California · Costa Mesa

Pacifica Senior Living South Coast.

RCFE98 bedsDementia-trained staff(949) 515-0121
Facility · Costa Mesa
A 98-bed RCFE with 6 citations on file.
Licensed beds
98
Last inspection
May 2026
Last citation
Jan 2026
Operated by
Pacifica Orange County Llc; Costa Mesa Operations
Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

Peer Comparison

Compared to 54 California facilities with a similar number of beds.

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

Severity rank
13th%
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
38th%
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 · FREE

Pacifica Senior Living South Coast has 6 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.

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

Where are you in the process? (optional)

Save for comparison:
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 Pacifica Senior Living South Coast's record and state requirements.

01 /

The facility has 6 serious citations on file across all inspections — can you provide your corrective-action plan for each cited item, and show families any documentation of remediation steps taken?

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

02 /

11 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.

03 /

The November 13, 2025 inspection is the most recent on record — can you provide the deficiency notice from that visit and walk families through the corrective actions implemented?

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

Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

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

14
reports on file
6
total deficiencies
2
severe (Type A)
2026-05-01
Other Visit
No findings
Read raw inspector notes

On this day Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Fred Arias made an unannounced visit to conduct a required annual visit. LPA was greeted and granted entry into the facility by staff and explained the reason for the visit. Facility is licensed for 98 non-ambulatory residents of which 20 may be bedridden. Facility has an approved hospice waiver for 20 residents. Executive Director (ED) Yaylene Mazariegos was present to conduct facility tour. ED has a valid certificate that expires on 08/16/2026. ED provided proof of liability insurance which expires on 10/18/2026. LPA along with ED toured the facility at 9:00 AM. LPA toured the physical plant, checked food service, and facility documentation. The facility is a 2 story building with a secured memory care unit on the first floor. Seven resident bedrooms checked had the required furniture, bed linens and closet/drawer space to accommodate each resident comfortably. Seven resident bathrooms were checked. Toilets and water faucets worked properly, grab bars were secure and showers were free of mold/mildew. Water temperature measured between 107.7 degrees F and 113.7 degrees F in all bathrooms checked. Resident bath towels, toiletries and personal hygiene supplies were adequately stocked. Common areas were clean and clear of hazards. LPA observed memory care delayed egress exits are operational. LPA and the ED toured the kitchen and dining room. The kitchen is clean and organized. LPA observed a 2 day perishable and a 7 day non-perishable food supply on hand in the kitchen. LPA observed the refrigerator and freezer were operational. LPA checked refrigerator logs and observed meal preparation for lunch. Fire extinguishers observed were fully charged. LPA observed the call system is operational. LPA observed the call response time is less than eight minutes. LPA observed emergency evacuation chairs at each stairwell. LPA observed there is outdoor shaded seating areas for memory care and assisted living. There are no bodies of water in the outdoor areas of the facility. 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 LPA reviewed the fire alarm system paperwork showing the system passed its annual inspection on 3/20/2026. LPA observed residents spending time in their rooms and walking along the halls. LPA observed several residents in the memory care area watching television in the community room. LPA reviewed the infection control and emergency disaster plans and plans are complete and thorough. Facility conducts monthly emergency drills with the last drill conducted on 04/14/2026. First aid kit contained all required items including tweezers, scissors and thermometer. Facility conducts activities in the form of exercise, music therapy, games, and outings. LPA observed the emergency food and water supply. LPA reviewed seven resident files and five staff files. All resident files contained required documentation including admission agreements, physician reports, and resident appraisals. Staff files reviewed contained required documentation including required annual training, medical assessment/ TB, criminal record clearance and proof of CPR training. LPA reviewed medication storage and administration. Medications are stored in carts in the medication room. Based on the observations made during today’s visit, no deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. This report was discussed with the facility representative and a copy was provided.

2026-01-23
Complaint Investigation
IJ · 3 findings

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that a resident identified as high fall risk sustained two unwitnessed falls within four days in May 2025—the first resulting in a leg contusion and the second in fractures of the hip area—and that the facility failed to implement adequate monitoring or supervision measures to keep this resident safe despite knowing about their fall risk and mobility needs. The facility also did not follow hospital discharge instructions to have the resident's physician evaluate them within three days after the first fall. A civil penalty is pending.

