California · Belmont

Ivy Park of Belmont.

RCFE · Memory Care117 bedsDementia-trained staff
Ivy Park of Belmont
Ivy Park of Belmont — photo 2
Ivy Park of Belmont — photo 3
Ivy Park of Belmont — photo 4
© Google · Ivy Park at Belmont
Facility · Belmont
A 117-bed RCFE · Memory Care with no citations on file.
Licensed beds
117
Last inspection
Mar 2026
Last citation
None on record
Operated by
Transformer Opco Llc;oakmont Management Group Llc
Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

Peer Comparison

Compared to 93 California facilities with a similar number of beds.

RCFE memory care · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: California Dept. of Social Services · Community Care Licensing.

Severity rank
100th%
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
Not enough repeat citations
among peers to rank.
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
Frequency rank
100th%
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

Rankings based on 36-month CDSS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.

FACILITY WATCH · BETA

Be first to know if Ivy Park of Belmont's inspection record changes.

New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.

Save for comparison:
The Record

Citation history, plotted month by month.

No citations in the last 36 months.

Peer median 1 · dashed
No citation activity in this window.
peer median
Jul 2024as of Jun 2026

Finding distribution

none · 36 months

Scope × Severity (CMS A–L)

No findings in the last 36 months.
The Rulebook

The rules that apply to this facility.

State requirements with the exact regulation citation, plain-language explanation, and a question to ask on tour. Rules this facility has been cited for appear first.

What dementia-care training must staff complete?22 CCR §87705 / HSC §1569.625
+
Plain language

Because a facility markets dementia or Alzheimer's care, state law mandates higher training standards: 12 hours of initial dementia training (6 hours before a staff member works independently with residents, 6 more within the first 4 weeks), 8 hours of annual dementia in-service every year thereafter, and an administrator must include 8 hours of dementia-specific continuing education in every 2-year recertification cycle. Training must cover individualized care plans, behavioral expressions, appropriate supervision, and the facility's dementia care philosophy.

Ask on tour

Can you show me each direct-care staffer's most recent dementia training certificate, and tell me when their next refresher is due?

Tour Prep

Questions to ask before you visit.

A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Ivy Park of Belmont's record and state requirements.

01 /

Two complaints are on file with CDSS — were any substantiated, and what remediation did the facility take in response to substantiated findings?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

02 /

The March 11, 2026 inspection found zero deficiencies — can you provide families a copy of that inspection report to verify the state's findings?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

03 /

California Title 22 §87705 requires a written dementia-care program — can you provide that document and walk families through how it addresses the specific needs of residents with cognitive impairment?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

6 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.

6
reports on file
0
total deficiencies
2026-05-26
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Komal Curley
Read raw inspector notes

Regarding the allegation, staff does not ensure reporting requirements are being met, according to the reporting party, the facility refuses to communicate and provide written reports when R1 falls. During the investigation, LPA interviewed staff, reviewed R1’s charting notes, and reviewed facility's internal incident reports. According to Administrator and Health Services Director, they denied this allegation and indicated that R1's responsible party is always contacted after R1 has an incident. Based on R1’s charting notes and facility's internal incident reports reviewed, every time R1 falls, the responsible party is always notified per documentation. Regarding the allegation, staff does not ensure resident receives all of his/her meals, according to the reporting party, staff forgot to bring R1 to the dining rooms for dinner. During the investigation, LPA attempted to interview R1, interviewed staff and reviewed R1’s file. LPA was unable to interview R1 as he/she is no longer a resident at the community. According to R1’s service plan, staff continue to encourage R1 to eat in the dining area, however will offer meal trays if R1 requests to stay in his/her room during meal time. According to staff interviewed, depending on R1's mood that day/time, R1 would either prefer to stay and eat meals in his/her room or would go into the dining room and eat. During a complaint visit conducted on 4/24/26, LPA observed R1 eating lunch in the dining hall. Regarding the allegation, staff does not ensure food is of good quality, according to the reporting party, produce was describes as poor and the meat was described as fatty or low-quality, specifically noting that fish is often served cold. During the investigation, LPA interviewed residents and observed the food menu for the month. Based on the food menu sandwiches get served everyday as an alternative option for residents who do not want to eat the main dish being cooked. Based on observation, LPA visited the facility on 5/26/26 and observed beef brisket quesadilla with sour cream and salsa as the main dish on the menu for lunch. LPA observed residents eating the beef brisket quesadilla or a sandwich if they did not want the quesadilla. According to residents interviewed, the meals served at the facility is good and has not heard complaints about the food. Based on interviews conducted, documents reviewed, and information collected, the department has determined that although the above allegations may have happened or are valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Report is reviewed with Administrator, Anne Buerhaus and a copy is provided.

