with the meeting for architects and designers.

8.   Establish a program to train and use volunteers as “design docents” to talk with prospective and existing owners and their architects, designers and builders about design issues at TSR.  The docents could give out general information and refer complicated problems to staff.  Other tasks might include helping to organize the annual meetings of realtors, architects and contractors, conducting tours of both prospective buyers and visiting professionals and students, and assisting with compliance monitoring.

9.   Increase the visibility of the Design Committee by including profiles of members in the Bulletin, Soundings and TSRA website, inviting them to speak at Forums, and, perhaps, having occasional open DC meetings.

10.  Update and distribute the design manual.  The updated version should include graphics, a description and flow chart of the review process and explicit guidance on issues that tend to cause problems such as house size, use of new materials, paving, garages, etc.

11.  Prepare new manuals for both landscape design and house remodels.

12.  If the Lodge expansion goes forward, help the Lodge to create appropriate displays at the “interpretive center” now shown on its plans.

APPENDIX A:  CEP GOALS AND GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO AN INTERPRETIVE CENTER

DESIGN ELEMENT

Goal 1.2-1: A proactive informational program to promote and perpetuate The Sea Ranch Concept and design philosophy, to challenge the membership to sustain the tradition of environmental design excellence, and to support a continuing discussion of environmental design at The Sea Ranch.
 

Guidelines
1.2-1(c):  Develop a library which focuses on environmental design and the history and philosophy of design at TSR, and which is open to the membership, the design community, and prospective members of the Association.

1.2-1(d):  Develop in cooperation with the Design committee a package of informational materials that:  Details the history of the approach to environmental design at TSR; expresses the original principles guiding development at TSR; and, explains the design process and its benefits to a new owner and the community at large.

NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT

Guidelines
3.1-1(g):  Promote and communicate to TSRA members and guests:  An awareness of TSR’s natural resource values; the need and rationale for management of certain resources, the need for protection of other resources; and consider formation of a committee or expansion of an existing committee’s charter to promote TSR’s natural resource values.

3.2-1(f): Provide to TSRA members educational materials on the variety, quality, and protection of TSR’s adjacent ecological and recreational resources.

CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES

Guidelines
4-3-1(d):  Provide space within its community facilities for continuing displays of the natural history and cultural history of The Sea Ranch.

4.4-1(d):  Provide for owners and potential owners a repository of information concerning TSR including documents concerning:  its history; philosophy of development, design and use; community organization and activities ; and natural resources.

4.4-2(b):  Foster communication with the regional community to develop an understanding of the needs and resources of The Sea Ranch and to promote understanding of the underlying philosophy of TSR development and design.

INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
 

Guideline
5.2-1(e):  Provide educational materials and programs pertaining to septic systems to all owners within Zone 2 and to rental agencies managing properties within Zone 2, and request the Design Committee to include in its Preliminary Site Visit packet information related to the proper design and use of septic systems.
 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT

Guidelines
6.1-1(h):  Provide TSRA members with a packet of educational materials which include information on fire dangers, responsible preventative measures, and evacuation instructions.  The information may be included as part of a comprehensive Disaster Plan packet for TSR.

6.3-1(e):  Use TSRA publications and other communication resources to support the development and update of a TSR Disaster Plan, and to educate its members about the potential for and consequences of a major disaster.

APPENDIX B:  ICTF WORK PROGRAM,
Revised August 23, 2002

TASK A.  State Problems/Needs

11.  The DC receives plans for houses that are inappropriate for Sea Ranch.  By the time the plans are submitted, the owners have already invested a lot and it is difficult to turn them down.  Some architects, designers, builders and contractors fail to comply with TSR design requirements.

12.  Realtors are in the business of selling lots and houses and some do not explain to prospective buyers the responsibilities of owning property at TSR.

13.  Space in the TSR office is cramped for both offices and storage.

14.  Visiting architects, landscape architects and scholars have no place to meet where they can review materials about the history and development of TSR.

15.  Current periodicals and other publications may fail to communicate properly to the varied audiences involved with design review.

16.  Existing owners need continuing education especially as remodeling and additions become more frequent.

17.  We fail to differentiate between TSR and other high-end real estate developments.

18.  Vacation renters and casual visitors have no way of learning about The Sea Ranch “concept” and what that means in terms of how we treat our environment.

