complaint·November 7, 2024

continued form 9099... within their property lines and for areas adjacent to their property up to where the asphalt touches the bordering public road. During investigation, LPA interviewed Administrator (Admin). Admin advised that facility is aware of the sidewalk issue and has been actively working on getting bids to complete the repairs for both the sidewalk on the corner and the sidewalk behind apartments 124 and 126. Admin could not provide approximate date of when the facility became aware of the sidewalk needing repair. However, Admin provided most recent project bid from construction company (I1) dated 9/25/2024. Admin explained that the sidewalk repair project is being managed by licensee's project manager S1. During investigation, LPA interviewed S1. S1 provided LPA with proof that S1 was notified by Oakmont Gardens' Director of Maintenance (S2) on 7/8/2024 of sidewalk repairs needed. Per S1, Oakmont Gardens first inquired with the City of Santa Rosa to find out the responsible party for the repairs, be it the city of Santa Rosa or Oakmont Gardens. Once clarification was obtained, S1 set out to find a company to complete the repairs and obtain any permits needed, should they be required. S1 contacted several companies but found that most declined to provide a bid due to the small size of the project. The search for a company to accept the repair project yielded a result in September of 2024. On 9/23/24 a bid was provided by I1. On 9/25/24 S1 asked I1 to revise the bid in order to expedite completion the repairs. On 9/30/24 Oakmont Gardens approved the revised estimate. On 10/15/24, I1 communicated to S1 that application for the necessary permits was completed and the required traffic control plans were submitted. The repairs are projected to begin just as soon is the permit is issued. The City of Santa Rosa estimates a 4-6 week processing time for the permit. LPA observed I1's estimate to have an expiration date of 10/25/24. LPA asked I1 about estimate expiration date, I1 advised that the estimate is extended until the permit is obtained, "we don't want to punish our client because the city is back logged." During investigation, LPA interviewed R1, member of the Resident Council of Oakmont Gardens. R1 advised that the sidewalk repair issue was first brought to management in July or August of 2024. R1 advised that the response from management at that time was that they are shopping bids from 2-3 companies but something Continued on 9099C(2)... Continued form 9099C... will be done about it soon. R1 advised LPA that the sidewalk repair issues were discussed during the Resident Council meeting in September, then subsequently at the October council meeting. R1 advised LPA that management was both responsive, and explanatory, in reaction to the sidewalk repair concerns when they were brought up in September. Admin explained to R1 that Oakmont Gardens had been actively looking for a company to accept the project. Admin explained to LPA that Oakmont Gardens has tried to address the sidewalk issue behind apartments 124-126 by shaving down the concrete to try and level the surface, in order to mitigate any tripping hazard. LPA observed the sidewalk concrete behind apartments 124-126 to have been shaved down as evidenced by the marks in the concrete the shaver left behind. While LPA was present, Admin and S2 painted the sidewalk area behind apartments 124-126 with paint and put a sign out as a visual warning for residents, indicating presence of the uneven concrete. Admin and S2 also put a sign out on the corner sidewalk area as well, to act as visual warning. So, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.