Complaint·February 20, 2026

S2 stated that S3 assisted during the cleanup. S3 stated that while cleaning the room and replacing the mattress, they hit the bag hanging on the bed, causing its contents to fall. S3 observed a white substance and a pipe among the items. S2 and S3 stated that staff did not search through R1’s belongings. Residents R2 through R4 stated that staff request permission before entering their rooms for cleaning and do not go through personal belongings. Based on review of the complaint narrative, R1 alleges that staff were interested in his/her food stamp and had recently purchased a box of waffles and later discovered that S2 had given the waffles to another resident. Staff members S1 through S4 stated that food belonging to residents is labeled with the resident’s name to ensure proper identification. Three out of five residents (R2–R4) stated that they write their names on boxes or containers to prevent others from taking their food from the refrigerator. R2 to R4 stated they have not experienced staff giving away their food. The remaining two residents (R5 and R6) do not store food in the refrigerator, as their meals are prepared according to their specific dietary requirements. Based on interviews, a lthough the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation(s) did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. No citations are issued based on California Code of Regulation (CCR) Title 22. A copy of the report was provided to designated administrator Philipp Perez. An exit interview and a copy of the report was provided. page 2 of 2 Based on interviews with staff members S2 through S4, they stated that they were not aware of any eviction notice for R1. S2 reported that R1’s case manager (CM) visited the facility and informed staff that R1 would be returning. S1 stated that R1 violated the facility’s house rules and could no longer reside at the facility. S1 confirmed that no formal eviction notice was issued to R1 and no notification was sent to the Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD). S1 stated that he/she communicated with CM regarding R1’s noncompliance with house rules that is related to drug use and allowing individuals into R1’s room without prior notification to staff or the licensee. S1 stated to CM that he/she feels that R1s behavior poses a safety concern for other residents. On 02/05/2026, LPA Partoza conducted an interview with R1’s case manager (CM). CM stated that S1 reached out to him/her to inform him/her that S1 will not admit R1 back at the facility, when staff discovered drug paraphernalia in R1’s room. CM stated that he/she could not dissuade S1 not to make a rushed decision in not re-admitting R1 back to the facility, which compromised R1s safety. The rush decision prompted CM to place R1 in a motel after being discharge from the hospital. CM stated that they were not given a 30-day eviction notice by S1 to give them time to find a new placement for R1. CM stated that S1 was firm with the decision and said that he/she will take full citations from CCLD for the unlawful eviction. CM stated that S1 expressed his/her concern regarding R1s behavior. S1 told CM that he/she was not willing to readmit R1 to the facility because S1 would be prioritizing the safety of the current residents in place and staff over compliance with licensing requirements. S4 stated that he/she observed R1 smoke Marijuana when he/she and S2 first got hired in 2024. then in June of 2025 R1 no longer smokes weed at the property. S4 stated he/she has not seen R1 use any other drugs. Based on document review from the time that R1 was admitted to the facility on 08/01/2023, no incident report was submitted to CCLD by the facility that R1 was observed using drugs inside the facility that would require law enforcement intervention. R1s medical assessment states that R1 has a substance abuse, hypertension, diabetes type 2, COPD and HIV. R1 is highly cognitive, and is able to leave the facility without assistance. R1s appraisal needs and services plan, states that R1 is alert and oriented, and will maintain current level of functioning and "very independent with his/her ADLS and likes to go out with his/her friends." page 2 of 3 Based on review of the admission agreement, stipulated on page 10 under the condition for eviction, are as follows: “the licensee to provide a 30-day written notice to the resident for, 3. Failure of the resident to comply with written general policies of the facility (house rules).” The written general policies was updated in June of 2025 as part of the admission agreement. Based on document reviews and interviews the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the allegation of unlawful eviction is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiencies were cited during today's visit based on the California Code of Regulation (CCR) Title 22. An exit interview was conducted with designated Administrator Philipp Perez and a copy of the report was provided. This report is continued for the other 2 allegations for this complaint. (See LIC 9099A) page 3 of 3