19.  Owners need to learn how to choose and interact with architects and others involved in the design process.

20.  Non-compliance with landscape guidelines can change the character of TSR environment.

Task B.  Document Problems/Needs
Stating a problem or need is an essential first step, but only a first step.  The problem then needs to be documented.   That means gathering and assessing information to confirm the existence of a problem or need and its magnitude.  Without information about the problem, we will have difficulty supporting the need for an interpretive center.  For each stated problem or need, the list below suggests information that we should collect:

1a.   Take a sample period of time, say the year 1999 or 2000, and obtain a list of applications for new houses submitted during that year.  Then, count the number of applications that were approved with no difficulty or controversy; the number that required one or more revisions that were completed without major controversy, the number that gave the DC major problems, and the number that led to actual lawsuits.

In other words, let’s find out how prevalent a problem this is.

1b.  Talk with staff and members of the DC to assess the seriousness of the problem.  In other words, we may be talking about a few houses a year, but the impact on TSR of a few poorly designed houses a year may be great.

1c.  Talk with staff and members of DC and review data from (1a) to identify as precisely as possible the kinds of design problems that arise, i.e. houses too big, too high, too bulky, too much fencing, too much lighting, etc.  In some cases, tightening requirements may be needed.

1d.  Review the information currently given to buyers at TSR to identify gaps.

2.      Talk with a selection of realtors about the information about Sea Ranch they give clients and what improvements are needed.

3.      Talk with staff and, perhaps, an architect to assess the space needs at the TSR offices.  What is the square footage of building?  What are possibilities for expansion on site?  What growth in staff is projected?  What use is being made of electronic storage?

4.      Find out how frequently visiting professionals and students come to Sea Ranch and how they are handled.  What are the gaps?

5.   Other?

Task C.  Identify Options for Addressing Problems/Needs
Once we have gathered information and assessed the needs, we can begin to identify approaches to meeting the needs.  A variety of approaches could be used to resolve most of the problems and meet most of the needs.  Items 3 and 4 are the only ones that could be fully addressed by a building.  The other two require substantial additional efforts—an interpretive center would be only a part of a broader educational effort. We will need to come up with lists of options for solving problems and meeting needs. As a starting point, I suggest that potential approaches fall into three categories:

Building

This could be making new use of an existing building, remodeling or expanding an existing building or constructing a new building.  The purpose would be to create space for educational materials (displays, maps, photos, written materials, videos, etc.) and programs to address 1 and 2 and to provide space for 3 and 4.

Procedures

Problems 1 and 2 are a least partly procedural.  For example, when and how and what information is provided to prospective buyers and new owners; how preliminary concept plans work; “due process” in the review system, etc.

Written and electronic materials

The problems we are addressing will all require educational materials.  These can be in a variety of forms and delivered in a variety of ways to the intended audiences. 

Task D.  Workshop or Forum
Before we decide on recommendations, we should provide an opportunity for Sea Ranchers to comment on the ideas we are considering.  An interactive workshop would be best, but takes time to plan and execute.  We need to be thinking about possible formats.

Task E.  Prepare Recommendations and Report
After reviewing the problems and options and listening to comments from Sea Ranchers, we will need to frame recommendations for the Board and write a report documenting our findings and deliberations. 

Tentative Schedule (very ambitious!)

To accomplish the 4 tasks outlined above, the fastest possible schedule would be something like this:

August 23:  Discuss and finalize work program; reach agreement on statement of problems and needs, assign information gathering tasks.

October 4:  Report Task B results to task force.  Discuss and make additional assignments to complete B and start C.

October 25:  Report Task B and C results to task force.  Discuss results and begin to plan workshop. 

November 22:  Plan workshop format and content.  Discuss options.

January 2003:  Workshop

January 24:  Discuss and decide on recommendations. Make assignments for writing sections of the report.

February 28:  Review draft sections of report.  Approve final report and recommendations for submittal to the BOD.  

APPENDIX C:  INTERVIEWS WITH REALTORS AND ARCHITECTS

Realtor:  Richard Thomure, Sea Ranch Properties
Interviewed by Gene Weston, September 24, 2002

I indicated to Rich that the task force was addressing the difficulty the Design Committee (DC) has communicating with both new and old members when they are designing new houses or preparing remodeling plans.  Many do not have any idea how the approval process relates to the TSR Concepts created by the original developers.

He described to me the process the on-ranch realtors had used in exposing possible new purchasers to the ranch. This consisted of promotional packages containing information folders, lots of graphic materials, the Design Manual (DM), and a specific set tour of the ranch designed to sell TSR as a whole not just a series of lots.  Today, the realtors give out (we hope) the brochure the Association put out a while back, a map and that's about all. He indicated that sometimes sales are made by people who don't even get out of their cars to view properties.  He also finds some people who have lived here a while didn't know the Hot Spot exists. Incidentally, Rich now has to make his own copies the design manual to hand out because the Association has run out. (Bad image!)