IJImmediate jeopardy22 CCR §87464(f)(1)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87464(f)(1)

The Licensee failed to identify fall preventative measures needed to meet R1’s needs resulting in R1 sustaining a second fall with closed fracture diagnosis. This poses an immediate risk to resident’s health and safety.

IJImmediate jeopardy22 CCR §87465(a)(1)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(a)(1)

The Licensee did not follow up with R1’s primary care physician as instructed per hospital discharge paperwork following R1’s fall on 5/26/25. This poses an immediate risk to resident’s health and safety.

Type B22 CCR §87463(c)(3)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87463(c)(3)

This requirement is not met as evidence by: The Licensee failed to document interventions to be implemented to minimize falls after identifying R1 as a fall risk. This poses a potential risk to resident’s health and safety.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Fred Arias conducted an unannounced case management visit to deliver findings on an investigation completed by the Department. LPA was greeted and granted entry into the facility by staff and explained the purpose of the visit. On June 6, 2025, the Orange County Regional Office received an incident report regarding unwitnessed falls involving Resident 1 (R1) resulting in a closed fracture. The investigation determined the following: R1 was admitted to the facility on April 30, 2025, and was identified as a high fall risk based on the Preplacement Appraisal and Morse Fall Scale completed on April 28, 2025, by the facility staff. R1 sustained an initial unwitnessed fall on May 26,2025 and a secondary fall on May 30, 2025 per incident reports submitted to the Department. On May 26, 2025, at approximately 1:10 p.m., R1 sustained an unwitnessed fall in the common television room area of the memory care unit. R1 was found on the floor complaining of left ankle pain and was transported to the hospital for evaluation. R1 was diagnosed with a contusion of the lower leg and discharged back to the facility the same day. Hospital discharge instructions on May 26, 2025, directed the facility to ensure R1 was seen by their primary care physician (PCP) within three days. Interview with R1’s PCP confirmed the facility did not contact R1’s PCP following this incident, and no documented physician follow-up occurred until June 3, 2025. Continued on LIC809-C dated 01/23/2026 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 On May 30, 2025, R1’s service plan was updated to reflect increased needs, including requiring assistance with transferring and mobility. At the time the service plan was updated, R1’s physician had still not been consulted regarding R1’s initial fall. At approximately 8:40 p.m. the same day, R1 sustained a second unwitnessed fall in their bedroom and was found on the floor next to their bed. R1 was transported again to the hospital, where diagnostic imaging revealed fractures of the right inferior pubic ramus and right superior pubic ramus. Interviews conducted with three out of three facility staff members identified as being involved in R1’s care during the relevant time periods revealed that none were able to recall the last time they had seen R1 prior to the May 30, 2025, fall. One staff member reported that routine resident checks in the memory care unit are typically conducted every 20 to 30 minutes; However, no staff member was able to provide a specific timeframe or documentation verifying when R1 was last observed before being found on the floor. The investigation further determined that residents in the memory care unit do not utilize personal call pendants, although the building does have a pull cord system. However, Residents who are unable to cognitively know how to utilize the system and require assistance must verbally call out for help, requiring staff to be within hearing distance. Given R1’s documented fall risk, impaired mobility, and need for assistance with transfers, the facility did not implement adequate monitoring or supervision measures to ensure R1’s safety. Based on the totality of evidence obtained, the Department has concluded that the facility failed to provide adequate care and supervision to a known fall-risk resident by not implementing reasonable safety measures or monitoring practices resulting in R1 sustaining an unwitnessed fall and injury. The following is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. A Civil Penalty is pending determination by Community Care Licensing Division as per H&S Code 1569.49(f). An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Yaylene Mazariegos, and a copy of this report, the LIC 809-D, the LIC 421IM and Appeal Rights were provided to the facility. A copy will be mailed to the licensee to the address on file.

2025-11-13
Other Visit
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Fred Arias

Plain-language summary

During an inspection, investigators found that a resident did not receive proper notice of a benefit rate increase within the required timeframe, which violated state regulations. However, investigators could not confirm several other complaints: a reported rib injury had no medical evidence of fracture, a resident signing a document appeared to be acknowledgment of a rate increase letter rather than coercion, photographs on the resident's phone appeared to be accidental rather than taken by staff, and there was no evidence that staff deleted pictures from the resident's phone.

Type B22 CCR §87507(f)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87507(f)

The facility did not adhere to a 90 day rate increase notice as indicated in R1's admission agreement which poses a potential personal rights risk to persons in care.

