Bayshire Yorba Linda.

Allegation: Staff neglect resulted in a resident sustaining a fracture due to a fall. It is alleged that R1 had a fall that could have been prevented but the evening staff were inattentive and did not take the appropriate actions to make sure R1 had adequate assistance. Based on records review, R1 was admitted to the facility on March 24, 2024. R1 is non-ambulatory and is unable to independently transfer to and from bed. R1 needs full assistance with self-care, besides feeding self. R1 is confused/disoriented; however, R1 is able to follow instructions and communicate needs. Since admission, R1 had the first fall in January 2025, where a facility staff found R1 sitting on the floor next to their bed. No injuries were reported from this incident. Based on progress notes dated February 28, 2025, at 8:49 PM, staff noted R1 had a second unwitnessed fall. During the investigation, interviews were conducted where six staff out of six staff denied the allegation. Based on two out of six staff interviews, on February 28, 2025, R1 got up from bed in order to close the door but fell. S2 stated that R1 was found by a staff on the floor, upright, leaning against their bed, while conducting a routine resident check. Record review indicates immediately following the incident, R1 was given a full body assessment, and PRN medication was administered but it was ineffective. Subsequently, R1 expressed pain and requested to contact their son and be taken to the hospital. S6 called 911 and R1 was taken to the hospital. Interviews were conducted with residents. R1 stated that they noticed the door was open, attempted to get out of bed to close the door and subsequently fell. R1 acknowledged that they did not request staff assistance and did not utilize their wheelchair or walker when attempting to close the door. Additionally, two resident interviews indicated that staff are attentive to resident care, and both residents denied the allegation. The evidence indicates that R1 did not request staff assistance and did not utilize their wheelchair or walker, which resulted in an unwitnessed fall, and subsequent injury. Based on information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to corroborate the above allegation. Continued on LIC9099C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Allegation: Facility is understaffed. It is alleged the facility has cut staff hours and retaliates against caregivers, so they are not fully staffed. Based on records reviewed, the facility had twenty-three staff assigned to provide care to residents in the memory care unit, according to the Staff Schedule dated February 2025. On February 28, 2025, there were four staff assigned to the first shift, and three staff assigned to both the second shift and NOC shift. Based on the LPA’s observations during visits conducted on March 16, 2025, and August 15, 2025, there were four staff on duty providing care and supervision to residents in the memory care unit and no staffing concerns were observed. Based on interviews conducted, six out of six staff and three out of three residents denied the allegation. Two out of two staff stated that when staff called out, the facility would seek coverage by offering overtime to staff from other shifts, contacting part-time staff, or utilizing an outside agency. Three out of six staff stated there was sufficient staffing in the memory care unit and that residents were routinely checked at least once per hour or more often. Based on the information gathered, there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the allegation. Based on observations, interviews, and records review, LPA did not find sufficient evidence to support the above allegations that staff neglect resulted in a resident sustaining a fracture due to a fall and facility is understaffed. Although the allegations 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. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to Administrator Austin Morris.