He said originally, the developer sold TSR design philosophy as a concept. Unfortunately when the developer left, a void remained as the Association did virtually nothing to further the concept. He feels this has contributed to a lack of understanding that has grown and still exists today.   Also, he feels that the Association now has to loosen up its purse strings in order to participate in some positive selling.  Each individual agent, (85 of them), has his own style of selling, as there is no overall program and relatively little Association positive guidance or assistance.  There is also the appearance that the DC is too busy.   With Ted Smith and Jerry leaving, it is increasingly difficult to get things done. There is also the problem that applicants assume each DC decision creates a new precedent for the next applicant to build on. This is item is covered in the Design Manual but it is either ignored or applicants are unaware of it.

Rich indicated that 10 years ago, the average client was primarily interested in the square footage and number of baths.  Now he is now encouraged by the fact that many new buyers are younger, have some knowledge of the founding of the ranch and greater appreciation of the architecture. He has potential clients now who are waiting to buy Turnbull, Lyndon, Moore and Bowman houses as soon as they come on the market. He finds more people are interested in the "design concept" and want more information, which he claims, "they would absorb like a sponge".  As a sales tool, he has given out the book Parallel Utopias, but it's no longer in print.

There has recently been a large increase in lot purchases because of the high cost of existing houses.  The number of houses and lots for sale now is about equal at 30 each.  This has never been the case before and indicates that, in the near term, a lot more people, will be designing homes. He hopes the new DM will contain more graphics and be on TSRA website. He refers people to the website when they are looking for property.

He felt any Interpretive Center (IC), should concentrate heavily on graphics and visual aids.  He hopes the DC can become stronger as a voice, showing a more active face to the membership.  This could give it greater support from TSRA members and the BOD. He thinks the appointment of Dick Whitaker as Director of Design Review is excellent.   He considers Dick very easy to work and communicate with.

Another comment he made (and I've also heard this from several sources) is that an applicant starting with the DC seems to get bounced around by not having consistent direction, due to different teams reviewing their plans at the various steps in the review process. This should change!

He mentioned that TSRA office space being used by the DC is very poor both as a space and it's image and that any future IC be related to the DC office, if at all possible.  A short-term suggestion was to rent the old office of Obie Bowman for the DC and the upstairs of the old Henley Gallery for the IC, it's a great space. Finally he believes the TSRA members have to accept spending some money to accomplish the task that lies ahead.  It is difficult to manage all 3800 acres and its attendant problems on the current $125/month dues.  In addition, the current dues structure of one size fits all is unfair. (He knows this is "heresy")

Realtor:  Edie Baker, Coldwell Banker and June Way- Dresher, Rams Head Realty Interviewed by Dibby Tyler, September 20, 2002

Edy started selling real estate with Rams Head in 1980 and recently moved to Coldwell Banker.  She has over 20 years experience selling lots and homes at Sea Ranch.  June is a realtor with Rams Head.

Edy noted that Sea Ranch has changed a lot over this time.  When she started, the north end was not open yet, there were no sewers, and the houses were simple—designed according to the original concepts.  Most were used as second homes.  She sees the approval of the “Malibu wall” on the north end as the major turning point.  Two-story houses lined up along the bluff were a “shocker.”   The sewers allowed bigger houses and both interiors and exteriors changed. 

She estimates that now about 1/3 of the buyers expect to live here full-time and increasingly these include younger people who are still working.  In the early days, most people who bought at Sea Ranch had been renters here and had some knowledge of the development and its philosophy. Increasing numbers of people learn about Sea Ranch real estate on the web and make decisions based on pretty pictures of the coast and a quick weekend visit.  Rams Head has stopped all magazine and other advertising because clients find the firm through its website.  And clients are coming from all over the world.  They do not spend as much time on site as they used to and they come to Sea Ranch with little or no sense of its history. 

Prospective buyers get amble information at the time of escrow, but often don’t read it all and are surprised when they run into trouble getting building designs approved.  Edy refers her clients to the Sea Ranch website and even prints out parts of it for them to be sure they have the information.  She thinks the TSRA website is wonderful, but would be more useful if it had a section specifically for prospective buyers.

