The Lighthouse at Chico

Allegation investigated: Licensee is not according privacy to residents in care.

On August 6, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kayla Adkison arrived at the facility unannounced for the purpose of delivering complaint findings. LPA was greeted by Ilona Corpus, Executive Director, and explained the purpose of the visit. During the visit, there were 45 residents in the community and six (6) care staff. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews, reviewed documentation, and made observations. Continued on the attached LIC 9099-C Unfounded Allegation: Licensee is not according privacy to residents in care. It was alleged the facility installed video surveillance cameras that were not affording residents in care with privacy, thus violating their personal rights. Complainant alleges that cameras were installed, specifically in the facility medication room, which included sound recording. It was further alleged that the camera was pointed directly at the medication room laptop, thus allowing resident’s private medical information to be observed by unknown individuals who did not have a need to know the information present. LPA Adkison interviewed Regional Director of Operations (DOO), Eric Hofstetter, who stated the camera system feed went directly to the Executive Directors cell phone. DOO claimed they had never viewed the footage, so they could not speak to where cameras were pointed. DOO reported that to the best of their knowledge, the cameras did not have any sound. LPA interviewed Executive Director (ED), Ilona Corpus, who stated the camera feed only went to her cell phone and no other staff member had access. ED stated there is no sound on any of the cameras and denied any private resident information being shared with anyone. LPA observed video feed on ED’s cell phone and observed no sound being emitted through the cameras. LPA observed the medication room camera, which had no clear view of the laptop in question. LPA further observed notification outside of the facility, notifying all residents and visitors of the presence of video monitoring in use. Finally, ED provided LPA with a sample copy of the resident admission agreement. In the Miscellaneous section under subsection “B”, there is information regarding the installation of the camera system for security purposes and further states the cameras are not monitored by staff. Based on documentation reviewed, interviews conducted, and observations made, the above allegation is found to be UNFOUNDED. A finding that the allegation is unfounded means that the allegation is false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. No deficiencies are being cited as a result of this inspection. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report was provided, via email, to Executive Director, Ilona Corpus.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 6, 2026 · control 59-AS-20260727100714

Allegation investigated: Staff did not seek medical attention in a timely manner.

On July 31, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kayla Adkison arrived at the facility unannounced for the purpose of delivering complaint findings. LPA was greeted by Eric Hostetter, Regional Director of Operations, and explained the purpose of the visit. During the visit, there were 45 residents in the community and six (6) care staff. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews, reviewed documentation, and made observations. Continued on the attached LIC 9099-C Unsubstantiated Staff did not seek medical attention in a timely manner. It was alleged that staff did not seek medical attention for a resident, R1, in a timely matter, resulting in R1 being hospitalized. A friend of R1 (F1) had arrived at the facility to visit with R1. When FF entered R1’s apartment, FF observed R1 to be in bed, non-verbal, and staring at the wall. FF described R1 as being in a “catatonic” state. FF stated they contacted a staff member who stated they would be in shortly to assist. FF claimed that approximately 20 minutes passed and no staff arrived. FF called R1’s responsible party (RP), and informed RP of the situation. RP then arrived at the facility and observed R1 to be in the same state. Emergency Medical Services were called and R1 was taken to the hospital. R1 was out of the facility for approximately two weeks at the hospital and a skilled nursing facility before returning to the memory care facility. LPA interviewed four (4) staff members regarding the circumstances of the allegation. Staff #2 (S2) and Staff #3 (S3) both reported similar details of the events. Staff reported the evening before the above allegation occurred, staff observed R1 to not be at their baseline. R1 was breathing and awake but was observed to be slow to respond. Staff followed protocol by informing the Director of Health and Wellness as well as R1’s responsible party (RP). RP reportedly did not want R1 sent out to the hospital and requested the facility stop administering a recently prescribed medication. The facility followed RP’s wishes by not calling EMS at that time and reportedly faxed R1’s Primary Care Physician (PCP) with the previously mentioned information. However, the PCP would not be returning to the office the following Tuesday, five days later. LPA reviewed the facility care notes documented for R1 and found a care note describing the same information on August 28, 2025, at 6:13 pm. S2 stated the next day, August 29, 2025, S2 reported to R1s room to check on them and discovered them in the previously mentioned “catatonic state.” S2 stated they consulted with the RP at that time, and it was S2 who called Emergency Medical Services (EMS). S2 noted they arrived at R1s room within a few minutes of the RP arriving and was not aware of who R1’s friend had informed spoke too. No other staff interviewed had any knowledge of R1’s visitor being present other than the RP. LPA reviewed R1’s care notes and discovered a care note that was input at 10:15 am on August 29, 2025, explaining the previously mentioned information. It was noted that EMS was called at approximately 8:30 am. Although the allegation may have happened, the preponderance of evidence has not been met, and the allegation is therefore UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was forwarded to Executive Director, Ilona Corpus.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 31, 2026 · control 59-AS-20251118134548