2026-03-11
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Komal Curley

Plain-language summary

On January 10, 2026, a resident attempted to leave the memory care unit but was found at the back gate and returned to the facility—the investigation found no evidence that the resident actually left the premises as claimed in the complaint. The facility was also investigated for allegations that residents did not receive their prescribed medications due to a missing signed medication list from the physician; staff had sent multiple requests to the doctor and notified families to help manage medications until the list was signed, but the investigation found insufficient evidence to prove a violation occurred. Both complaints were determined to be unsubstantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

Regarding the allegation, staff did not ensure residents medications were dispensed as prescribed, according to the reporting party, because R1 and R2's physician's report was not completed, the administrator indicated that the staff have not been giving R1 and R2 any of their medication. During the investigation, LPA interviewed staff, reviewed charting notes and reviewed fax documentation that was sent to R1 and R2's physician. Based on charting notes reviewed notes on 1/6/26, the facility was awaiting a signed medication and notified R1 and R2's responsible party. Facility staff notified R1 and R2's responsible party to assist with medication administrator until the medication list was signed. According to staff interviewed and fax documentation, the facility sent multiple faxes to R1 and R2's physician to sign R1 and R2's current medication list so medication can be administered by the facility. Additional fax sheets dated 1/9/26-1/12/26 sent to the physician reports that R1 and R2 missed their medication because there were missing medication, missing a signed medication list and needed reconciliation. Regarding the allegation, staff did not ensure care and supervision was provided to resident resulting in an elopement from the facility, according to the reporting party, on 1/10/26, R1 eloped out of the memory care unit and was found at the grocery store and brought back to the facility. During the investigation, LPA interviewed staff and reviewed documents. According to staff interviewed and charting notes reviewed, R1 did not elope from the facility on 1/10/26. On 1/10/26, R1 attempted to elope from the facility, however he/she was found on the facility premises at the back gate and was redirected back to the facility. Based on interviews conducted, documents reviewed, and information collected, the department has determined that although the above allegations may have happened or are valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Report is reviewed with Administrator, Anne Buerhaus and a copy is provided.

2026-03-11
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Komal Curley

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that the facility's main phone line went down briefly in early March due to a handoff error, which staff corrected and then provided training on; no violation was found. The complaint also alleged the administrator provided an inappropriate space heater and refused to fix the room's heating—the investigation found the room temperature was within acceptable ranges, the thermostat was replaced, an HVAC company was eventually called, and the administrator removed unapproved heating devices when she discovered them, so no violation was substantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