There is a need for something simple to convey the Sea Ranch message.  People need to understand what it takes to keep the concept alive.  Videos don’t work well.  A center would be great.  People need things to do and she would certainly refer clients to a center.  She suggests displays showing award-winning houses at TSR and visuals to explain why “less is more.”

In her experience, realtors are becoming more aggressive here.  There are lots of new agents without the roots in this place that the long-time realtors have.

Realtor:  Debbie Rosson, Coldwell Banker
Interviewed by Dibby Tyler, October 1, 2002

Debbie has been a realtor for 8 years with South Coast and then Coldwell Banker.  She specializes in Timber Cove properties, but, like all the Coldwell agents, sells anywhere on the coast, including Sea Ranch. 

She notes that as real estate people, they are trained to help people to get their own information and especially interpretations of information.  Her job is to be sure the sales process meets all the legal requirements and her clients understand what they are doing.  She would always tell people what Sea Ranch is like.  For example, she asks if they want a basketball hoop, a camper in front of the house, or to fix car engines in the driveway.  If they say “yes” to any such questions, she tells them that Sea Ranch is not for them. 

Debbie feels that over the last couple of years the message from the Association has been, “don’t send prospective buyers here for information.”  Yet, she can’t give them answers to the questions they ask such as:  Can I take down this particular tree to make room for a house or enhance a view? Or will I be able to add a room, a garage or a deck to this house?  Who can help with these questions?  Right now there is no smooth way to get questions answered.  Maybe Sea Ranch could get some old-timers to hold a Q & A session with prospective buyers and newcomers once a week or so to clear up some questions.  It would also be helpful to have an update session for realtors so they can give accurate information to their clients.  News like the appointment of Dick Whitaker could be emailed for distribution with the multiple listings which go to all realtors.

Debbie doesn’t refer people to the website, mainly because she doesn’t sell that much property at Sea Ranch.  Lots of clients are using the web to screen properties.  She doesn’t need to refer them.

Realtor:  Hanne Liisberg, Coldwell Banker

Interviewed by Dibby Tyler, October 1, 2002

Hanne has been with Coldwell for several years, recently bought two lots at Sea Ranch and is in the process of getting approval for a house designed by her husband on one of the lots.  Like others I talked with, she noted that the site visit with Bill Wiemeyer after escrow closed was very helpful and she wonders if some of the information in the packet he provides at this point could be available earlier in the process.

Hanne Liisberg routinely refers clients to the website.  She thinks it is excellent, but it might have a little more on the design philosophy—perhaps a self-guided tour that people could print out that illustrates good design.  The design review process is not always clear.  One of her clients had a house turned down because it used glass brick, but they could see other houses with glass brick that had been approved.  She feels that too many exceptions have been granted and it is hard now to toe the line.  Most problems arise with people who buy lots rather than existing houses.

She wondered if we could put more burden on sellers to provide information to prospective buyers about such things as trees and additions.  The sellers have standing with TSRA to ask the questions whereas the buyers do not.  There is no good way for them to get information they need about problems specific to the property they are considering.  It would also be helpful to have periodic information forums for realtors.

Interviewer’s Note:  At a general level, a “center” might help with these problems, but so much of the concern is specific to an individual property and what might or might not be allowed.  How could a center address that need?

Designer: Ralph Matheson
Interviewed by Don Kemp, November 25, 2002

We discussed the design review process in terms of the process itself and in terms of the intent of the process. Ralph has brought many projects through the design review process since he began working up here in 1967.

The Process
Ralph feels that the biggest issues now are “in-fill” related. He feels that the owners need to have more guidance on this. In the past the owners communicated more directly with the Design Committee and got more of a picture of what could be accomplished on their parcels. More discussion of these issues earlier in the process, even before the site visit, would be helpful.

The conceptual meeting no longer takes place with the committee. Instead, the communications are normally handled via a letter to the owner.  This approach sometimes creates a sense that the DC is “dictating” as opposed discussing. If this method is to be used, great care should be taken in the writing of the letters. Stern sounding letters get the relationship off to an unnecessarily adversarial start.

Another observation is that the process of approving small changes could be expedited with the delegation of authority to someone like Dick Whitaker.

The Intent
The intentions of the DC are not clear. It would be helpful if the guidelines could be made clearer to the owners.

General Comments
Ralph has been through 5 DCs and feels that composition has been very good. In recruiting future members, the DC goals should be very much taken into account.

The staff and the site visits are good.

People usually talk to realtors and stop in to talk to contractors on jobs to get their initial input. They are usually pretty clear about what they want by the time they walk into an architect’s office. Ralph generally sits down with them and goes through the design review process and the guidelines early on in the relationship.