Allegation investigated: Staff not meeting resident hygiene needs Facility staff using resident hygiene products on other residents

On July 31, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kayla Adkison arrived at the facility unannounced for the purpose of delivering complaint findings. LPA was greeted by Eric Hostetter, Regional Director of Operations, and explained the purpose of the visit. During the visit, there were 45 residents in the community and six (6) care staff. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted interviews, reviewed documentation, and made observations. Continued on the attached LIC 9099-C Substantiated Allegation: Staff not meeting resident hygiene needs It was alleged that staff were not providing Resident #1 (R1) with regular showers as scheduled and documented in their Care Plan. It was further alleged that it took staff approximately three weeks to provide R1 with a shower. LPA interviewed Executive Director (ED), Jessica Smith, who reported that during the time R1 was a resident at the facility, showers were not regularly recorded on specific “shower log” types of documentation throughout the facility. ED stated that the previous “log” system did not have a way of determining who had received or refused showers, only that all scheduled showers for the shift had been completed. ED noted that since promoting to the role of ED, she has implemented a new shower log system that will keep better track of when residents are receiving showers. LPA reviewed 17 “End of Shift Reports”, provided by the facility, dated between June 8, 2025, and September 2, 2025, in which R1 was mentioned. Of these 17 reports, showers were noted for R1 on only 12. No shower was recorded between June 8 and June 28, or between July 5 and July 24, indicating an approximately three-week span between documented showers. LPA interviewed five (5) additional staff members. Staff #4 (S4) noted that after R1 had fallen and received a head wound requiring stitches, R1 would regularly refuse showers due to not feeling well and not wanting to get their stitches wet. S4 was not sure how long this occurred, but it was more than one time. S4 further stated that approximately one week before R1 moved out of the facility, S4 noted staff were not providing showers as needed to several residents, including R1. S4 claimed the concern was brought up to management and nothing was done about their concerns. Additionally, staff #1 (S1) noted that they remember R1 mentioning almost weekly that their shower had been missed. R1 stated that they would bring the concern up to the staff responsible or, if available, would help R1 themselves. S1 further stated that they would return from their scheduled days off, and R1 would complain of not receiving a shower or R1 would state that they showered themselves alone as they were “tired of waiting.” Staff #5 (S5) noted that although they were unaware specifically if R1 had not received their scheduled showers, that it was a regular occurrence that staff were not completing their duties or not documenting when things were completed for the oncoming staff member to be aware of. Continued on additional LIC 9099-C LPA reviewed R1’s care plans created at their move-in and subsequent reassessments. Each care plan indicated the resident was scheduled for showers at least three times a week with assistance. LPA further reviewed all care notes documented for R1 during their entire residency at the facility, of which there were no notations of R1 receiving or refusing any showers. Based on interviews conducted, documents reviewed and observations of the facility, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. Facility staff using resident hygiene products on other residents It was alleged that during the time R1 resided at the facility, staff were using R1’s personal supply of wipes and/or briefs on other residents. LPA interviewed ED and five (5) additional staff regarding the allegation. ED stated that they were made aware of the allegation from R1’s family. ED questioned all staff regarding the allegation, to which, all denied using R1’s personal supply. ED reported R1’s family was provided with replacement wipes and furnished receipts as proof of purchase. LPA interviewed five (5) staff. Three staff corroborated this allegation and also stated that because of this concern, R1’s personal supply was then kept locked in storage where only few managerial