January 24, 2008
Haley Gonzaba, Manager
515
John Muir Drive
1.) Letter, Lakewood Tenant Association to Amy Sexton,
manager, Lakewood Apartments, March 27, 2004
2.) Letter, Lakewood Tenant Association to Amy Sexton,
manager, Lakewood Apartments, August 18, 2004
3.) Letter, Lakewood Tenant Association to Amy Sexton,
manager, Lakewood Apartments, February 8, 2005
4.) Letter, Amy Sexton, manager, to Mona Cereghino,
February 16, 2005
5.) Letter, Lakewood Tenant Association to Amy Sexton,
manager, Lakewood Apartments, March 7, 2005
6.) Letter, Lakewood Tenant Association to Amy Sexton,
manager, Lakewood Apartments, June 8, 2005
7.) Letter, Lakewood Tenant Association to Amy Sexton,
manager, Lakewood Apartments, September 30, 2005
8.) Letter, Lakewood Tenant Association to Amy Sexton,
manager, January 26, 2006
Re: Door
Survey
Dear Ms.
Gonzaba:
We have
performed a partial survey of the exterior doors that secure the property, as
we have from time to time in the past. The findings of the survey are identification
of a number of doors that fail to perform their security function; the results
are summarized on the attached form. The survey included an evaluation of only
those doors for which a written entry was made on the form. Each door was
inspected to determine (a) if there were any loose or missing fasteners
securing the latch, latch strike, door closer or hinges; (b) whether the latch
operated properly (including whether it was well enough lubricated so as to not
defeat the self-closing action of the door); (c) Whether there was any
interference between the door and the door-jamb that retards door closure; (d) whether
the door closer provided adequate closing force throughout the full swing of
the door and (e) any other miscellaneous problems that may interfere with the
security of the doors. While many doors operated properly there were still a significant
number of doors that fail to maintain the security of the property. For
example, one door was found unlocked, one with its latch defeated with tape
(see attached photos), two doors that could be pushed open even though closed
fully, and there were several doors bent such that they had to be slammed to
cause the latch to drop into the strike.
A
longstanding problem is that two doors (A building, 2nd floor, near
parking space 225 and D Building, 1st floor, near parking space 372)
have had the electronic latch removed to convert those doors to emergency exits
from the garages into the building thus allowing intruders potential
unrestricted access at those locations. Jeff Blankenship, your maintenance
manager, told us during our inspection that
We
also note that Jeff Blankenship told us during our inspection that Senior
Building Inspector Alan Davison had stated to him in the past that the proper
way to inspect a door for its capability to self close is to open the door
fully and walk through. The San Francisco Housing Code makes no such
distinction. Section 705 provides the purpose of the standards to be "...to provide minimum standards to ensure
[our emphasis] the security of existing hotels, motels and apartment houses ...
particularly regarding point of entry into buildings." Section
705(b)(1)(i) requires exterior doors to be "self-closing"
and there is no qualification or exception to that standard. Furthermore, there
is no explicit definition in sections 400 or 401 of the term "self-closing" so we believe
that, consistent with the obvious purpose of the standards as expressed in
section 705, the doors should close themselves no matter from what position of
rest the door is released from. Indeed, most of the doors at this property do
close even when released from just a couple inches. A perfect example of a door
that would pass the standard supposedly expressed by Mr. Davison but which we
believe fails to meet the intent of the Housing Code standards is the door on
the first floor of the D building in a stairwell (record # 48 on the attached
form). The door can sit open by about a foot and yet, if it is opened fully,
the door will self close. (The reason appears to be fasteners coming loose in
the attachment of the door closer arm to the door frame.) You may note that we
indicate on the attached survey form a number of instances where a door was
found to "rest." That is
shorthand to mean that the door was found capable of resting against the latch
and thus failing to self close. We consider that to be a clear violation of
explicit Housing/Building codes regardless of what the building inspector may
have stated to others. Even if we are incorrect in that interpretation, we
still believe that the landlord has a duty to maintain the property in a
condition that provides tenants a reasonable expectation that criminals cannot
enter through an exterior door unheeded under the implied warrantee of
habitability doctrine, not to mention plain common sense. Therefore, we stand
behind our inspection methodology.
As a
final note, previous managers, at our suggestion, have caused the doors to have
numbers applied at or adjacent to the door frames to facilitate tracking by
your maintenance department and security guards. Different numbering systems
have been applied to the doors at different times. At this point in time, many
of the door numbers have been painted over or are otherwise missing.
Commitments were made in the past to periodically monitor the security of the
doors against a list. We do not see how those commitments could be kept without
maintaining the numbering system. The results of our inspection suggest to us
that, once again, inspection and maintenance of the doors that should secure
this property from criminals is in need of improvement.
Sincerely,
Mona
Cereghino, President
Ross
Wilkinson, Vice-president
Exterior
door, E Building garage near parking space # 724, latch and strike vandalized
with tape defeating security (note also plugged storm drain)