He says his experience has been that most plans are approved with minor changes.

Some architects will use the DC to “push” the client when they themselves want to avoid being the bearer of unwanted news.

There is a view among clients that the DC does not compromise; they mandate. If there is to be no negotiating, then the clients should enter the process with that expectation.  As of now, they feel that things can be negotiated and are usually “disappointed” to find that they are unable to do so.

Interviewer’s Notes:  Give more authority to someone, currently Dick Whittaker, to OK small changes in the interest of time.  Review all remaining unbuilt sites and develop guidelines for design issues specific to those respective sites. The DC makes the final decisions anyway, so why not do it upfront so the owners can find out before they get started down a path they will need to change.

Architect:  Fiona O’Neill

Interviewed by Dibby Tyler, January 8, 2003

Fiona started by commenting that she didn’t fully appreciate the role Ted Smith played in the design review process until he left.  Under his direction, the process was predictable with organized procedures and consistency and clarity in responses from the DC.  She had no difficulty with the process and when she had questions, Ted gave clear and straightforward guidance.

Since he left, Fiona has had several projects with extremely negative comments and even some outright rejections.  Some letters expressing the DC judgments have been confusing, ambiguous and unclear.  Issues included house size and roof forms.  In one case, the client wanted a large house, purchased a lot that did not have Bane bill restrictions, and thought he was restricted only by the 35% lot coverage rule.  The first designs were rejected as too large a house.  No one would give any guidance as to how much square footage or bulk needed to be cut.  She was told it depended on the design.  She redesigned a smaller house, at considerable expense to the client, and was told it was still too large.  It took a third design before approval was granted, by then (a one year process) the client’s priorities had changed and the project was shelved.  

In another case, the DC complained about the complexity of the roof form.  The letter included some sketches showing alternative ways to handle the problem.  The sketches all violated the site’s dominant roof direction that she had been trying to maintain.  Have the rules changed?  If so, that needs to be communicated to the design community.

The design committee membership hasn’t changed that much, but her experience with it has changed dramatically.  Ted was a strong voice and handled communications to the owner from the DC.  He may also have had a role in keeping the DC consistent in its rulings.

When she was having no trouble with the DC, she did not mind that meetings were not open, but now she would like the opportunity to sit in and hear the DC members’ comments.  She feels a dialog might not be necessary; it would be helpful simply to observe.

She noted that house designs were often mundane under Ted and commented that as an architect, she wants a smooth, predictable process, but that as a Sea Rancher, she wants strong, different designs to survive the process.  Ted was very good at administering the process, but may have made it too predictable to encourage innovative designs. 

On the positive side, Fiona feels that the preliminary site visits and conceptual design submittals are very good.  They help identify problems early in the design process.  It sometimes helps to have her clients hear the constraints stated by someone else.

Things seem to be settling down now with Dick Whitaker on board.  Communications from the DC are much clearer now and, as an architect, he is available to answer questions and direct the process more like Ted did.

Suggestions for Improvement

Fiona thinks the DC should communicate directly with members of the design community about changes in policy or emphasis.  A letter to those designing homes at TSR would be good.  An annual meeting of all members of the DC, TSRA design staff, and architects and designers working at Sea Ranch would be wonderful.

The design manual should be available to prospective buyers and it should include a clear discussion of house size.

Design Committee meetings might be opened to observation by architects and designers when their projects are being reviewed.

APPENDIX D:  FINAL TABULATION—39 INTERVIEWS WITH OWNERS ABOUT EXPERIENCES WITH DESIGN REVIEW AT THE SEA RANCH

Conducted in November 2002

1.  Unit #:  24 (8); 28 (5); 7 (3); 18 (3); 34C (3) 35E (3); 21 (2); 35F (2); 31 (2) 17 (1) 30A (1), 13 (1), 3 (1) 34A (1), 34B (1), 35B (1), 36A (1). 