staff had access. Based on interviews conducted, documents reviewed and observations of the facility, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and Appeal Rights were provided to Executive Director, Ilona Corpus. Facility not communicating with responsible parties about transportation issues It was alleged that the bus/van that was used for resident transportation to doctor’s appointments was unavailable for a period of time and this was not properly communicated to residents or their responsible parties. Due to this, R1 reportedly missed medical appointments. LPA interviewed ED, who disagreed with the allegation. ED stated, “We (facility staff) transported (R1) to everything” and "There may have been an instance when concierge did not receive 48-hour notice to have (R1’s) appointment added to the calendar." LPA interviewed three (3) additional staff members who all stated they were unaware if families were notified about transportation changes. S5 stated the facility bus was out of commission for a period time for repairs and to be re-wrapped when the facility underwent a change of ownership. S5 stated that although they could not be certain if residents and families were informed of the change, S5 claimed the facility’s communication to families had historically been subpar. Although the allegation may have happened, the preponderance of evidence has not been met, and the allegation is therefore UNSUBSTANTIATED. Facility charging for services not being rendered It was alleged that the facility was charging R1 and their responsible party (RP) for services that were not being provided. It was alleged R1 was being charged for the medication management of 14 medications, while only actually taking “five or six.” Additionally, R1 was being charged for housekeeping services that were believed to not be provided regularly as it was reported that the family was cleaning feces in R1’s bathroom. Specifically, the allegations allege that the resident was being charged for level 5 LPA reviewed the residents’ initial Care Plan and reassessments. R1s most recent care plan before their move out indicated the resident was receiving Level 4 care. Additionally, there were 13 medications listed on the residents’ Care Plan, which included four (4) PRN (as needed) medications. LPA reviewed Medication Administration Records (MARs) which confirmed the resident was being provided with the additional nine (9) medications daily. Regarding housekeeping, the resident’s most recent care plan indicated that housekeeping was scheduled to perform cleaning duties once a week. Continued on the attached LIC 9099-C LPA interviewed ED who stated that during R1’s time at the facility, there were several meetings held with R1’s RP regarding the services being provided to R1. ED stated that the RP would repeatedly request to have the resident reassessed to “lower the points” on their care plan, thus making the monthly bill cheaper. ED stated “This made it so the resident was deemed pretty much independent for everything. (R1) would have to ask for help in most cases, if (R1) needed it.” Additionally, S5 noted that although housekeeping is scheduled to service resident rooms once a week, housekeeping does not clean up feces or urine and that is the responsibility of facility caregivers. With the resident being deemed mostly independent, with the exception of medication management and stand-by assistance for bathing and transfers, it would be reasonable to assume that the resident would need to ask for staff assistance for additional housekeeping needs. LPA reviewed R1s care notes for the entirety of the resident’s stay at the facility. On July 30, 2025, there was note made by ED stating “(RP) came into my office expressing some frustration with (R1s) level of care, (RP) says (RP) is still being billed for the wrong level of care and that (R1s) care has been extremely lacking. ED let (RP) know that I (ED) would follow up with BOM (business office manager) and Wellness Team.” LPA reviewed three separate assessments conducted by the facility on R1 during their five-month residency at the facility. Although the allegation may have happened, the preponderance of evidence has not been met, and the allegation is therefore UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was provided to Executive Director, Ilona Corpus.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 31, 2026 · control 59-AS-20251006100715