Read raw inspector notes

R1 is currently not receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) based on a letter sent to R1 on June 17, 2025 by the Social Security Administration. The date of the rate increase letter of October 22, 2025 informing R1 of the rate increase starting January 1, 2026 is less than ninety days. Based on LPA interviews and record review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. California Code of Regulations, (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), is being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was left with the facility representative along with appeal rights. 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 R1 stated their rib cage does not hurt and does not know how it could happen. R1 stated there was no fall that would have caused an injury to their rib. R1 added they told one staff member about it but did not want to go to the hospital because "it's too much of a hassle and they make you wait a long time." LPA interviews with three out of three additional residents stated their needs are being met at this time and are receiving medical care as needed. LPA observed R1 readjust from laying on their bed to sitting up on their bed without difficulty. LPA record review revealed R1 has seen outside medical personnel at the facility from July 4, 2025 through November 7, 2025 17 times either by a nurse or physician's assistant. No observations of fractures were noted. Regarding the allegation staff forced a resident to sign an unknown document, it was reported R1 was forced to sign a document under pressure. LPA interview with Administrator (AD) Yaylene Mazariegos stated AD had R1 sign a copy of the rate increase letter given to R1 on October 22, 2025 to acknowledge a copy was provided. AD provided a copy of the rate increase letter to LPA with R1's signature. LPA interview with R1 stated they vaguely remember signing a copy of the rate increase letter given by AD but not completely sure. R1 stated they received a copy of the rate increase letter. Regarding the allegation staff inappropriately took pictures of a resident, it was reported on an unspecified date, staff took pictures of client while client was unaware. LPA interviews with three out of three staff stated they are unaware of any staff taking inappropriate pictures of residents. LPA interview with R1 stated they have photos on their phone showing three pictures of R1 from the waist up at an angle coming from the floor as they are walking. R1 stated they are unaware of how those photos came about. LPA observation of the photos appear to be accidental selfies as the photos' angle appear to be coming from R1's left hand at arms length pointing up. Regarding the allegation staff are not safeguarding a resident's personal phone, it was reported some of R1's pictures have been deleted from their phone. LPA interviews with three out of three staff stated they have never witness anyone deleting pictures from a resident's phone. LPA interview with R1 stated they keep a passcode on the phone and sleep with the phone under their pillow. LPA observed phone securely held in R1's carrying bag with a strap around R1's body. Continued on LIC9099-C dated 11/13/2025 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, record review, and observations, LPA is unable to corroborate the allegations. Therefore, the allegations are deemed to be UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report was left with the facility representative.

2025-07-18
Other Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

An unannounced health and safety inspection was conducted at the facility. The inspector toured the building, checked on residents, and reviewed resident files, finding no health and safety issues; the facility was clean and organized.

Read raw inspector notes

This unannounced inspection is being conducted by Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Fred Arias for the purpose of a health and safety check. LPA met with Administrator (AD) Yaylene Mazariegos and explained the purpose of the inspection. During the inspection, LPA and AD toured the facility. LPA conducted health and safety checks on the residents and confirmed they were doing well and observed no health and safety issues. LPA observed the facility to be clean and organized and found no health and safety issues. LPA requested and reviewed copies of Resident 1 (R1) files. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was discussed with and provided to facility representative.

2025-06-17
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

During an unannounced health and safety inspection, the facility was found to be clean and organized with no health and safety issues identified. Residents were observed to be doing well, food supplies met requirements, and medications were properly stored with utilities functioning normally. Staff and resident records were reviewed and found to be in order.

Read raw inspector notes

This unannounced inspection is being conducted by Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Fred Arias for the purpose of a health and safety check. LPA met with Administrator (AD) Yaylene Mazariegos and explained the purpose of the inspection. During the inspection, LPA and AD toured the facility. LPA conducted health and safety checks on the residents and confirmed they were doing well and observed no health and safety issues. LPA observed the facility to be clean and organized and found no health and safety issues. LPA observed the facility has a 2-day supply of perishables and a 7-day supply of non-perishable food is available as required by regulations. LPA observed the electricity and water were running and the medications were properly stored. LPA requested and reviewed copies of the resident roster, staff roster, and resident files. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was discussed with and provided to facility representative.

