complaint·August 4, 2025

Continued from LIC 9099 Throughout the course of the investigation, LPA reviewed all documents obtained, conducted telephonic and in-person interviews with additional credible witnesses and other relevant parties. During today's visit, LPA conducted a brief physical plant tour, no health and safety concerns. The following was then determined: Regarding allegation of “Staff does not ensure residents are accorded reasonable accommodations” it was alleged that a resident’s request to move to a vacant, refurbished room, due to recent flooding, outdated room conditions, and high monthly fees, was not considered by the former ED, Terri Seifert. Interview with former ED revealed that room change requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis at management discretion, based on individual circumstances and unit availability. The current ED Lilit Mnatsakanyam, explained that according to corporate, residents who lived in the community prior to the ownership change from “Sunrise Senior Living of Woodland Hills” (Sunrise) to Ivy Park at Woodland Hills (Ivy Park) were communicated verbally during a meeting held with residents of the option to either keep their original Sunrise agreement with existing perks and discounts or sign a new agreement under Ivy Park. The Reporting Party (RP), who pays a monthly rent and a $42 care fee under a Sunrise agreement, did not recall being offered a new contract and admitted not inquiring about the differences. The RP expressed concern that new residents are paying significantly lower rent than those who moved in under previous ownership. In December 2024, the RP requested to be moved to a vacant, recently refurbished apartment of the same size, and to pay the same monthly rent as new residents moving into the community. According to the RP, this request was submitted verbally to community management. The RP stated that initially, there was no response, but after several weeks, they were approved to move into the refurbished unit, However, the monthly rent amount was not going to be reassessed or reduced. RP declined this offer and reported that later, they requested to remain in their current apartment and have their rent lowered instead, but the former ED indicated that they were never presented with this request. When asked, the RP acknowledged that they eventually stopped inquiring about the matter. Continued on LIC 9099-C Continued from LIC 9099-C Neither Ivy Park management nor the RP were able to provide written documentation to confirm that these conversations took place or that a formal request was submitted. LPA reviewed RP’s Sunrise admission agreement with revision date of 05/2015. LPA was unable to identify any clause specifying the process or terms applicable when a resident wishes to substitute their apartment. Regarding flooding incidents, the RP stated that maintenance staff responded by drying the carpet using a commercial vacuum cleaner. The RP also confirmed that there was no water damage present in their unit. LPA visited multiple random units including the RP’s apartment, no visible stains on the carpet, mold on the walls, or any sign of water damage inside the unit were observed. Based on the information obtained during the investigation, the Department does not have sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the above allegation. “Staff does not ensure residents are accorded reasonable accommodations” is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. It was reported that "Staff are not properly addressing room repairs for residents in care”. According to the allegation, a resident left the water running, which resulted in flooding into other units and the saturation of carpets in neighboring rooms. It was further alleged that staff responded by only drying the affected carpets without taking further action. Interviews with the former ED revealed that in December 2024, there were two separate incidents involving flooding. One involved a resident who left water running for an extended period, resulting in overflow and water dripping into units below. The second incident was related to a plumbing issue, in which a resident had flushed excessive amounts of toilet paper, leading to a clogged pipeline. In both cases, maintenance staff were immediately dispatched to the affected areas. The maintenance team cleaned the flooded units and used a plumbing snake from the parking lot to the affected unit’s pipelines to address the clog. A review of Ivy Park’s maintenance work orders showed that both residents and staff submitted requests related to carpet cleaning and clogged plumbing. These work orders were completed in a timely manner by maintenance staff. Additionally, the former ED stated that carpets are cleaned as needed and shampooed on a regular schedule. Residents interviewed stated that when they submit work order requests, the issues are generally addressed promptly. While not every problem is resolved on the first attempt, maintenance staff are reported to follow up and ensure completion. Continued on LIC 9099-C Continued from LI 9099-C Residents also noted that for minor repairs, such as replacing light bulbs, changing broken accessories or fixing broken screens, a formal work order is not always necessary, as these concerns are often resolved on the spot by available staff. With regards to carpet cleaning, residents reported that when requested, carpets are cleaned and shampooed using the community’s own carpet cleaning equipment, and that these requests are generally fulfilled without issue. Based on the information obtained during the investigation, the Department does not have sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the above allegation. “Staff are not properly addressing room repairs for residents in care” is deemed Unsubstantiated at this time. Exit interview was conducted. No citations issued. A copy of the report was issued.