Allegation: Facility staff neglect resulting in residents developing pressure injuries while in care. It is alleged that residents in Memory Care have Stage 3 and 4 decubitus ulcers. It is alleged that residents were left in their bed because they have behaviors. Based on records reviewed, R6’s Hospice flow chart from October 4, 2023, indicated a wound care professional came to the facility to follow up on their wound. R6’s hospice flow sheet from October 4, 2023, to July 23, 2025, does not state that the wound has gotten worse. The report states that either treatment was done or treatment was refused because R6 was aggressive. R6’s facility’s progress notes from November 13, 2024, to February 5, 2025, stated R6 was receiving wound care from their hospice company. There are no notes that indicate the wound was a result of staff neglect nor did the staff note that the condition got worse. R9 was admitted to the facility on August 31, 2019, according to their face sheet dated March 5, 2022. R9 returned to the facility from a skilled nursing facility on January 24, 2025, according to the facility progress notes dated January 24, 2025. Progress notes dated January 26, 2025, staff discovered a right heel wound and coccyx stage 2 wound. R9’s hospice care plan start date for the pressure 2 wound on coccyx was on January 31, 2025. There are no indications on record from the facility progress notes, hospice care plans, and other documents that the facility staff neglect led to pressure injuries for the residents in care. Based on interviews conducted, eight out of eight residents and eight out of eight staff denied allegation that the facility’s staff neglect resulted in residents developing pressure injuries while in care. All staff and residents stated that they have not heard a resident develop pressures due to staff neglect. Based on observations, LPA Kim did not see any form of neglect at the times of visit on February 6,2025, and August 15, 2025. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence gathered to corroborate the above allegation. It is determined that all resident interviews and all staff did not corroborate that the pressure injuries occurred to residents due to staff neglect. LPA was able to verify that staff did not neglect residents leading to pressure injuries based on reviewing resident hospice care plans, facility progress notes, and other document records. Continued on LIC9099C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Allegation: Food services are inadequate. It is alleged that staff and family often complained of the meals distributed to the memory care residents. Based on interviews conducted, eight out of eight residents and four out of eight staff denied food services are inadequate. Residents stated they liked the food and met their needs. Four out of eight staff stated the food was of good quality, good portion size, and did not have any concerns about the food. Based on the observations of the food service conducted on February 6, 2025, LPA observed lunch was served at 11:00 AM and dinner at 4:30 PM. Residents were served a mixed green salad with dressing, seasoned grilled chicken with brussel sprouts and seasoned potatoes for lunch. On a subsequent visit conducted on August 15, 2025, at 11:15am, LPA observed seasoned chicken, rice, and assorted vegetable medley was served for lunch. LPA observed staff followed all guidelines in distributing fresh and quality for the residents in the memory care dining room as well as the residents receiving food delivered to their unit. Based on record review, LPA reviewed the weekly menus from December 1, 2024, to March 1, 2025, and August 2025. The menus identify 3 healthy meals are given per day. In review of the weekly Food Menu dated February 2, 2025, to February 8, 2025, lists mixed green salad, lemon herb chicken, brussel sprouts, bread/roll, and a choice of beverage for lunch on February 6, 2025. For the lunch menu on August 15, 2025, reads mixed green salad with dressing, honey basil glazed chicken, rice medley, sugar snap peas, fried rice, stir fry vegetable, and a choice of beverage. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence gathered to corroborate the above allegation. It is determined that all resident interviews and four out of eight staff did not corroborate that the food was inadequate. LPA was able to verify based on two inspection dates that food served was of quality, portion, and healthy which was also aligned with the weekly menu. Allegation: Licensee is retaining residents with higher level of care needs. It is alleged that the facility moved in residents who need higher level of care. It is alleged the facility moved a resident that needs a higher level of care because they cannot do anything on their own and has a stage 3 wound. It is also alleged that a resident returned from skilled nursing with wounds on their backside. Continued on LIC9099C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Based on record review, on February 6, 2025, LPA received a list of all residents with stage 3 pressure injuries provided from ED Morris. R2’s admission agreement was signed and dated January 9, 2025. R2’s Hospice Care Plan dated January 9, 2025, lists pressure ulcer of sacral region unstageable. R2’s physician report dated February 14, 2025, lists that R2 has a right ankle unstageable wound, right ankle/right lateral wound unstageable, and right lateral stage 2 wound. R4’s face sheet dated November 19, 2025, stated resident was admitted to the facility on September 18, 2025. R4’s Hospice Care plan dated February 13, 2024, stated on September 30, 2023, has a stage 3 pressure injury on their right upper buttocks. R9 was admitted to the facility on August 31, 2019, from the facility face sheet dated March 5, 2022. The facility progress notes dated December 27, 2024, R9 diagnosed with UTI Sepsis and was discharged to a Skilled Nursing facility. R9’s returned to the facility on January 24, 2025. On January 26, 2025, Care staff discovered a right heel wound and stage 2 coccyx wound. R9’s Hospice care plan start date for their coccyx pressure 2 injury and right heel were on January 31, 2025. R12’s Hospice care plan dated February 7, 2025, indicated that R12 had a stage 2 ulcer on their right toe since January, 29, 2025, and a stage 3 ulcer on their sacral region since January 29, 2025. All residents are listed have a hospice care plan to take care of their stage 3 or unstageable wounds, thus do not need to have a higher level of care met. Based on interviews conducted, eight out of eight residents and five out of eight staff denied the allegation the facility is retaining residents with higher level of care needs. All residents stated they have not observed or heard other residents needing a higher level of care. Five out of eight staff stated they do not see any resident needing a higher level of care. Based on LPA’s observations, there were no residents that needed a higher level of care at the time of the visits on February 6, 2025, August, 15, 2025, and October 20, 2025. Based on the information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence gathered to corroborate the above allegation. It is determined that all resident interviews and five out of eight staff do not corroborate that the that residents need a higher level of care. LPA was able to verify that the residents didn't need a higher level of care based on reviewing resident hospice care plans, facility progress notes, and face sheets. Continued on LIC9099C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Therefore, based on observation, interviews, and records review, LPA did not find sufficient evidence to corroborate the above allegations that Facility staff neglect resulting in residents developing pressure injuries while in care, Food services are inadequate, and Licensee is retaining residents with higher level of care needs Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided to Resident Services Director Mirian Im

