Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Martino Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Report recommends phased community food campus at Martino Park; neighbors urge slower rollout
Summary
A feasibility study recommends a mixed community farm and food forest at Martino Park with a proposed startup cost of about $152,000 and annual operating costs near $100,000; council heard both support and concerns—especially about Area 3—s trees, parking and outreach—and directed staff to pursue phased next steps and grant searches.
Nonprofit partners Sierra Harvest and Interfaith Food Ministry presented a feasibility study and recommendations for a community food campus at Martino (Devere Montino) Park, and council directed staff to pursue next steps including further community outreach, Measure E briefing, and grant-seeking while recommending a phased build.
Presenters Eli Bacon (CR Harvest) and Dana Frazz summarized the study—s goals: increase food access, create educational and vocational opportunities, reduce waste and integrate community partners. The teams proposed placing a food forest in the park—s rear area (Area 3) that would integrate existing trees and native plantings, with Areas 1 and 2 used for a fenced community farm/orchard and raised beds (the report recommends raised beds because of local clay soils). The presentation noted a proposed initial budget: start-up costs around $152,000 and an estimated annual operating budget of approximately $100,000, with a 15% contingency and an estimated planning-to-implementation timeline of about 12—13 months.
Public comment was split. Supporters emphasized community, education and food-security benefits and urged the city to replicate the model across parks. Neighbors and frequent park users raised recurring concerns about Area 3: many described it as an important wild/natural open space used daily for walking and requested minimizing tree removal and preserving trails. Residents also cited parking and safety worries during soccer events and asked for more and earlier outreach; several urged phasing (start with Areas 1 & 2) to demonstrate success before altering Area 3.
Staff and council acknowledged the study—s scope as a high-level feasibility product, not a final design. Staff said the site has multiple water sources (an original on-site well, treated city water, ditch irrigation) and indicated that environmental review, preliminary design and funding would be needed before construction. Council suggested the following next steps: present the report to Measure E, pursue grant opportunities, consider a phased implementation beginning with Areas 1 & 2, convene additional neighborhood meetings, and seek partner agreements for parking mitigation (presenters said Salvation Army offered a gated access arrangement for soccer days).
What happens next: Council gave staff direction to continue planning steps and outreach, not to proceed with final construction decisions at this meeting. Any physical changes to Area 3 or other park areas will require environmental review, further design, and specific budget approvals.