2025-04-25
Other Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

This was the facility's required annual inspection, conducted as an unannounced visit. The inspector found that the building, resident rooms, bathrooms, kitchen, safety equipment, emergency plans, and resident and staff files all met state requirements, with no violations cited. The facility is licensed for 98 non-ambulatory residents and operates a secured memory care unit with approved hospice services.

Read raw inspector notes

On this day Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Fred Arias made an unannounced visit to conduct a required annual visit. LPA was greeted and granted entry into the facility by staff and explained the reason for the visit. Facility is licensed for 98 non-ambulatory residents of which 20 may be bedridden. Facility has an approved hospice waiver for 20 residents. Executive Director (ED) Yaylene Mazariegos arrived shortly to conduct facility tour. ED has a valid certificate that expires on 08/16/2026. ED provided updated liability insurance that expires on 01/01/2026. LPA along with ED toured the facility at 9:40 AM. LPA toured the physical plant, checked food service, and facility documentation. The facility is a 2 story building with a secured memory care unit on the first floor. Five resident bedrooms checked had the required furniture, bed linens and closet/drawer space to accommodate each resident comfortably. Five resident bathrooms were checked. Toilets and water faucets worked properly, grab bars were secure and showers were free of mold/mildew. Water temperature measured between 105.4 degrees F and 115.8 degrees F in all bathrooms checked. Resident bath towels, toiletries and personal hygiene supplies were adequately stocked. Common areas were clean and clear of hazards. LPA observed memory care delayed egress exits are operational. LPA and the ED toured the kitchen and dining room. The kitchen is clean and organized. LPA observed a 2 day perishable and a 7 day non-perishable food supply on hand in the kitchen. LPA observed the refrigerator and freezer were operational. Fire extinguishers observed were fully charged. LPA observed cleaning supplies are kept locked in a storage closet. LPA observed the call system is operational. LPA observed the call response time is less than 5 minutes. LPA observed emergency evacuation chairs at each stairwell. LPA observed there is outdoor shaded seating areas for memory care and assisted living. 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 No bodies of water in the outdoor areas of the facility. LPA reviewed the fire alarm system paperwork showing the system passed its annual inspection on 3/5/2025. LPA reviewed the infection control and emergency disaster plans and plans are complete and thorough. Facility conducts monthly emergency drills with the last drill conducted on 3/10/2025. First aid kit contained all required items including tweezers, scissors and thermometer. Facility conducts activities in the form of exercise, music therapy, games, and outings. LPA observed the emergency food and water supply. LPA reviewed five resident files and five staff files. All resident files contained required documentation including admission agreements, physician reports, and resident appraisals. Staff files reviewed contained required documentation including required annual training, medical assessment/ TB, criminal record clearance and proof of CPR training. LPA reviewed medication storage and administration. Medications are stored in cabinets in the medication room. Medications are being administered per physician order. Based on the observations made during today’s visit, no deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. This report was discussed with the facility representative and a copy was provided.

2025-04-04
Other Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

On May 2, 2026, state regulators met with Pacifica Senior Living leadership to verify reports of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing and related lawsuits affecting the company. The company's CEO stated that the bankruptcy and lawsuits (including a $25 million lawsuit and photography lawsuit) involved the management company rather than the operating entities that run individual facilities, and that there is no financial impact to any properties, residents, or staff; he also confirmed that Pacifica Senior Living Management is no longer the management company for Pacifica communities, with residents notified of this change in October or November 2025. Regulators requested documentation of all affected facilities and the resident notifications.

Read raw inspector notes

On this day at 11am, a meeting was conducted by Assistant Program Administrator (APA) Stacy Barlow to verify Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Report filed by the Pacifica Senior Living as reported by the media. Present during the meeting are: Shelly Gracce - Assistant Branch Chief, CCLD Craig Lundgren - Legal Counsel, CCLD Carl Knepler - Chief Executive Officer, Marlene Nelson - Director, Quality Assurance and Risk Management APA Barlow verified with Knepler information received by CCL from the media as follows: $25M lawsuit against the community located in Bakersfield Phtography lawsuit against one of the properties lawsuit against a Killed Nursing Facility (SNF) in the Healdsburg location Knepler states that despite the lawsuits, there is no financial impact to any of the properties, residents or staff of the company. Knepler added there are no vendor issues as well. continuation on Lic 809C ***Original signature on file with the Pacifica Senior Living Union City facility.*** 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 Knepler also states that management communicates with the staff and residents to make them aware of the changes. Signages have been changed. Knepler added that the bankruptcy did not affect any of the communities because Pacifica Senior Living Management was no longer the management company for any of the Pacifica Communities, that the communities had given notice to the department and residents back in October or November of last year of the changes in management companies. He said that the judgment in Bakersfield did not involve the operating entity, only the management company. He said there were no other suits pending against any of the Pacifica entities. APA requested the following documents be provided to CCL by today: Spread sheet of all facilities whose management company was/is Pacifica Senior Living Management Company management companies for each location letter provided to the residents notifying them of the changes At the conclusion of the meeting, APA emphasized to Knepler the importance of communicating with CCL any lawsuits that the company may have in the future. Knepler agreed with APA. A copy of this report was provided to Knepler. *** Original signature on file with the Pacifica Senior Living Union City facility.***

