Measure E Forum Transcript (Oct 1, 2026)

From the Yes on E side:
Chris Sturken, Redwood City Councilmember, District 2

From the No on E side:
Elmer Martínez Saballos, Mayor of Redwood City, District 4
Nicole Fernandez, Vice Mayor of San Mateo
Isabella Chu, Redwood City Councilmember, District 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moderator: Nick Kennen, volunteer Lead of Yes! In Redwood City

I’m going to begin by reading a neutral description of Measure E, found on Ballotpedia.

Redwood City Measure E is on the ballot as an initiative in Redwood City on November 3, 2026.

A "yes" vote supports amending the rent, tenancy, and landlord laws in the city, including:

capping annual rent increases for rent-controlled units at 60% of inflation or 5%, whichever is lower; 

limiting rent increases on multifamily housing built before February 1, 1995;

extending the city's just-cause protections to single-family homes, ADUs, deed-restricted affordable housing, and mobile homes; 

requiring landlords to provide more notice of evictions to elderly tenants, disabled tenants, or households with children or educators during the school year; and requiring landlords to provide relocation assistance equal to four times the monthly

fair market rent or $12,000, whichever is greater, for no-fault evictions. 

A no vote opposes amending the rent, tenancy, and landlord laws in the city.

I invite each side to state their position, with up to five minutes of explanation of why they have that position. I want to cut us off at five minutes. Anyone want to start? 

Chris Sturken, Redwood City council member (Yes on E) 

Good evening, everyone. So, I'm voting yes on Measure E, but with requests.

One thing I considered is that there were 7,000, give or take, Redwood City residents who signed that petition. Some of them signed it, maybe not knowing the whole story, maybe not fully understanding the implications of the measure as it's written. But with that said, the spirit of their support tells us that we're not doing enough, and that the city needs to step it up. That was one of the reasons why I decided to support the measure rather than oppose it.

But let's get into the nitty-gritty. I support this measure, but with the following requests. Acknowledging that the measure will apply to affordable housing, which is a no-no, I agree with that. I'm willing to propose, if it passes, to zero out the administrative fee on each affordable unit to minimize the burden on nonprofit affordable housing.

But again, I understand that the measure still impacts affordable housing providers, because it restricts the rent they can increase each year. It restricts their already narrow profit margin. So I acknowledge that, I recognize that, and as a way to address it, something I would propose as well, if it passes, is to create a financial assistance fund to assist nonprofit affordable housing with making necessary improvements and maintenance to their properties. We already give about [amount unclear] dollars each year to affordable projects, and this measure would require that we provide additional services, so I'm willing to allocate funds for that.

For the small mom-and-pop landlords who would also be affected by this ordinance, again, I would propose creating a financial assistance fund for income-eligible property owners to get help with making renovations and doing ongoing maintenance.

So you might ask, well, how are you going to fund that, Chris? And that's the kicker, right? As a city, we have demonstrated that we do have the financial wherewithal to fund essential services. For example, we spent $5 million on our contract with AXR. We just unfroze two police officer positions at a total of $700,000. So we have money. It's all a matter of how we spend it.

And ultimately it comes down to the resources that we have allocated for tenant protections, tenant-landlord counseling and support. It's a great start, but it's not enough.

My next-door neighbor had no idea that Project Sentinel and CLSEPA were available. Only because I mentioned in passing that I was a council member did they know to knock on my door when they got a three-day notice, because they had turned their living room into another bedroom and the landlord found out. And they had mold growing in their bathroom that the landlord wouldn't fix. It was only because I escalated to staff, and staff told County health to do a code enforcement action, that they actually dropped the notice and fixed the leak.

Those kinds of situations that our residents are living in each and every day tell me that we need proper, adequate…

Moderator: Fifteen seconds.

Chris: Thank you. I'm also pushing  to not only educate our community about the resources that are currently available, but augment the services that are provided by our nonprofit partners, to ensure that everyone has the resources they need to remain housed, safe, and in affordable housing. Thank you.

Nicole Fernandez, Vice Mayor of San Mateo (No on E)

Hi there, I'm Nicole Fernandez. I'm the vice mayor of San Mateo and I'm a consultant on the No on E campaign.

First of all, I want to appreciate Chris [Sturken]. We're on two sides of this issue, but Chris is so passionate about the things that are important, so I'm very grateful for his friendship and the fact that we can have a great conversation about a very important topic.

I'm No on Measure E because of the affordable housing in Redwood City. If it didn't have that component, it would probably be a more palatable piece of legislation to put in front of the voters. The only way to amend the policy is to put it in front of the voters again. So we can't take it to the council and say, let's make these amendments because this is flawed. If it's flawed from the beginning, it's going to be flawed upon passage. And who has the expense and money to do that?

It also creates a whole new bureaucracy, in that the city may have to spend up to $11 million on a whole new administration. That means money and positions are going to be moved from Parks and Rec, Public Works, and other positions within the city to accommodate that.

We also have letters of concern from many of the nonprofit providers, including the St. Francis Center and MidPen Housing, both of which are large housing providers, indicating that they are concerned about the passage of this, because it's going to inhibit their ability to build housing in Redwood City.

And I'm going to split the rest of the time with Councilmember Chu and Mayor Martinez.

Second No on E speaker: Isabella Chu, Redwood City Councilmember, District 3

We all agree on the symptoms. I think where we disagree is on the cure. An important component of any policy is the dosage of the poison. This measure is extreme. It has extreme rent control. It has extreme tenants' rights. So much so that when ordinances of similar caliber have been passed in other cities — for example, in San Francisco in the early '90s — 15% of the naturally affordable housing disappeared within a few years.

We all want tenants to have affordable housing. We all want tenants to have power. We all want tenants to have options. This measure is going to kill not just the production of affordable housing, but the production of any new housing. Although the rent control only applies to older units, the extreme tenants' rights — where you cannot remove a tenant engaged in criminal activity, where the right to return never expires, and other extreme controls — apply to every unit, including single-family homes and ADUs.

The dose makes the poison. I really believe that this ordinance is going to kill the production of naturally affordable housing, the retention of naturally affordable housing, and ultimately displace tenants.

Another truth about rent control: for example, in San Mateo, 85% of the people who are evicted are evicted for failure to pay. And what happens over time is that rent-controlled units accrue to people who are well-connected and well-resourced, with stable incomes.

Moderator: You guys have one minute.

Third No on E speaker: Elmer Martínez Saballos Mayor of Redwood City, District 4

I'll be really quick. In addition to what both Nicole and Bella mentioned today, I think about my tenants in my district. District 4 is predominantly people who are renting. I'm a renter myself, a lifelong renter. And I worry about the people who are living in affordable housing complexes right now. We know these operators will not be able to pencil out if this measure passes. The first things to go are going to be the services that these people depend on to get back on their feet. That's a very real concern.

Nicole mentioned that we as a city council and city staff are not able to modify this, as a citizens' initiative. It's going to take another citizens' initiative to change even a fee amount. That's the reality that folks need to understand. It's going to take time and money to modify anything in this.

And the big thing: this is going to cost not only $11 million for the city to operate, but we're going to have to hire 18 new city employees to run this full-time. This is coming at a time where we're fighting for our vehicle license fees, which is around $11 million for the city. So we are absolutely in a pinch. Because we can't just raise fees, we have to pull from other departments. That's where the impacts to police, fire, and other city services really lie, and that's just buried in the nuance of this policy. That's why we're trying to get people to understand what's really in it. I'll leave it there.

Moderator: All right, thank you. … So I'm going to stop recording, if that's okay with everybody.