|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A divided East Palo Alto City Council voted Tuesday evening to allow a major developer’s “Four Corners” housing project to defect from the city’s inclusionary housing laws by omitting units for very low-income households and building fewer affordable townhomes for purchase.
Conversations took a personal turn as some council members argued that allowing Sand Hill Property Company alternative compliance to its laws sets a dangerous precedent for residents that already struggle to stay afloat. The company is looking to build more than 250 units at the corner of University Ave. and Bay Road.
Mayor Martha Barragan, Vice Mayor Mark Dinan and Council member Webster Lincoln voted to eliminate all very low-income units in the new development at 1675 Bay Road, instead allowing Sand Hill to build some moderate to low-income units. The trio also voted to allow the company to build half as many affordable units for-sale than required by city laws.
Council member Ruben Abrica abstained from voting and council member Carlos Romero rejected the proposals that included apartment and townhome projects.
The decision applies only to this particular development and will not affect the inclusionary housing ordinance.
Under the city’s existing rules, a new housing development must allocate 20% of its on-site rental units to affordable housing, including residents who make 35%, 50% and 60% of the average median income, according to the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. If the units are for sale, 20% of them must cater to median to moderate income levels.
Developers that do not follow these rules typically pay an ‘in-lieu’ fee, though Sand Hill has opted not to do so as part of this application.
City staff recommended the council deny the proposal, said program manager Alex Waggoner with San Mateo County’s Housing Endowment and Regional Trust, a partner that analyzes city projects.
“There is a significant loss in public benefit from the applicant’s proposal with a 58% loss in affordability,” Waggoner said.
Dinan believes the inclusionary housing ordinance is a “bad policy” that blocks development, he said at the meeting.
“I think all housing being built is a good thing and so if we have policies that are clearly not working, we need to adjust them,” Dinan said. “This was a policy passed in 2019, it’s not exactly something that was handed down by Moses, it’s something we can change.”
Sand Hill Managing Director Mike Kramer argued that the company would still be building low-income housing by allocating some of its units to residents who make 80% of the average median income.
People who fall into this category are near the top of California’s low-income standard, which is defined as those who make 50% to 80% of the median income – a category the developer called “the missing middle.”
The company could also qualify for a state bonus by building more moderate-level housing units, Kramer said.
“The inclusionary housing ordinance allows city council to approve at its discretion an alternative compliance option if it provides greater public benefit than baseline compliance,” he said. “Therefor, the question for you tonight is: Will this provide greater public benefit than a vacant lot?”
Residents shared a mix of responses to the proposal, but many were interested in upholding the current inclusionary ordinance.
Under the city’s current inclusionary housing laws, a one-bedroom unit would cost $1,306 to $2,240. Now, a more affordable one-bedroom unit will cost $2,986 at the “Four Corners” project that has been in the works for six years.
“I think if we’re all about being inclusive and say that we accept everyone from all walks of life, well I think that we should consider [it],” said Mayor Barragan, who said she was in favor of more “middle-class” housing.
Barragan attempted to move on to a vote before Romero, Lincoln and Abrica discussed the proposal – prompting heated debate from council members like Romero who argued that the mayor did not allow the council to engage in “robust” conversations.
“Direct yourself towards me with more respect,” Barragan said, before attempting to limit their comments to 15 minutes.
“I’m not wasting time, madam mayor,” Abrica said. “I also need to speak on this item and I resent the double standard that you’re setting by allowing [Dinan] to take up all the time at the beginning.”
Abrica said he recognizes a housing need for people in more moderate income brackets but multiple owners and a lack of action have contributed to the slow development project for the site that has sat empty for over 30 years.
“Don’t try to blame the city and the inclusionary zoning law for nothing happening, I just want to make that clear,” he said.
Romero said he did not believe the alternative compliance proposal met city needs and that Sand Hill was only concerned with profiting off of “low-income people of color.”
“What you are saying is, ‘My way or the highway because if I don’t get this, I won’t build anything,’” he said. “I vote, you lose completely. It’s almost like blackmail.”
The debate turned particularly fractious when Romero called Lincoln “deaf and dumb.” Mayor Barragan demanded Romero apologize for the “inappropriate” comment, but he refused.
Longstanding council members have faced contentious debates against newer council members elected in November 2024, especially regarding subjects like affordable housing. A new council expressed interest in updating its affordable housing policies, and it currently awaits the results of a regional housing study.
Previous council members have not always agreed, Abrica said, but he does not support the current governance style.
“What’s happening in recent months is that Mr. Dinan and Mr. Lincoln in particular have created a polarized majority that automatically supports whatever comes before them,” he said.
West Menlo Park schools end lockdown, authorities say suspect died of self-inflicted gunshot woundDecember 16, 2025 1:31 pm
To emphasize a few key points in the article…
1. This is East Palo Alto. In an effort to follow “inclusivity,” wouldn’t it be best to set up housing opportunities for the median and upper median income levels in the given region, since so much of our existing housing, and recently built housing (not much of that) has focused on lower income levels?
2. The site has sat empty for 30 years. If certain council members want to maintain the policies and practices that have left it empty for that amount of time, depriving residents of added shopping, restaurant, and recreational opportunities, shouldn’t they be criticized for wanting to stick with the approaches that have been proven to be ineffective (30 years of evidence)?