2025-03-21
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Andrea Mendivil

Plain-language summary

An investigator looked into a complaint about staffing and hygiene supplies at the facility. Through interviews with staff and residents and observations during the visit, the investigator found no evidence to support the complaint—residents and staff confirmed that staff responds promptly to requests, hygiene supplies are available, and the facility provides supplies to residents when needed. No violations were found.

Read raw inspector notes

Per interview with Executive Director Yaylene Mazariegos there is 1 LVN available Monday - Friday, 1 med-tech on every shift, 1 caregiver for assisted living and 2 caregivers for memory care for AM and PM shifts. Overnight staff is 1 med-tech and 1 caregiver. ED also stated all staff are trained to provide care to residents. Interviews with 2 out of 2 staff stated they are able to assist residents with activities of daily living with the current staffing ratios. Per interviews with 2 out of 2 residents they indicated staff is responsive and assists them as needed. ED stated there is a resident in Memory Care that will wander into other residents rooms and staff will redirect. ED stated most Assisted Living residents are ambulatory and can ask for assistance. LPA Mendivil observed staff responding to pendant calls during the visit. Interviews with 2 out of 2 residents stated they have not had any issues with hygiene supplies not being available. Residents stated they can ask for hygiene items and the facility will provide them. Per interview with ED, ED stated all except 3 residents in memory care under incontinent care. ED stated the facility provides wipes, briefs and incontinent pads if a resident is under the incontinent care program. ED stated if a resident is not under the incontinent care plan then the resident or resident's family is to provide briefs and wipes. ED stated if a resident that is not under incontinent care plan and runs out of supplies the facility will provide supplies as needed. LPA Mendivil observed a closet with extra supplies ready and available to all staff. Therefore based on the preponderance of evidence through interviews and observations the allegations that Facility does not have adequate staffing and Facility does not provide adequate hygiene supplies are determined to be UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. This agency has investigated this complaint. No deficiencies cited. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report this report was left at the facility.

2025-03-12
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Claudia Gutierrez

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found no evidence that the facility failed to provide a written refund policy, delayed medical care, or prevented a doctor from treating a resident—the authorized representative's claims could not be corroborated by staff or other residents interviewed. The facility also could not be confirmed to have failed to safeguard a resident's iPad that went missing, or to have failed to promptly answer communications from the authorized representative, though the resident's representative acknowledged that some communication difficulties may have been due to the resident's hearing loss. The investigator concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate any of the complaints.

Read raw inspector notes

It is alleged facility did not provide R1's authorized representative with written refund policy in a timely manner. During their interview, R1’s RP denied the facility not providing them with written refund policy in a timely manner. LPA also obtained and reviewed a copy of R1's facility refund agreement signed and dated December 16, 2019. The Department has investigated the complaint alleging staff prevented resident's medical professional from caring for resident and facility did not provide resident's authorized representative with written refund policy in a timely manner. After interviews conducted with facility residents, witness, and R1's RP, We have found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegation was 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 at the end of the inspection. 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 Four of four residents interviewed were unable to corroborate allegation and stated they receive medical attention as needed and in a timely manner. Three of three staff interviewed denied medical attention being delayed or denied to any resident and stated medical attention is sought in a timely manner for all residents. It is alleged staff did not safeguard R1’s personal belongings. Interviews were conducted with R1’s RP, three facility staff, and four residents. During their interview, RP stated that R1's Ipad was stolen at the facility and was never recovered. Three staff of three staff interviewed denied having any knowledge of R1’s Ipad being stolen and stated missing property or valuables have not been reported by any other resident or their responsible party. Four of four residents interviewed could not corroborate the allegation and denied having any missing property or valuables. It is alleged facility did not answer communications from R1’s authorized representative promptly. Interviews were conducted with R1’s RP, three facility staff, and four residents. During their interview, RP stated that due to the pandemic, they were unable to visit R1 and there were days when they were unable to get a hold of R1 by phone. RP stated R1 had a phone and knew how to use it, however R1 was also hard of hearing and would often go without answering their phone because they could not hear it. Per RP, the facility for their part was responsive and they did not have any concerns. Three staff of three staff interviewed denied allegation and stated there is ongoing communication between the facility and residents’ authorized representatives, if any. Four of four residents interviewed also denied the allegation and stated the facility and facility staff have ongoing communication with their authorized representatives. Due to conflicting information received during interviews conducted, LPA is unable to determine if staff did not seek medical attention for resident in a timely manner, if staff did not safeguard resident's personal belongings, or if the facility did not answer communications from authorized representative promptly. Although the above 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 at this time the above allegations are unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection.

2025-02-19
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Sean Haddad

Plain-language summary

An investigator looked into a complaint that the facility failed to safeguard a resident's missing cellphone and hearing aid and didn't follow proper procedures to investigate the losses. The facility's records showed the resident had not registered these items as personal property they brought in, and staff said they did search the resident's room, reviewed camera footage, contacted the resident's family, and the phone was later found and returned; however, the investigator could not find enough evidence to prove the facility did not follow its loss and theft policy or that items were stolen.

Read raw inspector notes

Regarding the allegation that facility did not safeguard resident's cellphone which led to its theft: it was alleged that R1’s cell phone went missing from their room, staff searched for the phone and could not find it, the phone reappeared in R1’s room a few days after it went missing without explanation, and one of R1’s hearing aids also went missing. LPA inspected the facility, conducted health and safety checks on residents present, and observed no health and safety issues. LPA interviewed AD who stated that R1 is no longer a resident of the facility, there are no major issues regarding theft and loss at the facility, the facility does not handle or store resident property, and residents are responsible for safeguarding the property they bring into the facility. LPA interviewed Staff #1 (S1), the staff who oversaw the investigation into R1’s missing property, who denied the allegation. S1 denied there are major issues regarding theft or loss at the facility, stating that most lost items were later found. S1 stated they investigated the loss of R1’s cell phone and hearing aid and did not obtain information that they were stolen. LPA interviewed six residents and obtained information that there was at least one other alleged theft approximately two years ago that was investigated by the police, but the police could not identify the suspect and LPA did not obtain information that there are systemic issues of theft at the facility. LPA interviewed two out of two care staff present and did not obtain information corroborating the allegation. The information obtained did not corroborate that R1’s missing items were stolen, that there is a systemic issue of theft at the facility, or that the facility’s theft and loss policies are inadequate. The information obtained did not corroborate the allegation. Regarding the allegation that the facility did not follow their theft and loss policy regarding the theft of resident's cellphone: it was alleged that R1’s cell phone and hearing aid went missing, the facility was aware of another resident who sometimes takes other residents’ property but did not search this resident’s room for the missing items, and the facility did not investigate the thefts, review camera footage, or call the police. LPA inspected the facility, conducted health and safety checks on residents present, and observed no health and safety issues. LPA reviewed R1’s Admission Agreement which indicates that the facility’s theft and loss policy states that the facility will create an inventory of each resident’s personal items brought into the facility and the facility will not be responsible for items not on that inventory. Per R1’s Admission Agreement, R1’s personal property inventory, which R1 signed, did not include R1’s cell phone or hearing aid. LPA interviewed AD who stated that there are no major issues regarding theft and loss at the facility, the facility does not handle or store resident property, and residents are responsible for safeguarding the property they bring into the facility. 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 LPA interviewed S1, the staff who oversaw the investigation into R1’s missing property, who denied the allegation. Per S1, the facility’s theft and loss policy is that the facility is not responsible for missing items unless the loss was caused by the facility, but that the facility will investigate lost property, determine what happened, and punish those responsible and that the facility followed this policy with regards to R1’s missing items. S1 stated that when R1’s phone went missing, R1’s room was searched, multiple staff were interviewed, R1’s family was contacted, the transport company that R1 used was also contacted, and staff found the phone a few days after it was missing and returned it to R1. Regarding the missing hearing aid, S1 stated they interviewed staff and could not locate the hearing aid. Regarding the other resident who sometimes takes other residents’ property, S1 confirmed that this resident has a history of taking other residents’ property, but stated that this resident’s room was searched for both the cell phone and hearing aid and neither item was found in their room. S1 also stated they reviewed camera footage which did not reveal information helpful to the investigation. While the facility’s theft and loss policy states stolen items must be reported to law enforcement, the facility’s investigation did not determine that R1’s hearing aid was stolen. The information obtained did not corroborate that the facility did not properly investigate R1’s missing items or otherwise not follow its theft and loss policy. The information obtained did not corroborate the allegation. Based on the information gathered during the investigation and review of all documents obtained, the Department is unable to ascertain if the above allegations occurred as reported. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the alleged violations occurred; therefore, these allegations are deemed Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was discussed with and provided to facility representative.

