Just a bit ago, Page Mill issued a press release touting their magnanimity in housing families after a fire broke out at 1779 Woodland Avenue. While we salute Page Mill in rehousing tenants into some of their many unoccupied units, a few red flags did go up about the fire that are worth bringing up. Fortunately, no one was hurt this time, but fire prevention is an ongoing task.
The central question is expressed in our title: why didn’t the sprinklers go off in the unit at 1779 Woodland? Well, the answer is simple in that there are no sprinklers at 1779 Woodland; but it is also not so simple because one has to ask why there are no sprinklers at 1779 Woodland.
East Palo Alto Building Code 18.16.630 et seq. state that a building of this size should have sprinklers. If the building were built this year, the builder would be required to have them. Of course 1779 Woodland is older than that, and we assume that it was built prior to the code standard.
But if you have been following Page Mill’s multiple lawsuits and shoddy applications to the city to try to claim that these have been “substantially rehabilitated” and therefore exempt from the Rent Stabilization laws in East Palo Alto, you probably know that there has been a lot of skepticism about Page Mill’s claims. Many residents have reported that Page Mill has mostly put up coats of paint, exterior fencing, and landscaping, and not done much to actually improve the places where residents live. Even their “disaster preparation” services seem to be euphamistic rather than real. So you may not be surprised by the lack of sprinklers.
But cynicism and denial of responsibility do not constitute an excuse for misbehavior. It is important to note that Page Mill, which just sued the city by insisting that the City scrupulously follow all of the rules and regulations of the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, does not seem to be all that interested in reading these rules and regulations if they can profit from ignoring them. In the case of substantial rehabilitation claims, Page Mill would seem to be required, in order to meet the standard for exemption, that they have spent more than 50% of the purchase price for these units. Included in the many units for which they filed paperwork for “substantial rehabilitation” was 1779 Woodland.
The City denied Page Mill’s application for rehabilitation, not just because Page Mill utterly failed to follow the proper application procedure, but also because their qualifying expenses didn’t really add up to the level they were claiming, and Page Mill’s attorneys refused to show how the work was different than general maintenance or ordinary operating expenses.
But if we acknowledge that Page Mill must show that they’ve spent 50% of the purchase price to remove the property from rent stabilization, one has to wonder why they did they fail in the process of such substantial work to put in a sprinkler system that would protect the property and save lives?
And If we conjecture for a moment that Page Mill really did spend 50% of the purchase price and somehow didn’t put in sprinkler system, one has to ask where their Emeregency Preparedness, Code Enforcement, and Legal Advisors are. Because anybody who actually took the trouble to read the City code would find in section 8.16.570 that “every person altering a building which will increase the size or value of the building by 50% or more shall comply with the requirements of this code”.
We frankly are going to guess that 1779 Woodland has not been brought up to code in many regards. But shouldn’t “substantial rehabilitation” involve compliance with all housing codes. In Section 8 of the EPA code, it is clear that Sprinkers are part of the code. As we mention above, Section 8.16.630 that requires any building with more that 2500 square feet to have a fire detection and sprinkler system.
This is very problematic and disturbing. It would seem that either Page Mill is making false claims about the rehabilitation projects in East Palo Alto, or they are completely negligent in bringing the buildings up to code if they indeed are spending the amount required for substantial rehabilitation. Which is it?
We would be happy to hear Page Mill’s side of this story, and hope that they are appreciative to us for bringing this potential liability to their attention. We look forward to a day when Page Mill reads the law with an intention of following it. It would seem that doing so would bring them into alignment with the Principles of Responsible Investment that their major backer and business partner, CalPERS has sworn to uphold. Where is CalPERS in all this?
We encourage everyone to express their concerns to the Fire Prevention Section of the Menlo Park Fire Prevention District at 650 688 8425 or to the Chief of Menlo Park Fire Prevention District and to the East Palo Alto’s Code Enforcement Division at 650-853-3189 . Also, please consider addressing your concerns to the CalPERs Investment Committee, whose address is P.O. Box 942713, Sacramento, CA 94229-2713.
Page Mill has already caused the death of one worker through their neglect of safety standards. Shouldn’t they follow the law when it comes to fire prevention, instead of issuing press releases after the fire has already broken out?
Tags: housing code violations