According to the Health Services Director and Resident Care Coordinator, the facility's main phone was not working because on 3/2/26, when the receptionist handed the phone to the med-tech, they did not transfer the phone line properly. In addition, the Resident Care Coordinator confirmed she fixed the phone system on 3/3/26 before 9:30am. Based on documents reviewed, an in-service training was provided on 3/4/26 with med-techs and the receptionists regarding phone hand off. Regarding the allegation, staff provided a resident an inappropriate heating device, according to the reporting party, the administrator provided Resident 1 (R1) a space heater while the heating in R1's room needed to be fixed, however the space heater did not turn off when tipped over. During the investigation, LPA interviewed the administrator, maintenance director, and observed R1's room. According to the Maintenance Director and Administrator, R1's responsible party complained about the temperature gage on the thermostat in R1's room and wanted the room temperature to be 80 degrees F. According to the maintenance director, she checked the room temperature several times and notified R1's responsible party that R1's room was reading between regulatory requirements, however R1's responsible party still complained, so the Maintenance Director not only replaced R1's thermostat but also provided R1 with a space heater to put in his/her room. The administrator indicated when she observed the space heater in R1's room, she had to remove it as the facility does not allow heating devices in resident rooms. Furthermore the administrator stated, even after removing the space heater from R1's room and notifying R1's responsible party that it was not allowed, R1's responsible party brought another heating device to the facility to place in R1's room. During the visit, LPA did not observe a space heater in R1's room. Regarding the allegation, staff did not provide a comfortable temperature for a resident, according to the reporting party, the administrator refused to call an HVAC company to fix the heating in R1's room for over a week. During the investigation, LPA interviewed the administrator, maintenance director, observed R1's room. According to the administrator, she denied this allegation and indicated that she told R1's responsible party that she wanted to try to fix R1's room temperature in house, if possible, prior to calling HVAC. The administrator and the maintenance director, confirmed that R1's thermostat was in good working condition, however R1's responsible party wanted R1's room to read at 80 degrees F. The maintenance director worked with R1 and R1's responsible party by reading R1's room temperature multiple times and replacing the thermostat. (continue to 9099C) 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 According to the maintenance director and administrator, the temperature readings in R1's room were within regulatory requirements, however R1's responsible party still complained so HVAC was called and they came out to do service in R1's room. During the visit, LPA observed R1's room to be at 76 degrees F. Based on interviews conducted, documents reviewed, and information collected, the department has determined that although the above allegations may have happened or are valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Report is reviewed with Administrator, Anne Buerhaus and a copy is provided.

2026-01-28
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

On January 17, 2026, a resident reported being sexually assaulted by staff, and the facility immediately notified required parties and conducted an investigation. During a follow-up visit on January 28, 2026, inspectors reviewed the incident, interviewed facility leadership and the resident's family, and found no injuries; the resident's family reported that the resident has a history of making similar allegations and may be doing so more frequently due to dementia. No violations were cited.

Read raw inspector notes

On January 28, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Komal Curley conducted an unannounced case management visit in relation to an incident that occurred on 1/17/26. LPA met with Administrator, Anne Buerhaus and explained the purpose of the visit. The Licensee reported on 1/17/26 at around 1:00am, Resident 1 (R1) told the med-tech while doing round that, he/she was sexually assaulted by staff. No injuries were noted. All required parties were notified. Facility conducted an investigation. During the visit, LPA discussed the incident with Administrator, Health Services Director, Memory Care Director, attempted to interview R1, and reviewed R1's file. Based on R1's file reviewed, R1 has a diagnosis of dementia and metabolic encephalopathy . In addition, based on staff interviewed and records reviewed, R1 does not have any prior incidents at the facility making allegations like this. LPA attempted to interview R1 during the visit, however did not respond to LPA due to dementia diagnosis. R1's responsible party was present at the facility during the visit. According to R1's responsible party interviewed, R1 is very happy at the facility and the staff are really great. In addition, R1's responsible party indicated that R1 has a history of making allegations like this and it might be happening more due to R1's dementia diagnosis. No citations are issued during the visit. Report is reviewed with Administrator and a copy is provided.

2025-08-05
Other Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

This unannounced annual inspection on August 5, 2025 found no violations. The facility maintained proper temperature, lighting, and cleanliness throughout all areas; bathrooms had required grab bars, medications and sharp objects were locked away, emergency drills were current, and resident and staff records were complete and properly documented.