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: HSC 1569.2(c · Plan of correction due date: Aug 14, 2026

Health and Safety Code section 1569.2(c) provides: (c) "Care and supervision" means the facility assumes responsibility for, or provides… ongoing assistance with activities of daily living without which the resident’s physical health, mental health, safety, or welfare would be endangered. Assistance includes assistance with ... personal care. This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Based on interviews and document review it was determined that staff did not ensure that Resident 1 was provided assistance in showering as indicated in their care plan. This poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 31, 2026

Plan of correction: Licensee agrees to conduct a staff training concerning the requirement to assist residents with showers and following each residents care plan. Licensee shall submit the staff sign in sheet with dates and staff signatures as proof of correction by end of business on August 14th, 2026.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(12) · Plan of correction due date: Aug 14, 2026

87468.1 Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities (a) Residents in all residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: (12) To wear their own clothes; to keep and use their own personal possessions, including their toilet articles... Based on interviews conducted, it was determined that R1s personal rights were violated, in that staff were using R1s personal toilet articles on other residents, which poses a potential health, safety, or personal rights risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 31, 2026

Plan of correction: Licensee agrees to conduct a staff training concerning the requirement to ensure resident’s personal belongings are not used on other residents. Licensee shall submit the staff sign in sheet with dates and staff signatures as proof of correction by end of business on August 14th, 2026.

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

On May 5, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kayla Adkison, arrived at the facility unannounced to conduct a Required Annual Inspection. LPA met with Ilona Corpus, Executive Director (ED), and explained the purpose of the visit. During the inspection, there were 41 residents and seven (7) staff providing direct care. LPA observed residents watching television in their rooms and enjoying a Cinco de Mayo themed lunch during the inspection. The facility was in the process of preparing for a Cinco De Mayo celebration planned for the afternoon. LPA and ED toured the facility together to ensure the health and safety of residents in care. Areas toured include but are not limited to: common areas, activity room, med room, eleven (11) resident rooms with full bathrooms, courtyard, kitchen, and storage areas. LPA observed each bedroom to have the required furnishings and working lights. LPA observed the facility to be at a comfortable temperature. There were various activities available for client recreation. LPA observed a calendar of activities posted for residents to view, as well as printed copies for resident rooms. Facility has a 2-day perishable and a 7-day non-perishable amount of food. All residents requiring a special diet are posted for kitchen staff to review. LPA observed a full menu posted for residents to review. LPA observed all medications and sharps to be locked away and inaccessible to clients in care. During a tour of the memory care side of the facility, LPA observed a one (1) can of disinfectant spray in an unlocked cabinet in the common area. Staff removed the item and locked the cabinet during the inspection. LPA observed a complete First Aid kit located in the med room. LPA observed (3) three fire extinguishers and smoke detectors throughout the facility, which were last inspected in October 2025. The facility is conducting emergency disaster drills monthly with the last drill being documented in February 2026. Continued on LIC 809-C LPA reviewed a total of six (6) resident files. One (1) resident file was missing proof of a negative tuberculosis exam. LPA observed seven (7) staff files which contained all the required documentation. All staff are fingerprint cleared and associated to the facility. All staff training is documented and in compliance with Title 22 regulations. LPA requested copies of the most recent LIC 500, current liability insurance, and the facility's reviewed emergency disaster plan be submitted via email. Deficiencies are being cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, and are recorded on the attached LIC 809-D. Failure to correct the deficiencies may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and Appeal Rights were provided, via email, to Executive Director, Ilona Corpus, via email.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2026

The state marks this report as 5 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 4. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

