Stinson Beach property fences prompt county crackdown

Six Stinson Beach property owners face hefty fines if they don’t promptly remove or legalize fencing they’ve installed around the sand adjacent to their houses.

Built by suspending a single strand of robe from posts, the fencing has the attention of the Marin County Community Development Agency, which dispatched enforcement letters to the owners by certified mail earlier this month after receiving two complaints.

One of the complainants called the fencing “bizarre.”

“It just doesn’t seem right that one person, or several in this case, can take beach away from the thousands of people who come out to enjoy the beach each weekend,” the complaint said.

However, Elida Schujman, who owns one of the houses at 28 Calle Del Pinos, said there was a rope fence on her property when she purchased it in 2004 and has been every summer since.

Schujman said the fence serves as a “gentle” reminder to beachgoers of where the public beach ends and her private property begins.

Schujman said she has had people defecate under her house and then request privacy when she asked them what they were doing. She said on another occasion someone began preparing to barbecue beneath her house’s deck.

“I don’t have a choice,” she said. “I need to protect my home. I need to protect my property.”

The county received the initial complaint on Aug. 13 alleging that five properties — 25 Calle Del Resaca, 28 Calle Del Onda, 28 Calle Del Pinos, 23 Calle Del Pinos and 32 Calle Del Pradero —  had fencing on the beach that possibly extended beyond the bounds of their property lines and onto the public beach, impeding public access.

While that complaint was being investigated a separate complaint was received on Aug. 22, alleging that a sixth property, at 30 Calle Del Sierra, also had rope barriers along the beach.

Gil Sanchez, a county supervising code compliance specialist, declined to identify either complainant.

So far this year, the county has received 103 complaints regarding code infractions. It got 187 in 2023. The agency has 636 open enforcement cases.

The county’s enforcement letters inform the recipients that their property is located in Marin’s “coastal zone,” and as a result a coastal development permit is required for “construction, reconstruction, demolition or alteration of the size of any structure.”

The letter states that “structure” includes any “building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, and electrical power transmission and distribution line.”

It doesn’t mention anything about fences, but Sanchez said it doesn’t matter.

“Because development is defined as the placement or erection of any solid material or structure, on land or underwater,” Sanchez said.

The enforcement letter states that “the county’s primary objective is to resolve violations through voluntary cooperation.”

Nevertheless, it continues, “the Community Development Agency has several options available to assist in compliance, including but not limited to issuing administrative citations, administrative hearings, pursuing a Superior Court action, and the use of a Receiver.”

Sanchez said the initial fine could be $500 if a property owner fails to respond by the deadlines set by the county.

“We have the ability to issue administrative citations,” Sanchez said.

Alternatively, property owners have the option of applying for a coastal development permit to legalize the fences. In an email to one of the property owners, Natalie Nava, another code compliance specialist, said, “The permit fee is $5,978+ and may be subject to a code enforcement penalty equal to the base fee for the planning entitlement required.”

Sanchez said, “That’s just the base fee.” He said other fees could include a 10% surcharge that would add another $600.

Schujman said, “We are being asked to pay thousands of dollars to be allowed to use our property. We already pay taxes.”

The decision whether to issue the permit would be made by a deputy zoning administrator during a public hearing.

“There is obviously the opportunity to appeal,” Sanchez said.

If someone appealed the granting of a permit, the decision would be passed on to the Marin County Planning Commission and ultimately could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.

A county inspection of the properties confirmed that all six had erected similar rope fences without securing a permit. Inspectors found that three of the fences were entirely on private property. The county stated that the other three are “believed to be on a mix of private and public land.”

Sanchez said even the fences located entirely on private property are illegal because they were put up without a permit.

Jeff Finci, who has owned 23 Calle Del Pinos for 13 years, said he has put up the fence on his property every summer since he purchased it.

“We’ve never had a problem,” he said.

Finci said he probably won’t apply for a permit if it is going to cost $6,000.

“I don’t have that kind of money,” he said.