East Palo Alto voters will decide whether they want to hold City Council members to limited terms in office in the November election.
The measure, placed on the ballot by the City Council on Tuesday, proposes limiting council members to no more than three consecutive terms in office.
After three consecutive terms, a council member would have to take at least a two-year break before being able to run again.
“This just means you have to sit out an election cycle before you can run again,” Mayor Webster Lincoln said.
Six of the 20 cities in San Mateo County have term limits for council members — Pacifica, San Mateo, Foster City, Redwood City, San Bruno and Millbrae. The restrictions limit consecutive terms only.
The city’s staff originally presented the measure to impose limits of serving two consecutive terms, but after discussion it was decided to allow for no more than three. The measure will appear on the November 2026 ballot.
“I think bringing new voices and younger voices in is really important,” said Councilmember Mark Dinan. “If you’ve had the same people doing the job for a long, long time, a fresh set of eyes on the same issues can really open things up.”
Two members on the council, Vice Mayor Ruben Abrica and Councilmember Carlos Romero, have both served for decades.
Lincoln and Dinan were first elected to the council in November 2024, and Councilmember Martha Barragan won election in 2022. The three have often clashed against the other two more seasoned councilmembers.
Abrica said he wasn’t against term limits, but he viewed the measure as targeting him.
“I do take this as a personal attack at me,” he said. “I’m not opposed to this. I’m just a little concerned that the majority is again creating chaos and turmoil for no really good reason other than some constituents want this.”
Abrica was elected to the city’s first council after East Palo Alto was incorporated in the 1980s and then took a break before returning to the council in 2004. He has since won reelection multiple times.
Romero has also clocked in several terms on the council since first being elected in 2008. After returning in 2015, he has served numerous back-to-back terms.
Romero said he opposed the measure primarily for its timing. He argued to move the measure to the November 2028 election, saying that placing it on this year’s ballot could conflict with a potential bond measure.
The council is considering putting a bond measure on the November 2026 ballot to help fund the development of a civic center that could include a new city hall, library and police department headquarters.
“What is the rush?” Romero said. “I think we should be focusing on this funding measure that we know the city badly needs.”
Romero, Abrica, and city staff said placing a term-limit vote on the same ballot could draw attention away from the bond measure, which requires a two-thirds approval from voters.
“Bond measures simply require two-thirds super majority, making them highly sensitive to ballot environment effects,” said City Clerk James Colin during a presentation. “Term limits can generate emotionally charged governance debate that spills over to bond measures.”
Dinan dismissed the assertion, saying he thinks that both measures could “pass easily” on the same ballot.
“I think that we’re just conflating two issues,” he said. “I think majority of people might be in favor of term limits regardless, and I don’t think it will have much of an effect.”
The decision to put the issue on this November’s ballot passed 4-to-1, with Romero dissenting.
The council decided that the measure would not apply retroactively, meaning that any time served prior to the measure going into effect would not count. A full term would be considered serving two or more years of a four-year term.
“I think this would be a positive for the city,” Dinan said. “I think it’s going to be immensely popular, and council limiting its own power is a good thing.”
