East Palo Alto council pauses action on temporary housing incentive after dozens of residents oppose changes

The East Palo Alto City Council on June 9 heard a weekslong public outcry and detailed staff presentation on a proposal to temporarily lower the city's inclusionary housing requirements but did not adopt the measure.

The proposed Temporary Housing Development Incentive Program (THDIP) would reduce the city's current affordability standards for new market-rate projects while the San Mateo County grand nexus and feasibility study is completed. Yahaira Morales, the city's housing project manager, told the council the ordinance was intended as a temporary bridge until the county study is finished and that staff would return with a second reading if the council introduced the draft tonight.

Supporters of keeping the existing ordinance said the change would sharply cut the number of permanently affordable homes the city can secure.

"This proposed ordinance will likely have the opposite effect on our city because of a significant reduction in the number of new affordable housing units," said a representative of the Community Coalition for Inclusionary Housing during public comment. Dozens of residents and community groups said the city should wait for the Grand Nexus and Feasibility Study rather than enact temporary reductions.

Rick Jacobus of Street Level Advisors, the consultant advising the city, outlined staff's recommended design choices, including a proposed duration running 30 days after adoption through Dec. 30, 2027, and a staff-recommended scenario that would amount to roughly a 60% reduction in the cost of compliance for private developers.

"We've tried to come up with a thoughtful option that's going to be clear and temporary," Jacobus said, adding that temporary programs in other Bay Area cities have produced mixed results.

Council discussion reflected a sharp split. Some members said the current inclusionary ordinance has effectively blocked private development and that a reduction could unlock housing long stalled in the pipeline; others argued the ordinance is a core anti-displacement tool and said staff lacked the localized data to justify major changes. Two council members indicated they would oppose moving the ordinance forward without the county study.

Council Member Romero moved to deny the THDIP; that motion was seconded and resulted in a 2-2 roll call (Mayor Lincoln No; Vice Mayor Bridal Yes; Council Member Dinan No; Council Member Romero Yes) with one member absent, and the motion did not carry. With no clear majority to advance a specific draft, the mayor said the council would not adopt the ordinance tonight and staff noted the item could return to a future agenda for further direction.

What happens next: staff said the county's Grand Nexus and Feasibility Study, expected next year, will inform any permanent changes. The council left options open for future amendments, including narrower zoning or exemptions for small projects, but took no formal action to adopt a temporary THDIP at the June 9 meeting.

(Quotations and attributions are drawn from council proceedings and public comment on the June 9, 2026 meeting.)