Even in EPA “affordable housing” isn’t. It would be nice if the progressives would wake up to the realities of construction and land costs on the Peninsula and realize their dreams of “affordable” housing are just that, dreams. At least they are without subsidies. Which the state constitution forbids and local entities rarely have money for.
I read this article and was disappointed that my reasoning for supporting the alternative compliance was almost entirely excluded. The story placed heavy emphasis on Councilmember Romero’s negative remarks, including his accusation that the developer was “blackmailing” the city, while my perspective was reduced or overlooked. Even more concerning, Romero resorted to personal attacks during the meeting by calling me “deaf and dumb.” That comment was inappropriate, offensive, and completely unrelated to the actual debate. Yet in this article, his words were amplified while my substantive points were ignored. That is not balanced reporting, and it gives readers a distorted view of what actually happened.
My position is clear: we need to produce housing at all levels. The Four Corners project does exactly that. It adds more than 250 units while also including a substantial amount of retail space that will bring jobs, tax revenue, and new opportunities for local entrepreneurs. That retail component is not incidental. It was the direct result of my request at the last meeting to expand space for small businesses. Several of the units will be live/work storefronts, which is exactly the kind of mixed-use development East Palo Alto has long needed. This is a real trade-off, and it deserved to be reported alongside the criticisms.
It also cannot be ignored that our city faces a structural deficit caused by Measure JJ’s restrictions on funds for landlord and tenant subsidies. Decisions like this are not made in a vacuum. We have to balance housing, economic development, and fiscal responsibility. By leaving out that context, the article makes it appear that this decision was driven purely by conflict, rather than by the very real fiscal and policy challenges our city is facing.
Here is the reality. East Palo Alto has some of the strictest affordable housing requirements in the Bay Area, but since adopting them those rules have only directly produced two affordable units. Meanwhile, we are far behind on our state mandated housing goals, especially for moderate-income households like teachers, police officers, and blue-collar workers. These residents do not qualify for very low-income housing, but they also cannot afford market rents here. Ignoring this gap does not make it go away. It makes the problem worse.
Other diverse, working-class cities like South San Francisco and Richmond have produced 150 to 200 affordable units each since 2015 by adopting more flexible, balanced policies. They found ways to deliver deeply affordable housing and homes for middle-income families while still attracting development. That is what works. East Palo Alto should learn from those examples instead of sticking with policies that stall projects and leave lots empty for decades.
East Palo Alto already leads the region in producing deeply affordable housing. But if we do not also build for middle-income families, we risk losing the very people who keep our schools, services, and economy running. This is not about reducing our commitment to affordability. It is about ensuring projects get built and housing is delivered across the spectrum.
That is why I supported this project. I expect that future reporting will give the public a fuller, fairer account. Not just amplifying inflammatory remarks like “blackmail” or personal insults, but also including the real reasons behind the majority’s decision. Readers deserve the full picture, not just conflict and soundbites.
— Councilmember Webster Lincoln
🧨 It’s About Time: Romero’s Reign Is Cracking
Councilman Carlos Romero has gotten away with his aggressive, fear-based tactics for decades.
As the saying goes: a leopard doesn’t change its spots—and Romero’s behavior proves it.
This is the same conduct that led San Francisco to relieve him of his duties before he landed in East Palo Alto. (Public record)
🎤 Fear Mongering & Intimidation
He growls into his microphone, intimidating fellow council members.
I’ve personally witnessed tears fall from former Councilwoman Wallace-Jones’ eyes as she choked up under his pressure.
Some treat this behavior as “normal,” as if council protocol should follow a wild animal pecking order.
But Romero needs to understand: there are new sheriffs in town—and they’re not playing by his rules.
🗓️ Tuesday Night: The Mask Slipped
Romero did his usual name-calling, but this time he went further:
Lied and tried to shame the new council members into submission.
Accused them of “carrying water for the developer.” Collaborating behind his and Abrica’s backs. (so sad).
Demanded that the City Attorney conduct an on-the-spot deposition of the three new members over alleged meetings with the developer.
He still thinks he’s wearing the “HoodStar Crown”—but those days are over.
His bullying tactics failed. The room didn’t flinch.
🧥 Robbing the Middle Class
A citizen called out the so-called “Bookend Brothers” as “poverty pimps.”
Many residents are tired of giving up their second sweater—their hard-earned resources—to take care of their house first.
Only to see them handed to outsiders with no skills,
Who don’t live in EPA,
Violate laws,
Take up parking,
And contribute little to the city’s sanity or sustainability.
👑 Mayor Barragan: Holding the Line
Mayor Barragan, the lone female on the council, stood her ground as Romero barked at her.
She threatened to censure him—and that motion is coming soon.
🏗️ Developer Abuse: Enough Is Enough
Developer Mike Kramer has endured 10 years of Romero’s abuse over a simple 2-year project.
Romero accused Kramer of stealing from poor people, despite years of effort and compliance.
🧙🏽♀️ The Curtain Is Pulled Back
The scene reminded me of “The Wizard of Oz”—
When the house fell on the Wicked Witch,
And the Munchkins and other defenseless beings were finally released. 😌