Read raw inspector notes

On August 5, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Komal Charitra conducted an unannounced annual inspection. LPA met with Business Office Director, Broneesha Bradford and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA toured facility and grounds. No accessible bodies of water or fire safety hazards observed. This is a 3 story facility; Assisted Living (AL) on the first, second, and half of the third floor and Memory Care (MC) on the other half of the third floor. LPA toured the facility including but not limited to a random sample of resident rooms on each floor, common areas, and kitchen area. LPA observed residents eating lunch, walking around or participating in activities. A comfortable temperature of 74 degrees F is maintained in the facility and lighting is sufficient for comfort. Hot water temperature measured 111-118 degrees F throughout the facility. Overall facility was in clean, odor-free and free from any tripping hazards. Resident rooms and bathrooms observed had all required furnishings, and grab bars in each bathroom. LPA toured kitchen and observed 2 days for perishables and and 7 days non-perishable. Medications and sharps were locked and inaccessible to residents. Emergency drill are being conducted and logged every 3 months. Carbon monoxide monitors are working properly. All fire extinguishers have been checked and current as of March 2025. First aid kits were observed present and complete. Five resident records and five staff records were reviewed. Resident records are updated, complete and signed. Staff records are complete, with training logs that have met the basic requirement. Medication review was done, and all medications are accounted for, and centrally stored medication records are updated. No citations are issued during the visit. Report is reviewed with the Business Office Director and a copy is provided.

2024-08-21
Complaint Investigation
No findings
Inspector · Jaime Vado

Plain-language summary

This was a pre-licensing inspection conducted on August 20, 2024, that found no deficiencies. The inspector verified that the facility met requirements for resident rooms, safety equipment (fire sprinklers, detectors, extinguishers), medication storage, hazardous chemical storage, food service, and emergency procedures across all three levels, including the secured memory care unit.

Read raw inspector notes

On 08/20/2024, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jaime Vado conducted an unannonced pre-licensing inspection visit. LPA met with administrator Minnie Weber and explained the purpose of today's visit. This is a three level facility with a memory care are named "Evergreen" which currently there are 17 residents currently residing in. There are 58 residents in assisted living. Seven residents are currently on hospice. LPA toured facility and grounds. This is a three level facility. LPA observed resident rooms at random. All rooms observed contained the required furniture items outlined within regulations including flash lights and non-skid mats in resident showers. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is in place in an exterior storage area outside of the facility. Perishable and non-perishable food supplies are in place. Food preparation and service items are present in the main kitchen and in other food serving areas such as the dining rooms for assisted living and memory care. Hot water temperature is tested at 110F. Carbon monoxide and smoke detectors are hard wired and operable. The facility is fully equipped with fire sprinklers through out all areas in the facility. LPA observed multiple fire extinguishers through out the facility, including the kitchen, with inspection/service date of 01/30/2024. Fire pull stations are located at fire exits. Emergency exit routes are observed to be clear of obstructions inside and outside. Medications are secured in the primary medication room on the second floor. Medications are observed to be locked. Toxins, chemicals, and other cleaning supplies are inaccessible to resident in care. Based on observations made LPA did not observed any such items accessible to residents during this inspection visit today. LPA observed two laundry rooms, one on the ground floor and one on the third floor, and both are operational clean and functioning. The third floor of the facility is where secured memory care is located. There is an outdoor patio on this level that is in good condition and a secured perimeter with furnishings. There are an emergency set of keys in place accessible to staff and emergency personnel if needed. The administrator Minnie Weber is the current facility administrator. LPA requested the required items to have her name transferred as administrator. Component III RCFE orientation is provided to the administrator. This pre-licensing is complete and this facility has no deficiencies. 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 *** AMENDED SECOND PAGE DUE TO ERROR. THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GENERATED AND IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ***

Nearby

Other facilities in San Mateo County.

Other memory care facilities in San Mateo County with similar care offerings.

Family reviews

No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience

Related in this city

Other memory care options nearby.

Nearby cities · same county

More options in neighboring cities

Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.

Same operator group

Other facilities under this operator

Transformer Opco Llc;oakmont Management Group Llc — as recorded on state license extracts. Each facility still has its own inspection history.

Is this listing wrong? Report an issue →
Reports help us maintain accurate facility information. Your report will be reviewed within 1-2 business days.
Editorial Independence

StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from any operator. Rankings are derived solely from state inspection records and verified family reviews.