u/Anxious-Card-5892

Following Patrick Heisinger’s departure.

Following up on the Qualified Candidate List posted here yesterday. The county released an updated version yesterday afternoon (8/11, 4:44 PM).

Changes for the City Council contest (Vote for 2):

1. Michael Mashack is new to the list — Planning Commissioner, statement filed 8/11, qualified.

2. Gail Wilk Dixon moved from Pending to Qualified. Her ballot designation also changed from “Legal Researcher / Investigator” to “Legal Investigator.”

3. Deborah Lewis-Virges moved from Pending to Qualified.

4. Ofelia Bello is still Pending with no candidate statement filed.

Also on the list as qualified: Holifa Windom, Ruben Abrica, and Sam Jimenez. That’s seven names for two seats right now.

Two caveats: the filing period doesn’t close until tomorrow, so more names can still be added and Pending statuses can still change. And the numbers next to each name are just list order, actual ballot order gets set later by the randomized alphabet drawing.

The East Palo Alto City Council voted Tuesday night to introduce a temporary program that would lift the city’s inclusionary housing requirements for small residential developments, an effort officials say is aimed at jump-starting construction that has stalled under current market conditions.

Under the Temporary Housing Development Incentive Program (THDIP), residential projects of 20 units or fewer would be exempt from the city’s inclusionary housing obligations, which normally require developers to set aside a share of units as below-market-rate housing. The exemption is temporary and would apply only to projects that move forward before the program sunsets.
City officials were quick to stress the limits of the change. Affordability requirements for all larger projects would remain unchanged, preserving the city’s existing rules — among the most demanding in San Mateo County — for the developments that make up the bulk of East Palo Alto’s housing pipeline.

“This is a targeted, temporary bridge, not a rollback of our affordable housing commitments,” a city spokesperson said. “The goal is to get small projects that are sitting idle to actually break ground, while our larger affordability requirements stay fully in place.”

Build, or lose the benefit
The program is designed so that developers cannot simply claim the reduced requirements and sit on their approvals. To qualify, a developer must apply for a permit, pay the associated fees, and begin construction — specifically by pulling a foundation or core-and-shell building permit — before the program expires. Grading and demolition permits would not count.
City staff described the requirement as a safeguard to ensure the incentive produces actual housing rather than rewarding projects that never advance. Any project that fails to meet the deadline would automatically revert to the city’s standard affordable-housing rules.

A temporary measure
The incentive program is explicitly time-limited. It is tied to a countywide feasibility study of development requirements, and is intended to expire once that study is complete and the council takes up longer-term updates to its housing ordinance.
Supporters argue the measure could unlock small infill projects that have struggled to pencil out, generating construction jobs, permit revenue, and new housing. Critics have cautioned that even temporary exemptions can be difficult to reverse and that the city should closely track how much affordable-housing funding is forgone while the program is in effect.

The council is expected to take up a second reading before the program takes effect.

Last night, the East Palo Alto City Council declined to reconsider its contract with Flock Safety — the decision made back in December still stands.

Despite a loud showing from YUCA and outside activists (many not even from East Palo Alto), the council didn’t cave to pressure or theatrics. YUCA really knows how to put on a show — but a performance isn’t policy.

A lot of the same claims about “surveillance” and even fears about “immigration enforcement” were repeated, but those concerns don’t reflect how the system is actually being used locally. This tool was already vetted through prior meetings, and public input before being approved.

Reopening settled decisions every time there’s a protest isn’t how governance works — especially when many of the loudest voices aren’t even from the community affected.

And yes, someone dressed as Batman from San Jose showed up… which pretty much summed up the tone of parts of the opposition.

Bottom line: both motions to change/reconsider the contract failed on a 2–2 vote with one abstention — so the contract decision from December remains in place.