complaint·May 23, 2024

Continued from LIC9099... Based on records review, on 5/3/24 Licensee provided LPA with written communication with the vendor that came to fix the issue on 5/2/24 indicating the following: “This email confirms our appointment for next Tuesday, 5/7/24 at 9-10 AM. As requested, the gate maglock replacement was ordered after our visit in the afternoon of 5/2/24. The gate maglock, exterior button, and inner keypad were all functioning during this visit. We will replace the maglock as agreed upon, ruling out a faulty unit since the maglock is EOL. We will also be installing a new concealed closer inside the gate-welded housing. On 5/7/24, LPA conducted a subsequent visit to the facility. Upon LPA’s arrival, the Licensee and two workers were standing outside replacing the parts at the front door. At approximate 1:13pm, Licensee notified LPA that the door was repaired and was working according to regulation. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), is cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Appeal Rights Given. **Immediate Civil Penalty assessed in the amount of $500. ***Amending LIC9099 and LIC9099C. Upon change of ownership on 4/3/23. The secured perimeter was not reviewed by the Department on error. Licensee have submitted pertinent documentation for the Department to review. The Fire Department is engaged and approval is pending. Currently, the facility is operating under fire clarance approved on 11/16/22 without secured perimeter waiver. Complaint disposition will be changed to Unfounded due to facility secured perimeter waiver was not approved.