2.  How often do you use your Sea Ranch house? 

15 - full-time resident                                   

2 - 6 months or more per year

4 - 2 to 6 months per year

13 - vacations and weekends

 5 - other (under construction)

3.   Is the house on a rental program?
      n/a  15 (full-time owners); no  19;  yes  5  

4.   Do you plan to live at Sea Ranch full-time after retirement or sometime in the future?
Yes  12;  no  9;  maybe   2;  n/a  15 (already full time); no answer  1

5.      How did you first learn about Sea Ranch?

Long time renter - 25

friend - 9

other - 5       

6.      How much time did you spend at Sea Ranch before deciding to buy?

no answer - 1

1-2 weekends - 4

1-4 weeks - 5

more than a month - 29

7.      Before deciding to buy, did you get information from any of the following sources:

TSR website - 3

other website(s) - 2

Sea Ranch publications - 9

ICO - 11

other books or articles - 6

TSRA office staff - 9

Sea Ranch owners - 14

realtors - 32

rental agents - 17

other sources - 13 (Gualala residents, arch./builder, work, renting, ad in newspaper, looked at houses, son, architecture journals

8.      Reasons you might have decided to buy at Sea Ranch:

Other reasons:  wildlife, forests (2), isolation (5), design concepts, quiet, unpopulated, beautiful (2), weather (2), pride in place (no graffiti), views, intelligent people, commons, community without crowds (2), abalone, close to Bay Area (3), beaches, no traffic, social network, good for grandkids, not Gualala, cost, love it, no Coastal Commission permit needed, TSR plan, people, ocean, Posh Squash.

9. Before you purchased your lot or house, did you know:

septic system and leach field status              no - 5

height and bulk limits                                     no - 6                            

any Bane Bill restrictions                              no - 13

design guidelines                                            no - 10

landscaping restrictions                                 no - 7       

steps in the design review process                no - 14

10. Where did you get information about the design review process at The Sea Ranch?

your realtor - 20                                           

closing documents - 16

preliminary site visit - 13

TSRA website - 3

TSR listserve - 3

TSRA office staff - 16

architect, designer, or contractor - 30

friends - 4

other - 7    read pamphlets, inlaws, own research, TSR publications, rental agents, magazines

11.  Did architect or designer design other Sea Ranch houses?
33 yes; 6 owner/architect

12.  Did contractor build other houses at Sea Ranch?
37 yes; 2 outside contractors

13.  What was your specific experience with design review?

DC approved initial plans with minor conditions? - 28

DC required major changes in plans? - 5

DC rejected my initial plans? - 4

Other - 1

Problems:  changed house site (4); garage (3) ; roof slope, windows (2), driveway location (2), fence (2), size, trees (2), deck

14.  Positive aspects of your experience with design review?   Architect/contractor handled it (5), clear understandable (2), plans approved (5), reasonable expectation met, quick and easy (3) , met with staff before submittal, predictable, Ted Smith (3), staff helpful (3), house better than original design, flexible, Bill Wiemeyer, enjoyable, site visit good, easy access to staff, responsive

15.  Negative aspects of your experience with design review?
Cost of septic line, too much to read, political and unfair, caught in staff transition (2), requirements (eave width, panels on garage door, trees removal (2), siding, screening glass blocks, overhang, courtyard size, window type), trivial (3), arrogant gatekeeper attitude (2), staff inflexible (4), variable office hours, house too small, staff rude, inconsistency, trendy, took too long (4), arbitrary (2), Bane Bill limits, rude letter rejecting plans with no specifics, too deferential to neighbors, no reasons given for changes, last minutes changes in requirements.

16.  More info re TSR concept, design guidelines and design review process?   33 no and 6 yes

17.  Ways to convey information about The Sea Ranch concept, design guidelines and design review process.  

Other ideas?  Guidelines organized by topic, better front desk, info for realtors and rental agents (2), updated design manual (3), flow chart of process, summary of process, explain tree policy, access to staff (2), seminars for prospective owners, owner/architect participation in preliminary review, get names of prospective buyers from realtors, brochures in rentals, reach people before they buy, booklet with steps in process.

18.   What changes would you suggest in the design review process?  Streamline (2), summary of process, keep objective, stick to general concepts, consistency, allow eaves, permit new materials, equal treatment, more info about DC preferences, crack down on big houses (2), review bulk restrictions (too severe), like advance comments on design, notify re revised plans, adhere to original concepts, fire all staff except water company, open up design (more like Bodega), utility yard for out-of-town contractors, tell realtors about trees, notices are good, clarify rules for cutting undergrowth, open DC meetings, quicker feedback, more info re Bane Bill, higher fees and fines, no exceptions, enforce height and outdoor lighting regulations.

19.   Any comments re experience with design review at Sea Ranch?  People need to look at houses, use a local architect, DR keeps positive features of TSR alive, want a retreat; not a resort, don’t need an architect to tell you where to put a plant, process helped—house better than originally designed, Sea Ranchers are communicators and need access to process, hold firm, keep vision intact, ombudsman needed, guidelines for landscaping, fine if you understand and accept concept.