complaint·October 7, 2025

incomplete and agreed to correct the errors on the previously issued eviction notices. During an interview with R1, the resident confirmed they did indeed breach the Resident Agreement and House Rules that were agreed to upon admission. Record review revealed R1 was served two different eviction notices that failed to meet regulation guidelines. The first notice dated September 4, 2025, was inaccurate, and the second eviction notice dated September 11, 2025 was incomplete. The first eviction notice served (September 4, 2025) was inaccurate, as the eviction notice did not have the correct addresses for the California Department of Social Services or the correct address for the Long Term Care Ombudsman as required by regulation guidelines. The second eviction notice served (September 11, 2025) was incomplete. The second eviction notice did not have the required information for alternative resources/options to assist with housing and care options as required by regulation guidelines. Based on the evidence gathered through interviews and document review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the following allegation: Licensee did not follow proper eviction procedures is deemed SUBSTANTIATED. A violation is being cited per California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8. An exit interview was conducted with Licensee Tricia Pedroza and Administrator Ephantus Warui, LIC9099-D, LIC811, and a copy of this report and appeal rights were provided at exit.