California · Emeryville

1440 by the Bay.

RCFE · Memory Care175 bedsDementia-trained staff
1440 by the Bay
1440 by the Bay — photo 2
1440 by the Bay — photo 3
1440 by the Bay — photo 4
© