The Ivy at Berkeley.
138-Bed Memory Care Community in Berkeley Near UC Campus, reviewed on public record.
© Google Street View
Compared to 84 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.
among peers to rank.
Rankings based on 36-month CDSS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
5 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
5 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
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.
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?”
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to The Ivy at Berkeley's record and state requirements.
With 138 licensed beds, how does the facility organize memory care residents separately from other RCFE residents, and is there a secured area specifically for dementia care?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
California Title 22 §87705 requires dementia-specific staff training — how do you document and verify that all direct-care staff have completed the required training before working with memory care residents?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The facility is operated by SHP IV MS Berkeley LLC and Oakmont Management Group LLC — who is the on-site administrator responsible for day-to-day operations, and how long have they been in that role?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
8 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Plain-language summaries open first — click into any row for the full citation text.
2026-07-21Complaint InvestigationMixedType B · 3 findings
“This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff not ensuring resident’s call button was operational which posed a potential health & safety risk to residents in care”
“This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff failing to follow POA’s current written medication management communication which posed a potential health & safety risk to resident in care.”
“This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff failing to timely communicate with resident’s responsible party on medical transportation requirements which posed a potential health & safety risk to resident in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Allegation: Staff did not ensure resident’s call button was not in disrepair Investigation Finding: Substantiated During investigation, LPA D Panlilio interviewed reporting party (RP), resident (R1), staff (ED, S1, S2, S5) and reviewed R1’s documents. On 04/23/26, staff (S1, S2) confirmed with LPA that they did not test the emergency call button issued to R1 during the onboarding process on 03/27/26 to ensure it was operational. R1 pressed the emergency call button around 5PM the same day and was unable to reach staff for assistance for over 3 hours (5PM to 8:15PM) due to a non-operating emergency call button. R1 stated she was left in the dark, was unable to transfer from her wheelchair to the bed and did not have her meal during this time. Based on LPA’s observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation that staff did not ensure residents call buttons were not in disrepair was found to be substantiated. Allegation: Staff inappropriately took resident’s medication Investigation Finding: Substantiated During investigation, LPA D Panlilio interviewed reporting party (RP), resident (R1), staff (ED, S1, S5) and reviewed R1’s documents. On 04/01/26, POA/RP sent an email approving staff medication management for R1. On 04/03/26, he rescinded the approval via email. On 04/07/26, staff confirmed with LPA that they took R1’s medications despite the 04/03/26 email stating that R1 does not require medication management. Her medications were returned before 7PM on 04/07/26 as requested by POA. Based on LPA’s observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation that staff inappropriately took resident’s medication was found to be substantiated. Continued on next page, LIC 9099-C pg2 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: Staff did not effectively communicate with resident Investigation Finding: Substantiated During investigation, LPA D Panlilio interviewed reporting party (RP), resident (R1), staff (ED, S1, S2) and reviewed R1’s documents. R1 stated that on 03/31/26, she waited for over an hour at the front desk for her scheduled post-surgical transport which she booked in advance. S4 stated they did not notify R1’s POA about the situation on 03/31/26 for an alternate solution. Lack of communication with R1’s POA on 03/31/26 resulted in R1 waiting a long time and finally being told after waiting for over an hour that her transport was cancelled since no caregiver was available to accompany her to her doctor’s appointment. Based on LPA’s observations and interviews which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation that staff did not effectively communicate with resident was found to be substantiated. Deficiencies are cited per Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on LIC9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction (POC) by plan of correction due date and/or any repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties . Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided. 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: Staff did not ensure resident had transportation for appointment Investigation Finding: Unsubstantiated LPA D Panlilio interviewed reporting party (RP), resident (R1), staff (ED), Ombudsmen (OMB1, OMB2) and reviewed R1’s documents. LPA interviewed R1 who stated that on 03/31/26, staff failed to transport her to a post-surgical appointment she had arranged in advance because she assumed a caregiver would accompany her to her doctor’s appointment which the facility could not provide. ED stated she communicated to R1’s POA that she would oversee R1’s post-surgical rescheduled doctor’s appointment to ensure it was done. However, staff communicated to ED that R1 cancelled her rescheduled post-surgical doctor visit transport because she told staff that her responsible party (POA) will take her instead. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did occur, therefore the allegation that staff did not ensure resident had transportation for appointment is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff are not responding to residents’ call buttons in a timely manner Investigation Finding: Unsubstantiated LPA D Panlilio interviewed reporting party (RP), resident (R1), staff (ED), Ombudsmen (OMB1, OMB2) and reviewed R1’s documents. During visit on 04/23/26, LPA tested R1’s call button and staff appeared within 10 minutes of the call button alert. On 07/06/25, OMB1 and OMB2 confirmed with LPA that they tested residents’ call buttons on 04/19/26 and staff showed up within 10 minutes of the call button alerts. LPA interviewed random residents (R2, R3) who stated they did not have any concerns regarding staff responding to call button alerts because they respond within 10 minutes.. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did occur, therefore the allegation that staff are not responding to residents’ call buttons in a timely manner is unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2026-06-03Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Report continue... It was alleged that the staff does not ensure residents are provided a safe and comfortable environment. RP stated that the pipe's rooftop power generator faces the facility vent that blew into the resident's room, causing the room to smell like car exhaust. During an interview with S2, an R1 family member mentioned the situation on 4/27/26. S2 follow up with the facility owner on 5/11/26 regrading the concern of R1 family member. S2 contacted the company (Melgar Mechanical) that installed the exhaust pile on 5/14/26. The company came out to inspect the issue on 5/21/26 and returned on 5/29/26 to reposition the pipe. The carbon monoxide check document by Cimino Electric Company and Academy Fire Protection, dated 2/7/25, showed that the carbon monoxide system was in working order. LPA observed that there is no smell in the residents' room and that the exhaust pipe is facing away from the rooftop vent of the facility. R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, and W1 all stated that there is no smell in their room. R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 stated that they feel safe in the facility and that the facility environment is comfortable. Based on interviews, record review, and LPA observation, the facility staff is providing a safe and comfortable environment. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. No deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted, and a copy of this report provided.
2026-05-07Other VisitNo findings
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 05/07/2026 at 10:00 AM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Carol Fowler and David Doidge conducted an unannounced 1-Year Required inspection. LPAs met with Brenda Silva, Health Services Director, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPAs toured the facility including but not limited to apartments, bathrooms, kitchen, common area and backyard and patios. All outdoor and indoor passageways are kept free of obstruction. There are no bodies of water observed. A comfortable temperature for clients is maintained at 72 degree Fahrenheit. LPAs observed lighting in all hallways are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. Hot water temperature in the shared bathroom was measured at 118 degree Fahrenheit. All toilets, hand washing, and bathing are safe, sanitary and in operating condition. The supply of extra hygiene was available for clients. There is a minimum of 7-day non perishables and 2-day perishables foods. Continue on LIC 809C 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 CONTINUED FROM LIC809 Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide were in operating condition during visit. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 08/09/2025. Emergency Disaster Plan was posted 05/07/2026. First aid kit was observed to be complete. Emergency Drills are conducted monthly. Last fire drill was conducted on 01/20/2026. Fire sprinkler system last service 02/02/2025. LPAs reviewed five (5) resident files and five (5) staff files. All were complete. LPAs requested the following documents to be submitted to CCLD by 05/15/2026. · LIC 308 Designation of Administrative Responsibility · LIC 309 Administrative Organization · LIC 610E Emergency Disaster Plan (9 pages) · Liability Insurance No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2026-04-17Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On April 17, 2026, state inspectors made an unannounced visit to check the facility's health and safety conditions. The inspector toured bedrooms, bathrooms, common areas, the kitchen, memory care unit, and outdoor spaces, and found residents clean and well-groomed with no signs of injury, adequate food supplies on hand, working utilities, and proper water temperature in bathrooms. No violations were found during the visit.
Read full citation textHide full citation text
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 04/17/2026 at 4:45 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) David Doidge arrived unannounced to conduct a health and safety check. LPA met with Health Service Director Brenda Silva and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA toured the facility including but not limited to bedrooms, bathrooms, common area, kitchen, memory care unity and outdoor area. LPA observed residents to be appropriately groomed and attired with no visible bruising or marks. LPA observed no trash piled, electricity and gas operational. Water temperature measured in a common bathroom was 118.5 degrees Farenheit. One week supply of nonperishable and 2-day supply of perishable foods were available. Fire extinguisher last services on 08/09/2025. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2026-01-29Other VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
On January 29, 2026, state licensing conducted an unannounced visit following a self-reported incident in which a resident left the facility without permission on January 9, 2026; staff found the resident at a nearby bank and the resident was not injured. The resident's physician had documented in November 2025 that the resident has intermittent confusion and should not leave the facility unsupervised. The facility was cited for a violation related to this incident.
Read full citation text (1)Hide full citation text
“Based on record review and interview, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above when R1 AWOL’D from the facility which posed a potential safety risk to persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 01/29/2026 at 9:40 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) P.Manalo conducted an unannounced Case Management visit regarding a self-reported AWOL incident that occurred on 01/09/2026. LPA met with Executive Director (ED), Angeles Sticka, and explained the purpose of the visit. On 01/20/2026, LPA P. Manalo received an incident report that indicated that on 01/09/2026, R1 AWOL’D from the facility. Incident report revealed that facility staff seen R1 down the street. Facility staff conducted a search around the neighborhood for R1 and found R1 at bank nearby. Per incident report, R1 did not sustain any injuries. During the visit, LPA interviewed ED and R1. ED stated that R1 went to the bank so that R1 can pay for R1's rent to the facility. ED stated that a fax report was sent to the physician to follow up on R1's diagnosis. LPA reviewed and obtained documents including but not limited to resident roster, incident report, physician report, resident assessments, physician fax report, resident information form, and a copy of the check's invoice that R1 made to the facility. Physician report dated 11/23/2025 indicated that R1 has intermittent confusion and is not able to leave the facility unsupervised. The following deficiency was observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Failure to correct the deficiency and/or repeat deficiency within a 12-month period may result in civil penalty. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights, LIC421FC, and a copy of this report provided.
2025-11-05Other VisitType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
On November 5, 2025, state licensing staff conducted an unannounced follow-up visit after the facility reported that a memory care resident eloped (left the unit without permission) on October 17, 2025 and was found at a local restaurant; staff had not observed the resident leaving the secured unit. In response to this incident, the facility installed door alarms on emergency exits and provided staff training on elopement procedures, though the resident's medical assessment incorrectly stated the resident could leave unsupervised when they actually required supervision. The state found violations related to the inaccurate assessment and supervision practices.
Read full citation text (1)Hide full citation text
“Based on interviews and record review the Licensee did not comply with the section cited above by not ensuring that Resident (R1) was provided safe and secure accommodations to meet their needs when R1 eloped from the Memory Care unit on 10/17/2025 without staff knowledge or supervision. This posed an immediate health and safety risk and personal rights to R1, who was later located off facility premises by family.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 11/05/2025 at 1:00 PM , Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) L. Alexander conducted an unannounced Case Management visit regarding an incident reported to Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) on 10/22/2025 . Upon arrival, LPA met with Executive Director (ED) Angeles Sticka and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA obtained the following documents: Resident Roster, Resident Information Sheet, medical assessment dated (07/02/2025), Memory Care Staff schedule (week 10/12/25), In-Service "Elopement Drill" training staff sign-in sheet (dated 10/18/25 and 10/22/25), and Individualized Service Plan (dated 10/28/25). LPA interviewed Staff (S1) who stated that on 10/17/2025 , Resident (R1) eloped from the Memory Care (MC) unit. S1 reported that MC staff on duty did not observe R1 leaving the secured unit. According to S1, R1’s granddaughter was the individual who discovered that R1 was missing from their apartment and could not be located within the MC unit. S1 stated that staff immediately initiated the facility’s elopement protocol , which includes: conducting a search of the MC unit and resident apartments. Checking the Assisted Living (AL) apartments, common areas, and the remainder of the building. Conducting an external neighborhood search. Contacting 911 if the resident cannot be located. LIC809-C Continued... 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 LIC809-C (Page 2) S1 reported that staff contacted the Berkeley Police Department, and shortly thereafter, the facility received a call from Agrodolce Osteria, a local restaurant located on Shattuck Avenue, informing staff that R1 was at their establishment. R1’s daughter retrieved R1 from the restaurant and returned them safely to the facility. S1 further stated that R1 has eloped twice to date, with the 10/17/2025 incident being the most recent occurrence. In response, the facility implemented door alarms on all emergency exits and conducted in-service training with MC staff on 10/18/2025 and 10/22/2025 regarding elopement procedures and resident supervision. S1 also indicated that a 1:1 companion was arranged for R1 for five days following the incident; however, the family declined to continue the service due to the cost. S1 added that R1 was later observed walking on Milvia Street, but staff are still unsure how R1 managed to exit the MC unit and the building. LPA reviewed R1’s Medical Assessment (MA), which indicated that R1 was able to leave the community unsupervised. LPA discussed this MA with S1, who confirmed that the response on the assessment was not accurate and did not reflect R1’s current condition or supervision needs. The deficiencies were observed (see LIC809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulation, Title 22. Failure to correct the deficiencies may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights provided
2025-05-12Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a follow-up pre-licensing inspection on May 12, 2025, to verify that the facility had corrected a previous issue requiring all staff and corporate members to be registered with the state before working at the facility. The inspector found the facility ready for licensing and noted that final approval will be completed by the state's applications unit, though additional requirements may still be needed before the license is issued.
Read full citation textHide full citation text
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 05/12/2025 around 10:00 AM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) L. Holmes arrived announced to conduct for a return visit to complete a Pre-licensing Inspection on 05/05/25. Upon arrival, LPA was greeted and met with Angeles Sticka, Executive Director (ED) The facility is approved for a capacity of 138; 134 may be non-ambulatory and 4 bedridden. LPA toured the perimeter of the facility and checked Guardian for personnel association. CORRECTION: -All staff, in addition to corporate members, need to be associated to the facility prior to working at the facility LPA observed that the facility is ready to be licensed. This report will be submitted to the Central Applications Unit (CAU) and a final review of the application will be conducted. This facility's license remaining pending and is subject to final approval by CAU. Additional requirements may still be required. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided to Angeles Sticka, Executive Director.
2025-05-05Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a pre-licensing inspection conducted in May 2025 where the inspector met with the facility's leadership and reviewed their readiness to operate. The inspector discussed requirements around infection control, resident information notices, communication with families and staff, and compliance with California regulations. No violations were identified during this inspection.
Read full citation textHide full citation text
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 05/05/2025 around 03:00 PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) L. Holmes conducted a Component III for a Pre-licensing inspection on 05/05/25. LPA was greeted and met with Angeles Sticka, Executive Director (ED) and Andrew Moret, VP of Operations. LPA discussed the importance of attending the informational calls, understanding the updated guidelines and printing the provider information notices (PINS) for residents, infection control, and continuous communication with authorized representatives and staff so that the facility maintains awareness and updates for compliancy for the State of California Title 22 regulation, and Health and Safety Codes. -Component III completed. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided to Angeles Sticka, Executive Director (ED).
Other facilities in Alameda County.
Other memory care facilities in Alameda County with similar care offerings.
Tour Prep
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.