Allegation: Licensee is not ensuring the facility Administrator is qualified. It is alleged that Executive Director Austin Morris does not possess an RCFE Administrator Certification. During a complaint investigation visit, the LPA observed the Administrator’s Certificate displayed at the facility entrance. The certificate lists Chad Coleman as the Administrator, with an effective date of January 10, 2023, and an expiration date of May 10, 2025. Upon further investigation and review of the CDSS Administrator Certification Online Application Portal, the LPA confirmed that Chad Coleman submitted all required documentation and completed the necessary training for his certification renewal. It was also verified that Chad Coleman is the current Facility Administrator, and that Austin Morris is not required to hold an Administrator certification. Based on the information gathered during the investigation through observations and document review, the allegation mentioned above is deemed Unfounded, meaning the allegation is false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided to Executive Director Austin Morris. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Allegation: The Administrator is not present in the facility. It is alleged that the Administrator was last seen in the community in October 2024 and on January 16, 2025. Based on interviews, three out of three residents denied the allegation that the administrator was not present in the facility. Five out of six staff denied the allegation, while one confirmed that the administrator was not present in the facility. Additionally, five staff confirmed the administrator is at the facility at least two times during the week, four to eight hours a day. Based on review of the facility’s staff schedule, administrator’s name was not included, however, during an unannounced visit at the facility in September 2025, LPA Kim observed the administrator was present. Based on records review, interviews, and observations, LPA did not find sufficient evidence to support the above allegation. Although the allegation 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 allegation is Unsubstantiated . Exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was provided to Executive Director Austin Morris.

On September 17, 2025, at 8:45 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Edward Kim conducted an unannounced Case Management Visit to follow-up on a death report received from the facility. LPA Kim was greeted by Executive Director (ED) Austin Morris and LPA Kim explained the purpose of the visit. ED Morris could not stay for the visit and stated Resident Service Director Mirian Im could sign on behalf of the facility. During today’s visit, LPA conducted a health and safety check, and there were no imminent health/safety concerns observed. Facility is maintained at a comfortable temperature for the residents in care. LPA obtained Staff Roster, Resident Roster, and R1’s records which includes the Physician’s Report, Emergency Information, Appraisal and Needs/Service Plan, and other pertinent documents. LPA interviewed two staff and one witness. Based on record review, the Incident report received by the Orange County Regional Office on September 12, 2025, R1 was sent to the hospital on September 10, 2025, due to shortness of breath and noticeable confusion during a Home Health Nurse visit. On an incident report dated September 16, 2025, dated on September 13, 2025, around 2:00 AM, R1 passed away. The incident report dated September 16, 2025, and the hospital discharge summary dated September 12, 2025, both stated R1 returned to the facility on September 12, 2025, diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The hospital discharge report on page 6 stated COPD is a lung disease, where the lungs get damaged making it hard to get air in and out of the lungs. The damage cannot be changed. R1’s physicians report dated July 15, 2025, diagnosed R1 with COPD. There is no coroner’s report but a card with the coroner case number and death report number was provided to the facility. Evaluation Report Continues on LIC 809-C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Based on interviews conducted, one witness and two staff denied this to be a questionable death. W1 stated R1 passed away due to natural causes. There is no foul play suspected from the facility. S2 stated on September 10, 2025, a home health nurse noticed that R1 had a collapsed lung. From the recommendation of the nurse, the facility sent R1 to the hospital to be treated. Based on record review and interviews conducted, this incident is not a questionable death. No deficiencies were observed during this visit. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Resident Service Director Mirian Im.

On this day, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Edward Kim conducted a case management POC visit to clear deficiency observed during a case management visit on July 10, 2025, and in conjunction with the investigation of complaint 22-AS-20250703163459. During a tour of the physical plant, LPA observed the water temperature readings for the following bathrooms: resident room 103 measured at 117.3 degrees F, resident room 112 measured at 116.6 degrees F, and resident room 135 measured at 113.7 degrees. Executive Director Austin Morris provided the 24 hour water temperature log that was completed on July 11, 2025.A facility representative was provided with the POC letter documenting the corrections. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report and POC letter were provided to Executive Director Austin Morris.

