complaint·November 3, 2023

During interview, staff S1-S3 denied stealing any belongings from R1's apartment, including any credit cards. Staff S4 and S5 stated to have conducted investigations to determine if anything had been stolen from R1's apartment. S4 and S5 stated that after R1 reported a bag of quarters were stolen, S4 and S5 found a bag of quarters in R1's apartment. However, R1 told S4 and S5 that it was a different bag of quarters that went missing. S4 and S5 also stated to have investigated another claim that R1 made about bottles of shampoo that were missing and when S4 and S5 found bottles of shampoo that matched R1's description of the missing shampoo bottles, R1 stated that it was another set of shampoo bottles that had gone missing. Staff S6 stated during interview that R1 reported a manilla envelope was stolen from R1's apartment and when S6 came to R1's apartment to investigate, S6 observed the manilla envelope in R1's apartment. S6 let R1 know that the manilla envelope was in R1's apartment. Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, resident, witnesses, and observations, although the allegations listed above may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are unsubstantiated. No Deficiencies were cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22. This report was reviewed with Robinetta Wheeler and a copy of this report was provided.