East Palo Alto council votes to place three‑term limits measure on Nov. 3, 2026 ballot

The East Palo Alto City Council voted 4–1 to order placement of a term‑limits measure on the November 3, 2026 municipal ballot, approving a proposal that would limit consecutive service on the council to three four‑year terms and require an elected member who reaches the limit to sit out at least one election cycle before running again.

City Clerk James Collins opened the item with a staff presentation outlining a six‑point framework: a core limit of no more than two or three consecutive four‑year terms (staff recommended three), a mandatory sit‑out requirement, a rule that serving more than half a term (more than two years) counts as a full term, prospective application only (prior service before the effective date would not count), voter approval by a simple majority, and authority grounded in state Government Code. ‘‘The first is the core limit — no more than two or three consecutive four‑year terms or eight years of consecutive service,’’ Collins said, summarizing the options staff had prepared.

Why it matters: the council’s vote gives voters an opportunity to decide whether to limit incumbency in a small city where council members often occupy regional leadership roles. Supporters said limits would bring fresh perspectives; opponents argued that East Palo Alto’s size and need for experienced representatives counsel caution. Council members also debated whether placing the measure on the November 2026 ballot could hurt a large bond the council is considering, which would require a two‑thirds vote.

Council debate and public input: residents and council members offered contrasting views in a lengthy public‑comment period and council exchange. ‘‘We need new blood — I’m for term limits because of that fact,’’ a long‑time resident said during public comment. Council member Romero urged delay, saying putting a potentially divisive governance measure on the same ballot as a major bond could complicate the bond’s chances and that a November 2028 vote would draw higher turnout. Other members argued turnover is healthy: ‘‘Bringing new voices and younger voices in is really important,’’ one council member said.

Vote and next steps: after procedural questions and substitute motions were resolved, the council voted to place the three‑term measure on the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot; the chair announced the motion passed 4–1. The council confirmed key policy details recommended by staff — including the partial‑term rule counting more than two years as a full term — and directed staff to proceed with putting a resolution on a future agenda to finalize ballot language and timelines. Staff estimated the incremental cost to the city of adding the measure in November at $75,500–$90,600.

The council also directed that two council members be designated to prepare the city’s official arguments for the ballot (a pro argument and a rebuttal to any contra argument) and confirmed that voter approval would require a majority (50% + 1) to adopt the change.

What’s next: staff will return with a resolution and the county’s filing deadlines. If voters approve the measure, the term limit would apply prospectively only; incumbents’ prior terms before the measure’s effective date would not count toward the new limit.