Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the El Mercado topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and merchants clash at council over El Mercado; council sends matter back to planning commission
Summary
After hours of oral testimony from residents who alleged drug sales and code violations and merchants who said the market provides livelihoods, the council amended language and referred the Chesbrough/El Mercado zoning matter back to the Planning Commission and PLUM for a noticed evaluation.
An emotional public hearing on an application affecting El Mercado (Chesbrough Lane) produced sharply divergent testimony and a council action to send the matter back for further planning review.
Residents described long‑running problems they attribute to the Mercado site — including illicit activity, sanitation problems and encampment concerns — and said prior remedies had failed. Diana Tarango, a long‑time resident who gave her address to the record, said she had attended multiple hearings and court proceedings and called the renewed council action ‘‘unfair’’ after years of unresolved violations.
Several other residents recounted continued drug‑related activity and health concerns; one speaker presented photographs and documented code violations. Supervisor Molina (referred to in the hearing) and Councilmember Walters spoke in support of resident concerns about enforcement, while other council members emphasized process and ensuring notice.
Business owners and Mercado supporters countered that the market provides livelihoods for hundreds of families. Several merchants said they work long hours and asked the city for help addressing prostitution and other crimes rather than removing businesses. One merchant urged the council not to take away the jobs that support families.
After extended debate over procedure and scope — including prior council action that had denied a commercial rezone and had initiated a plan amendment — members amended the referral language to direct the Planning Commission to evaluate all uses consistent with the community plan (excluding the C2 commercial designation) and to ensure a noticed public hearing to property owners. The amendment included a request that the commission consider a previously initiated community-plan amendment (October motion) at the time it reviews zoning options.
Council then voted to refer the item, as amended, to the Planning Commission and the PLUM committee (roll on the motion showed 12 ayes, 2 noes). Councilmembers stressed that the referral is intended to open a public process with adequate notice rather than to decide the outcome today.
What happens next: The Planning Department and Commission will reconsider zoning options consistent with the community plan, hold a noticed public hearing to property owners in the area and report back to PLUM and the full council. The council record and submitted cards will remain part of the file for future hearings.