2024-07-03
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings
Inspector · Kimberly Lyman

Plain-language summary

A state inspector made an unannounced visit to the facility on June 24, 2024, to follow up on a report received by the department. The inspector found the facility clean and well-supplied with food, toured both the assisted living and memory care units, reviewed resident records, and spoke with residents who reported feeling safe and satisfied. No health or safety concerns were identified during the visit.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kimberly Lyman conducted an unannounced health and safety case management visit in conjunction with an SOC 341 received by the department on 06/24/2024. LPA was greeted and granted entry by Administrator Stacie Anderson and explained the reason for the visit. During the visit, LPA toured the facility and observed the following: Facility is clean and sanitary and consists of two floors housing assisted living and memory care units. There are 35 residents present during today's visit. Facility has ample food in supply and LPA observed residents dining. LPA toured the memory care unit and observed residents relaxing in the dining room. LPA spoke with residents who expressed satisfaction with facility and verbalized being safe in the facility. LPA reviewed and obtained records for Resident 1 including physician report, pre-appraisal and medication orders. LPA observed no health or safety concerns during today's visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report was left at the facility.

2024-06-12
Other Visit
Type B · 2 findings
Inspector · Joseph Alejandre

Plain-language summary

During the annual inspection, inspectors found that the facility's physical environment—including exits, call system, kitchen, bathrooms, and hot water—was operational and met standards, and resident records and medications were properly maintained. However, inspectors identified three issues: the first aid kit lacked a current manual, three of five staff files had no health screening documentation, and two caregiver files did not have current training records on file, though staff reported receiving training. The facility was cited for violations related to staff health screening and training documentation requirements.

Type B22 CCR §87412(a)(11)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87412(a)(11)

Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 3 out of 5 staff files which poses/posed a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 06/27/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee agrees to have staff with no health screening, to be screened by a physician and to provide the Health screening form (LIC 503) on file for each staff member. Proof to be forwarded to LPA by POC due date.

Type B
Verbatim citation text

Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 2 out of 2 caregiver files which poses/posed a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 06/27/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee agrees to have all training documented for caregivers and to provide proof of training for caregivers LPA by the POC due date.

Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Joseph Alejandre made an unannounced visit to conduct the required annual inspection. LPA was greeted and granted entry by staff. LPA met with the Executive Director (Administrator) Stacie Anderson and explained the reason for the visit. The Administrator's certificate expires on October 15, 2025. LPA and the Executive Director toured the facility. LPA observed the see something say something poster posted in the lobby of the facility. The facility is a 2 story building with a secured memory care unit on the first floor. LPA observed all the memory care delayed egress exits are operational. LPA and the Executive Director toured the kitchen and dining room. The kitchen is clean and organized. LPA observed a 2 day perishable and a 7 day non-perishable food supply on hand in the kitchen. LPA observed the refrigerator and freezer were operational. LPA measured the hot water in 5 resident rooms, hot water measured between 110.0 degrees Fahrenheit to 115.0 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA observed all resident rooms inspected had the required furnishings and bedding. LPA observed all resident bathrooms checked were clean and operational. LPA observed cleaning supplies are kept locked in a storage closet. LPA and the Executive Director toured the second floor. LPA observed the call system is operational. LPA observed the call response time is less than 5 minutes. LPA observed emergency evacuation chairs at each stairwell. LPA observed there is outdoor shaded seating areas for memory care and assisted living. No bodies of water in the outdoor areas of the facility. LPA reviewed the fire alarm system paperwork showing the system passed its annual inspection on February 8, 2024. LPA reviewed 5 resident files, no discrepancies observed. LPA reviewed 5 resident's medications, no discrepancies observed. LPA observed the medication is kept locked in the Med Room. LPA observed the first aid kit did not have a current edition manual. LPA interviewed staff and residents. LPA reviewed 5 staff files. 2 of the staff files were for caregivers. LPA observed that 3 out of 5 staff files had no health screening. LPA observed that 2 out of 2 of the caregiver files did not have current training. The staff interviewed reported having in service training and online training. The Executive Director reported that staff are trained, but at this time there is no way to verify the training. No other discrepancies observed. Violations are being per Title 22 division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of the report provided along with appeal rights.

