Redwood City Council Meeting - July 7, 2026

The Redwood City Council met on July 7, 2026, in a hybrid format. The meeting included a presentation from the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control District, routine consent calendar approvals, and a major discussion on a proposed rent control and just cause eviction initiative that qualified for the November 2026 ballot. The council heard 19 public comments (16 in-person, 3 via Zoom) and deliberated extensively on the supplemental 9212 economic impact report before voting unanimously to place the measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot.

Consent Calendar

• The consent calendar was approved unanimously by roll call vote (7-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Rona Gundrum (38-year resident) corrected misinformation about the Redwood Life project, stating the proposed development is 2.27 times larger (not five times), and urged release of the EIR and Precise Plan.
• Martha Beatley (proponent) celebrated the democratic process and urged support for the rent control initiative to help tenants.
• Clara Jekyll highlighted benefits of rent stabilization for families, essential workers, and community cohesion.
• Brian Ponty (resident) asked council to place the measure on the ballot and inform voters of downsides, citing negative impacts on property taxes and city finances.
• Jeff Lamont (real estate professional) expressed concern about negative impacts on affordable housing, city finances, and mom-and-pop landlords (79% of housing providers).
• Fernando Peña (San Mateo County Association of Realtors) requested the measure be placed on the ballot and opposed it.
• Deborah Miramontes (homeowner) questioned funding if fees are insufficient.
• Elaine Gilbrick (SAMCAR) requested ballot placement and opposed the measure.
• Denise (property manager) stated the ordinance would hurt mom-and-pop landlords, citing a 95-year-old client, and noted high capital costs.
• Robert Pedro (business owner) requested ballot placement and urged the city to take an opposing position.
• Roe V Antonio (California Apartment Association) thanked council for the supplemental report and urged ballot placement.
• John Mendez (small landlord) noted the high evidentiary standard for eviction and the risk to other tenants.
• Linda Crows Anderson (SAMCAR president) highlighted unintended consequences and urged ballot placement.
• Michael Pierce (St. Francis Center) detailed specific financial impacts: loss of RUBS ($176,000) and potential property tax abatement loss ($576,000) across five parcels.
• Diana Lopez (resident) spoke in support of rent control to help single mothers and essential workers.
• Iggy Lopez (realtor and property owner) opposed the measure, citing reduced investment.
• Anne Pellou (property manager) questioned implementation details like tenant safety plans and emergency repairs.
• Evelyn Stuvers (Housing Leadership Council) expressed support for rent control but raised concerns about the ordinance's impact on affordable housing and requested more city clarification.
• Elizabeth Madrigal (MidPen Housing) described concerns for deed-restricted affordable housing, citing Berkeley's experience with similar fees.
• Norman Goldow (small property owner) requested ballot placement with a no vote.

Discussion Items

• Mosquito Control Presentation (Item 5): Katherine Lyon (city representative) and Rachel Curtis Robles (communication director) presented services including mosquito control, yellow jacket control, and disease surveillance. In 2025, Redwood City had over 450 service requests. The district has about 22 staff covering the entire county. Council thanked them.
• Rent Control Initiative (Item 8): City staff (Housing Leadership Manager Elyn Lancaster) and EPS consultants (Jason Moody, Kavia Chatrapati) presented the supplemental 9212 report on the proposed Fair and Affordable Housing Ordinance, which qualified for the November ballot. Key points:
  • The ordinance would impose rent stabilization (annual increase capped at 60% of CPI, max 5%), a rent rollback to October 2025, just cause eviction protections (expanded beyond state law and city's TPO), relocation assistance (4 months fair market rent or $12,000 minimum, plus $6,000 for vulnerable tenants), tenant safety plans, and a right to return (non-expiring).
  • Coverage: 48% of the city's housing stock is rental. 19% (pre-1995 multifamily) would be fully covered (rent control + tenant protections). All other rentals (including post-1995, single-family, ADUs, deed-restricted affordable) are partially covered (subject to tenant protections but not rent stabilization).
  • Non-rent control impacts: Just cause provisions, relocation costs, right to return, and elimination of RUBS utility billing increase costs and risks, especially for pre-1995 units. The just cause provisions no longer list criminal activity as an explicit at-fault cause.
  • Cumulative pressures: Insurance costs up 75% since 2019, rising interest rates, and local fee increases (example: $569 per unit increase from FY2023 to current).
  • Affordable housing impacts: Pro forma analysis of a hypothetical 101-unit project showed pre-1995 affordable projects would face cash flow issues, inability to resyndicate (debt service coverage ratio below 1.15), and potential default after 35 years. Post-1995 affordable projects were less impacted but still constrained.
  • City financial impacts: Ongoing administration costs $5-11 million annually (7-18 new staff), start-up costs $320k-$687k (including recruitment), and legal services for low-income tenants ($1.06M/year). Fees set in the ordinance at $84-$120/unit would only cover 13-32% of costs; necessary fees projected at $320-$700/unit. The general fund cannot be used, so an interfund loan and reserve would be needed.
• Council questions and discussion:
  • Councilmember Sturken questioned startup costs, suggested delaying loan repayment to minimize impact, and asked about fee study timing. She proposed creating a fund for small landlord renovations.
  • Councilmember Chu focused on tenant impacts, arguing the ordinance would harm renters by reducing housing supply and making it harder to remove problematic tenants (e.g., criminal activity, domestic violence). He noted the high evidentiary standard for eviction and the non-expiring right to return.
  • Councilmember G asked about legal defense costs (city must defend, cannot capture from fees), impacts on lenders (harder to finance), and the risk of property owners withdrawing units. He highlighted that the city has already spent significant general funds on this process.
  • Councilmember Padilla expressed discomfort with council serving as appeals court and noted concerns about criminal activity provisions, tenant safety plans, and loss of property tax abatements for affordable housing.
  • Councilmember Howard stated she could not adopt the ordinance and would vote to place it on the ballot, opposing it personally. She emphasized the 79% family-owned rental statistic and feared unintended consequences.
  • Vice Mayor Aiken emphasized the ordinance was not city-led (only seen since June), noted the city's housing leadership, and expressed concerns about impacts on affordable housing providers (e.g., HIP Housing, St. Francis Center) and the elimination of RUBS.
  • Mayor Martinez Savallos acknowledged the intent but highlighted fiduciary duty and the need for informed voter decision. She committed to continuing policy discussions after November, regardless of outcome.

Key Outcomes

• Vote: The council voted unanimously (7-0) to adopt a resolution calling for an election on November 3, 2026, to place the proposed rent control and just cause eviction initiative on the ballot. The council did not adopt a formal position for or against the measure, though several members stated personal opposition.
• Next Steps: The city will prepare an FAQ and provide information to voters. If the measure passes, city staff will return to council to discuss implementation, funding, and potential fee studies. The council may also consider a fund for small landlord renovations and other mitigation measures.
• Other Reports: The council received reports from governance (legislative updates), equity and social justice (library meeting room policy, outreach), and finance and audit (clean audit opinion for FY 2024-25 with two findings; process improvements underway). The meeting adjourned to closed session on cybersecurity with no reportable action.