Type of visit: Office

On February 26, 2026, at 3:00 pm, an office meeting was held, via Microsoft Teams, to discuss a recent Plan of Correction (POC) issued in complaint control number #59-AS-20251229144131. In attendance were, Ilona Corpus, Executive Director; Sherlin Baradaran, Chief Compliance Officer; Eric Hostetter, Regional Director of Operations; Leslie Quintanar, Chief Operating Officer; Lauren Crocker, Licensing Program Manager; Marisa Chiarelli, Licensing Program Analyst and Kayla Adkison, Licensing Program Analyst. On February 6, 2026, the facility was cited for the substantiated allegation "Staff did not ensure facility is free of mold." The facility identified a small leak that had developed in a resident's apartment and began to develop mold along the outer edges of a cabinet. The resident was moved to a different apartment. The Health Department was contacted and directed the facility to handle the issue internally. A contractor was contacted and completed the work necessary to rid the apartment of mold. During the meeting, a new POC was developed collaboratively. The Licensee/Administrator shall provide in-service training with a focus on educating staff to remain vigilant to any housekeeping concerns throughout the facility and informing management immediately if any issues are discovered. Licensee/Administrator shall provide proof of this training, to LPA, via email, by end of business on March 6, 2026. No additional deficiencies are being cited as a result of this meeting. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was forwarded to Ilona Corpus, Executive Director, via email.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 26, 2026

Allegation investigated: Staff did not follow proper infection control practices.

LPA investigated the allegation – “Staff did not follow proper infection control procedures” Based on record review and interviews, there is insufficient evidence to support the allegation that staff had not come to the facility with COVID. Staff interviewed stated they are encouraged to stay home when sick and staff are following the facilities infection control plan. Making the allegation unsubstantiated. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 6, 2026 · control 59-AS-20251229144131

The state marks this report as 3 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 1. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

On 02/06/2026 while Licensing Program Analyst Marisa Chiarelli was at the facility following up on a unrelated matter, LPA noticed a deficiency while touring the outside of facility. LPA Chiarelli and Administrator Corpus were touring the back patio area that connected the memory care and assisted living units. LPA Chiarelli observed a missing part of the concrete walkway, with a piece of plywood and yellow wet floor sign on top of it. LPA Chiarelli asked administrator what happened and administrator Corpus stated she does not know how long it has been like that. Administrator checked the maintenance logs and there was no maintenance request put in for the missing concrete walkway. Administrator stated she will put in a maintenance request for it. Spoke with a maintenance worker named Bradley about the missing concrete walkway and he stated that since he has been working here (he started working here in October of 2025) he did not know why there was not a maintenance request put it for it. Exit interview conducted. Copy of report and appeal rights were given to administrator. One Type B deficiency was cited on today's visit. For more information see LIC 809-D for citation, plan of correction.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 6, 2026

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87303(a) · Plan of correction due date: Feb 20, 2026

87303 Maintenance and Operation...The facility shall be clean, safe, sanitary and in good repair at all times. Maintenance shall include provision of maintenance services and procedures for the safety and well-being of residents, employees and visitors. Based on observation and interviews conducted the licensee did not ensure the facility was in good repair missing concrete slab in walkway, which poses a potential health, safety, or personal rights risk to all residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 6, 2026

Plan of correction: Licensee will create a maintence request to fix missing concrete walkway. Licensee will provide proof that the missing concrete walkway has been fixed by POC due date.

Allegation investigated: Staff did not ensure resident received medical care in a timely manner Staff do not ensure adequate care and supervision is provided Licensee does not ensure staff remain awake during night shift Staff allowed residents to be left in soiled clothing for extended periods of time Staff do not ensure residents rooms are kept in clean sanitary conditions

