Tenants at a large East Palo Alto apartment complex are pressing the property’s former owner to drop its appeal of a city ruling that awarded them more than $200,000 in rent rebates for long-standing maintenance problems — pitting their claims of neglect against the landlord’s argument that the penalties were excessive and legally flawed.
After years of complaints at Woodland Park, a cluster of rent-controlled apartment buildings that make up much of East Palo Alto’s affordable housing, the city’s rent stabilization board ruled last year that the landlord failed to maintain basic housing services at several buildings, granting rent rebates to affected tenants. The owner, Sand Hill Property Company, appealed the decision, delaying payment and prompting tenants to stage a protest at the company’s office last week.
A hearing officer for the rent stabilization board found repeated failures at three 1960s-era Woodland Park buildings on East O’Keefe Street.
Investigators documented that flooding in the parking area from leaky pipes has persisted since at least 2023, while a malfunctioning security gate posed a safety risk. Officers also found evidence of severe rat and cockroach infestations and unreasonable delays in repairing common-area plumbing and leaking pipes. These findings led to the board ordering rent rebates and reimbursements totaling more than $200,000 — relief tenants say has yet to materialize due to the landlord’s appeal.
The protest comes over a year after this news organization visited the complex to document tenants’ complaints.
“We were awarded about $200,000, but the money has not been paid to us,” said Maggie Pande, a Woodland Park tenant and organizer. “They appealed the case, and they have not given us the rent rebate award.”
Frustrated by the delay, tenants and their supporters brought their demands directly to the company’s office.
On Feb. 5, more than 35 tenant leaders, organizers and community allies delivered a letter calling on Sand Hill Property Company to drop its appeals related to the three East O’Keefe Street buildings, pause rent increases at other Woodland Park properties and invest in repairs, according to organizers.
East Palo Alto is a largely working-class city with many residents from immigrant and minority backgrounds. Once notorious for high crime rates, the city has seen violent crime drop to low or zero levels in recent years. Considered by many to be the last affordable area in Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto has faced rising living costs as the tech boom in nearby Menlo Park, Mountain View and Palo Alto drives up rents, leaving few options for residents on modest budgets.
In addition to dropping its appeal, tenants also asked the company to not raise rents on the remaining buildings it owns in the area.
“What we are looking at here is a large real estate corporation refusing to pay out money that could be life-changing for low-income seniors, families and immigrants in East Palo Alto,” said James Huynh, director of the Regional Tenant Organizing Network. “They are using these appeals to shirk the responsibility they have as housing operators.”
Sand Hill disputes the findings and says the complaints stem from issues during its prior ownership of the property. The company sold the three buildings to a New York City-based investor April last year, according to property sale documents.
“Sand Hill no longer owns the property,” a company spokesperson said, describing the disputes as “legacy complaints that are still working through East Palo Alto’s rent control process.”
The spokesperson said appeals are a routine and appropriate part of that process. “We do not appeal decisions unless we have material disagreements with the findings,” the spokesperson said, citing cases where rent credits were applied to periods when tenants did not live in the units.
The company filed its appeal in June 2025, but it’s unclear when a decision will be made. Attempts to reach East Palo Alto’s rent board by phone and email went unanswered.
In its appeal, Woodland Park Communities argues the hearing examiner made legal and factual errors that resulted in an excessive and unauthorized penalty. The company insists that rent rebates were improperly awarded to some individuals who were not tenants during the relevant periods and that many cited issues — such as pipe drips, rain-related water intrusion and gate malfunctions — were minor and did not affect habitability.
The landlord also challenges the rent reductions of up to 22% awarded to tenants, arguing it is unreasonable to attribute such losses in value to common-area problems when essential services such as kitchens, bathrooms, electricity and water remained functional. It further disputes findings about notice, saying there was insufficient evidence to show when management was informed of problems and that repairs were made promptly when issues were reported.
Tenants assert the problems affected safety, health and daily living and were visible enough that management should have been aware. They also contend that rent reductions should remain in place until repairs are verified through formal city inspections.
Pande said company representatives personally saw the conditions in tenants’ homes.
“They came and they saw the apartments themselves,” she said. “You saw it, we saw it, and the rent board saw it.” In its appeal, Sand Hill said it addresses tenant complaints “in a timely manner” when reported.
Tenants say that regardless of the appeal they plan to keep pushing for enforcement of the rent board’s decision.
“They sold the property and they left us,” Pande said. “So the fight continues.”
Leave a Reply