Allegation: Facility does not have hot water. It is alleged that half of the building is experiencing issues with hot water. It also alleged facility is not resolving the issues with a plumber and is shutting the water off intermittently. Based on observations, on August 15, 2025, LPA measured the temperatures in the exercise room on the second floor that measured at 115.0 degrees F, on the first floor common bathroom across the beauty salon that measured at 113.5 degrees F, and twelve bedrooms that measured in room 103 at 117.3 degrees F, room 106 at 118.0 degrees F, room 112 at 116.6 degrees F, room 122 112.6 degrees F, room 126 at 114.4 degrees F, room 135 at 113.7 degrees F, room 132 at 116.2 degrees F, room 150 at 115.7 degrees F, room 218 at 114.8 degrees F, room 226 at 114.4 degrees F, and room 260 at 109.7 degrees F. Based on interviews conducted, one witness and three out of twelve staff confirmed the allegation. Five out of twelve staff and five out of five residents denied the allegation. Three out of twelve staff did not confirm or deny the allegation. S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 stated hot water for the showers and the bathroom sinks would take about 5 minutes to warm up. From their time at the facility, S1, S2, S3, S4, and S5 stated there were no hot water issues in the facility to their knowledge. R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 stated there have not been any issues with the hot water in their showers and bathroom sink during their time at the facility. Based on record reviews, LPA examined the water log temperature dated from July 6, 2025, to August 13, 2025, where the water temperature never fell below 105.0 Degrees F or above 120 degrees F. Based on observations, interviews, and records review, LPA did not find sufficient evidence to support the above allegations. Although the allegations 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 allegation is Unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was provided to Executive Director Austin Morris.

Allegation: Facility does not have sufficient staff in the memory care unit. Based on LPA Kim’s observations conducted on February 13, 2025, there were twenty-two memory care residents present and four staff providing direct care. LPA observed residents’ needs were met during the visit. Based on interviews conducted, seven out of seven residents and two out of four staff denied the allegation. The remaining two out of four staff confirmed that the facility does not have sufficient staff in the memory care unit. One staff explained each shift is sufficient to meet the care and needs for all the memory care residents. There are four caregivers with one Medication Technician (MT) per shift for AM and PM. There are two caregivers and one MT during the NOC Shift. Based on records review, the facility has twenty-two memory care residents per the Facility Register and twenty-three staff providing care to resident in memory care unit per the Staff Schedule. The facility staff schedule shows morning shift is from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM with two staff, and an additional staff is staggered from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM with one staff. The afternoon shift is from 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM with two staff and an additional staff from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM. Based on the schedule, there are four staff work as deemed necessary. Per review of the plan of operations there isn’t a required number of staff. Based on information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence gathered to corroborate the above allegation. Allegation: Facility failed to take the appropriate precautions to safeguard resident's property. It is alleged the facility takes supplies from other residents if they run out. It is alleged that the management at the facility has instructed staff to take supplies from other residents if they run out. It is alleged that families have started to complain because they notice the supplies they purchase for their family member runs out too quickly and suspect they are being used for other residents in care. Based on LPA’s observation, the facility stores memory care supplies are in a storage room. Each memory care resident has their own cubby with their names written on the hygiene supplies. During the visit, LPA Kim did not witness a situation where staff took supplies from one resident to be used for another resident in the memory care unit. LPA Kim examined multiple bathrooms and did not see any items marked with another person’s name nor any residents saying that those hygiene items belonged to somebody else. Continued on LIC9099C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Based on interviews conducted, seven out of seven residents and two out of four staff denied the facility failed to take appropriate precautions to safeguard resident’s property. The remaining two out of four staff have confirmed that the facility failed to take the appropriate precautions to safeguard resident’s property. Six out of seven residents stated they have not heard or observed any resident’s supplies or property been taken without permission. One resident stated they have observed in their room that low value items were moved or taken. That same resident stated they have not observed any staff or resident take any hygiene supplies from one room to the next. The resident stated the facility has taken the appropriate precautions to safeguard their property. Two out of the four staff stated that they do not know of any staff who would take and use supplies from one resident supplies for another and management has not instructed staff to take supplies from other residents. One staff stated that families have complained about incontinence supplies running out quickly, but explained that these supplies often get used faster by the resident than the family expects. Based on information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to corroborate the above allegation. Allegation: Facility failed to ensure adequate personal care supplies are available for residents. It is alleged that the facility does not have sufficient hygiene supplies for residents. It is alleged that the facility runs out of hygiene supplies that are needed for residents such as wipes, toothpaste, deodorant, and towels. It is alleged that staff at the facility have had to purchase hygiene supplies on their own for residents or else they would not have any. Based on observation, LPA Kim observed the memory care supplies in a storage room in the facility. Each memory care resident had a cubby with their names listed on their items. Additional supplies are also stored in the second floor in additional storage rooms providing all necessary care supplies. Based on interviews seven out of seven residents and two out of four staff denied the facility failed to ensure adequate personal care supplies are available for residents. The remaining two out of four staff confirmed facility failed to ensure adequate personal care supplies are available for residents. All residents, stated the facility provides toilet paper, paper towels, and soap for all residents. One out of four staff stated that all hygiene supplies such as toothbrush, toothpaste, shampoo, and incontinence supplies are provided by the resident’s responsible party or hospice and is acknowledged in the admissions agreement. Continued on LIC9099C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Based on record reviews, the Admission Agreement states that the facility assumes that the residents provide their own supplies for personal care and hygiene such as hand soaps, towels, etc. However, if they are unable to provide such supplies, the facility will provide the residents with basic personal items for an additional fee. In Appendix A, personal items are listed with a charge of it being individually priced. Based on information gathered, there is no sufficient evidence to corroborate the above allegation. Based on observations, interviews, and records review, LPA did not find sufficient evidence to support the above allegations. Although the allegations 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 allegation is Unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the report was provided to Executive Director Austin Morris.

