An Olivenhain family farm that previously offered community yoga classes with goats and summer art camps for kids is attempting to gain a city agricultural permit so it can establish a community garden and temporary food sales stand.
The permit also would allow Sugar Sweet Farms, operated by Shawn and Elizabeth Sugarman, to house up to 100 animals on its 2.65-acre Fortuna Ranch Road property and have occasional special events for up to 30 people, but would not permit the return of the goat yoga classes. Those classes were previously determined to be prohibited under the property’s residential zoning, a new city staff report indicates.
Normally, issuing an agricultural permit would not require a public hearing; it would be an administrative decision handled by the city’s Development Services Department director. However, in this case, a neighboring property owner has appealed the director’s decision, so a public hearing has been scheduled before the Encinitas City Council during its 6 p.m. Wednesday meeting at City Hall, 505 S. Vulcan Ave.
In the request for the hearing, an attorney for neighbor Gary Filips wrote that his client has multiple issues with the agricultural permit request, including concerns about excessive traffic, the number of parked vehicles and the smell that 100 animals would generate.
“The matter goes well beyond simply being a position of “NIMBY” (not in my back yard),” attorney David Deergian wrote. “As a practical matter, the proposed permit would distinctly change the character of the neighborhood to nobody’s benefit, except the Sugarman Farms. To the other people who live there, their ‘little slice of paradise,’ which represents why they live there, is in jeopardy.”
The Sugarman family’s request to create a community garden with up to 10 plot areas is unnecessary because homes in this Olivenhain neighborhood are on large lots and “anyone who wants a garden can certainly create one,” Deergian wrote. He added that his clients also believe there is no need for a food sales stand and it would only bring unnecessary vehicle traffic into the area. As to the animals, they “would surely create an intolerable odor,” he wrote.
In response, an attorney for the Sugarman family members wrote that they have been operating a small farm on the property since 2004 and the area’s agricultural roots date back to the late 1800s when the Bumann family established a homestead in there.
The agricultural permit will allow the Sugarmans to “legally continue with existing farming activities” as well as hosting the community garden area, attorney Arie L. Spangler wrote. Spangler added that his clients believe the actual dispute between the two families is over rights to road easement, which “traverses the Sugarman property and provides access to the Filips’ property.”
The Sugarman’s proposed food sales stand will only be open on a temporary basis, and a traffic study found that the agricultural activities allowed under the requested permit would only generate 14 vehicles a day traveling to and from the property, Spangler wrote.
In advance of Wednesday’s meeting, the city has received numerous emails regarding the permit request and the neighbors’ appeal.
One neighbor, Robert Green, wrote that he was trying to remain on friendly terms with both the Sugarmans and the Filips, and was neutral about their dispute. He wrote that he had never had an issue regarding Sugarman’s farm operation, but said that he thought that the Filips raised one issue that “has some merit.” The Filips contend that the new permit could later allow a future property owner to greatly increase activity on the what is now the Sugarmans’ land and that is concerning, Green wrote.
Originally Published:
