complaint·March 19, 2026

(2) staff. According to the complaint, it was alleged that R1 eloped due to a lack of staff supervision, resulting in R1 being left unattended in various locations within the surrounding neighborhood. However, interviews conducted with staff and residents did not corroborate the allegation. Staff, including the Administrator, reported that R1 enjoys spending time outdoors and taking walks. Staff indicated they are aware that R1 cannot be left unattended and stated that staff either accompany R1 on walks around the neighborhood or remain with R1 while outside. Residents interviewed reported observing staff accompanying R1 outdoors and stated they have not witnessed R1 leaving the facility unattended or eloping. Although the allegation of lack of supervision resulting in R1 eloping was reported, based on the information obtained through interviews, the allegation may have occurred; however, there is insufficient evidence to support the validity of the claim at this time. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be Unsubstantiated. Allegation # 2: Facility staff do not adequately supervise residents in care. Concerns were expressed that facility staff do not adequately supervise residents in care. To investigate the allegation, on 07/25/2025 and 07/28/2025, at various times between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., the Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) conducted interviews with the reporting party and other witnesses associated with the complaint. On 08/01/2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., the LPA conducted an initial complaint visit, which included a physical plant inspection, as well as interviews with three (3) staff and three (3) residents. During today’s visit, from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m., LPA conducted additional interviews with two (2) residents and one staff. According to the complaint, it was alleged that staff failed to adequately supervise residents. Specifically, it was reported that staff were observed running after resident #1 (R1) and asking neighbors for assistance in retrieving R1. It was further alleged that R1 fell in a neighbor’s yard and staff were unable to assist R1 off the ground without help from a neighbor. However, interviews conducted with staff and residents did not corroborate the allegation. Staff, including the Administrator, reported that R1 enjoys sitting on a bench located in a neighboring yard. Staff stated they are aware that R1 cannot be left unattended and indicated they remain with R1 while in the neighboring yard. Staff denied that R1 fell and denied requesting assistance from neighbors to help R1 off the ground. Staff reported that they accompany R1 at all times while outdoors and do not allow R1 to remain unattended. Staff also indicated that neighbors have not expressed concerns regarding R1 being in the yard. (Cont'd LIC9099C) LPA attempted to interview the neighbor; however, the attempt was unsuccessful. Residents interviewed reported observing staff accompanying R1 outdoors and stated they have not witnessed R1 falling or being left unattended. Although the allegation that staff do not adequately supervise residents was reported, based on the information obtained through interviews, the allegation may have occurred; however, there is insufficient evidence to support the validity of the claim at this time. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be Unsubstantiated. Allegation # 3: Facility is in disrepair . Concerns were expressed that the facility is in disrepair. To investigate the allegation, on 07/25/2025 and 07/28/2025, at various times between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., LPA conducted interviews with the reporting party and other witnesses associated with the complaint and reviewed relevant documentation. On 08/01/2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., LPA conducted an initial complaint visit, which included a physical plant inspection, as well as interviews with three (3) staff and three (3) residents. During today’s visit, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., LPA conducted additional interviews with two (2) residents and staff and completed a follow-up physical plant inspection of the property. According to the allegation, it was reported that the facility was improperly dumping bulky items in front of the facility and garage, creating a potential hazard for residents and individuals using the sidewalk. Interviews revealed that the facility had scheduled a bulky item pick-up and was instructed by the city to place items outside no more than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the scheduled collection. LPA contacted the City of Santa Clarita to inquire about the concern. The city reported that an inspection had been conducted and based on their findings, the facility was in compliance and no violations or hazards were identified. LPA reviewed documentation and determined that the items placed in front of the facility were not obstructing walkways or creating a safety hazard for residents in care. The items were present in accordance with a scheduled pick-up. Additionally, LPA obtained information indicating that multiple complaints have been submitted to other agencies regarding concerns at the facility. Physical plant inspections conducted during the investigation revealed that the facility was free from hazards and in compliance with applicable standards for resident safety. (Cont'd LIC9099C) Although the allegation that the facility is in disrepair was reported, based on the information obtained through interviews, documentation, and observations, there is insufficient evidence to support the validity of the claim at this time. Therefore, the allegation is determined to be Unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted and copy of report provided to Administrator.