On April 2, 2025, at 8:00 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Edward Kim conducted an unannounced Case Management Visit to follow-up on incident reports received from the facility. LPA Kim was greeted and granted entry by Executive Director (ED) Austin Morris and LPA Kim explained the purpose of the visit to ED Morris. During today’s visit, LPA conducted a health and safety check, and there were no imminent health/safety concerns observed. Facility maintained at a comfortable temperature for the residents in care. LPA obtained Staff Roster, Resident Roster, and R1’s and R2’s records which includes the Physician’s Report, Admission’s Agreement, Emergency Information, Incident Reports, Appraisal and Needs/Service Plan, and other pertinent documents. During the visit, LPA Kim interviewed two staff members and one resident. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Executive Director Austin Morris.

According to S2, the Administrator’s (S1) hours vary, “It varies. Sometime (S1) can be here 10-15 hours a week… sometimes more, sometimes less.” S2 said S1 was in the facility last week. Based on the information gathered during the investigation through interviews, observations, and document review, the allegations mentioned above are deemed Unfounded, meaning the allegations are false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.

On this day Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Andrea Mendivil made an announced visit to conduct a pre-licensing visit. LPA was greeted and granted entry into the facility by Marie Stern, Director of Operations and Hrag Bekerian Administrator and explained the reason for the visit. An initial application was submitted on 08/25/2023 with a fire clearance for 104 non-ambulatory and 10 bedridden granted on 02/14/2024. LPA Mendivil and Director of Operations Marie Stern and Administrator Bekerian toured the facility. The facility is a two story building with Assisted Living taking up two levels and Memory Care occupying the rear of the first floor. Assisted Living has 90 bedrooms and currently has 60 residents occupying rooms. Memory Care has 23 bedrooms with 22 residents occupying the rooms. The first level on assisted living contains staff offices, dining room, activity room, and beauty room. At 9:15 AM, LPA toured the entire community, interior and exterior, including a sampling of resident apartments. Hot water in resident apartments tested between 107.1-119 degrees F. Fire extinguishers were mounted and charged. Smoke detectors were centrally wired throughout and have been checked by the fire department on 03/18/2024. Carbon monoxide detectors were observed and are operational. There are E-Vac chairs present in all stairwells. There was a locked medication room for both assisted living and memory care for residents who need medication management. There were a number of locked janitorial closets for storage of toxins and cleaning equipment. An emergency call system was in place in each apartment and tested. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 First aid kits are located in the medication room and memory care. Kitchen was stocked with food to meet the regulatory amounts. LPA observed activity calendars posted, menus and activities available. There is a country kitchen on the second floor, tv room, salon, laundry room and activity room. LPA observed the medications and med-techs providing medications in a locked cart to residents. Facility is ready to be licensed. Component III completed. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report was left at the facility.

Facility Type: RCFE Application Type: CHOW Capacity: 114 Interview Method: Telephone interview On 3/19/2024, applicant/administrator participated in COMP II. Identification of the applicant and administrator was verified through interview questions based on photo ID and other identifying personal information. During COMP II, applicant and administrator confirmed that they have read and understand community care facility licensing laws included in the Health and Safety Codes and the California Code of Regulations Title 22. Signed LIC 809 with copy of photo ID have been obtained. During COMP II, CAB analyst confirmed Applicant/Administrator’s understanding of following areas: 1. Facility operation: License type, client/resident populations, and program 2. Admission Policies 3. Staffing requirements & Training 4. Restrictive/Prohibited Health Conditions 5. General provisions 6. Emergency Preparedness 7. Complaints & Reporting 8. Pre-licensing readiness