2023-12-21
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Celine DePerio

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation looked into four allegations: inadequate staff training, lack of activities, poor care and supervision, and understaffing. Investigators interviewed six residents and three staff members, reviewed training records and activity calendars, and toured the facility; none of the interviews or documents supported the complaints, and residents reported satisfaction with staff and activities. The facility was found to have daily programming, proper staff training procedures, and adequate staffing with backup coverage for call-outs, so the allegations were unsubstantiated.

Read raw inspector notes

It was alleged that the facility staff are not properly trained. LPA De Perio conducted a total of 9 interviews, of which all 6 resident interviews, and all 3 staff interviews did not corroborate with the allegation. All 6 resident interviews also confirmed that there were no health or safety concerns regarding staff and their training. Per documentation review, each staff member undergoes training that consists of hands-on orientation and shadowing, video tutorials, completion of tests and certifications. It was alleged that the facility does not provide activities to residents. LPA De Perio conducted a total of 9 interviews, of which all 6 resident interviews, and all 3 staff interviews did not corroborate with the allegation. During the tour of the physical plant of the facility, LPA De Perio observed that there is an activity calendar posted in the hallway of the facility and at the front desk for the entirety of the month. Per activity calendar, there are ongoing daily activities both in the assisted living and memory care portion of the facility, and is led by the facility activities director. Per documentation review, LPA De Perio observed photos of residents engaging in activities at the facility such as participating in games, pet therapy, arts and crafts, music, and outdoor activities. It was alleged that there is lack of care and supervision. LPA De Perio conducted a total of 9 interviews, of which all 6 resident interviews, and all 3 staff interviews did not corroborate with the allegation. 4 of the resident interviews specified about how “great” the staff was and disclosed their satisfaction with the facility. Per documentation review, it was observed that if a resident needs medical care or an evaluation, the facility contacts the resident’s medical team in a timely manner. 1 interview conducted with staff also specified that regardless of the staff’s position, each staff is trained on caring for a resident, reporting requirements and trained on obtaining medical assistance. It was alleged that facility is understaffed. LPA De Perio conducted a total of 9 interviews, of which all 6 resident interviews, and all 3 staff interviews did not corroborate with the allegation. All 3 staff interviews and 2 resident interviews specified that if there is a call-out for a care staff, the facility administrator, Health and Wellness director, or additional personnel with the qualifications, will obtain the shift to ensure coverage is met in the area needed. Per documentation review of the staff schedule, and monthly schedule from August 2023 to October 2023, LPA observed that there was a minimum of 2 caregivers, 2 med-techs, and 1 nurse, per shift. For night supervision, it was also observed that there is a designated staff member on-call to attend to the facility if needed. 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 LPA’s interviews which were conducted, review of documents obtained, and observations, LPA is unable to ascertain if the allegations occurred as reported. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the alleged violations occurred; therefore, the allegations are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with CRD Melendez and BOM Castro. A copy of this report was provided and explained.

2023-08-02
Complaint Investigation
No findings
Inspector · Celine DePerio

Plain-language summary

This was a complaint investigation. The investigator interviewed staff, reviewed documents, and found no evidence that the allegation was true.

Read raw inspector notes

Based on LPA’s interviews which were conducted, review of documents obtained, this allegation was UNFOUNDED, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. For today's visit, no citations were issued. An exit interview was conducted with ED Anderson. A copy of this report was explained.

6 older inspections from 2021 are not shown above.

Get the complete record, translated into plain language — emailed to you.

Nearby

Other facilities in Orange County.

Other memory care facilities in Orange 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.

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

The memory care site on the family's side: StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from facilities.