On December 3, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with Jesica Smith and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and records review were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff did not ensure resident received medical care in a timely manner.” Based on interviews and record review, staff address resident medical care appropriately and timely. There is no indication of delayed medical care. LPA could not corroborate the allegation. -----Continued on LIC9099-C----- Unsubstantiated LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff do not ensure adequate care and supervision is provided.” Based on interviews and record review, staff indicated all resident needs are being met. It does not appear to be any indication of inadequate care and supervision. Staff appear to be responsive to resident care. LPA investigated the allegation, “Licensee does not ensure staff remain awake during night shift.” Interviews were conducted and LPA did not obtain any information as to whether staff were sleeping during night shifts. Interviews indicated that staff are unaware of staff sleeping during shifts. LPA could not corroborate the allegation. LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff allowed residents to be left in soiled clothing for extended periods of time.” Based on interviews conducted staff indicated that residents are checked frequently for soiled clothing and cleaned immediately if soiled clothing is observed. All staff interviewed reported that they check residents for soiled clothing every two hours and/or when a resident requests assistance. LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff do not ensure residents rooms are kept in clean sanitary conditions.” Based on interviews conducted staff indicated that resident rooms are kept clean and sanitary. Staff stated caregivers and housekeeping clean resident rooms daily. Based on interviews conducted and record review, the preponderance of evidence standards has not been met. Therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Findings that the complaint is Unsubstantiated means that, although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 3, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250825102554

Allegation investigated: Personal RIghts - Staff did not ensure that all information and records regarding residents was kept confidential

On October 15, 2025, at approximately 10:00 am, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kayla Adkison arrived at the facility unannounced for the purpose of delivering complaint findings. LPA was greeted by Executive Director, Jessica Smith, and explained the purpose of the visit. During the visit, there were 48 residents and 7 staff providing care. Allegation: Staff did not ensure that all information and records regarding residents was kept confidential. It was alleged that personal information about a resident was not kept confidential. During an office meeting, a now former staff member was speaking loudly about a resident’s personal life and voicing serious, unfounded, allegations against a resident’s family member. Continued on the attached LIC 9099-C Substantiated LPA interviewed (2) two current staff members who were reportedly present during the conversation. (2) two of (2) two current staff admitted that the former staff member was loudly discussing a resident’s personal business with no regard for their privacy. Staff further noted the former staff member was speaking about their own personal opinions of the individual. The former staff was using the individual’s last name. Current staff stated that they both informed the former staff member that they were violating the residents’ personal rights by speaking in such a way. Both current staff stated that the former staff member was speaking very loudly, and the conversation could have easily been heard by anyone outside the office door. Based on observations and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be Substantiated. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22), is cited on the attached LIC 9099-D. Exit Interview conducted. A copy of this report and Appeal Rights were provided to Executive Director, Jessica Smith, via email.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 15, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250707162403

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Oct 17, 2025

87468.1 Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities (a) Residents in all residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: (1)To be accorded dignity in their personal relationships with staff, residents, and other persons. This requirement was not met as evidence by: Based on observation and interviews, the licensee did not ensure that a resident's personal information was kept confidential.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 15, 2025

Plan of correction: The Licensee/Administrator reports the staff mentioned in this complaint is no longer working for the facility. Executive Director agrees to review the regulation cited and shall submit a letter to Community Care Licensing indicating their understanding of the regulation by end of business on October 17, 2025.

Type of visit: Prelicensing

On April 29, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ivan Avila arrived announced at the facility to conduct a Pre-Licensing inspection utilizing the inspection tool. LPA met with Facility Representative and explained the purpose of the visit. This inspection is for a change of ownership. During today's visit, LPA Avila and Facility Representative toured the interior and exterior of the facility. Areas toured included but not limited to: common areas, resident bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, laundry room, and two medication rooms. LPA observed cleaning products and other toxins to be locked away. LPA observed knives and sharps found to be locked and secured in the kitchen. LPA observed the facility to have the required postage on the wall. LPA and Jacob Primeau complete the pre-licensing tool together on April 29, 2025 and found the facility to be at compliance. Component III orientation was conducted. Applicant satisfied all requirements in accordance with Title 22, California Code of Regulations on today's pre-licensing inspection. Application is pending and LPA will forward findings to the Centralized Application Bureau (CAB) for final review and approval. CAB will further contact applicant on final status of application. No deficiencies cited during today's visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of the report was provided to the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 29, 2025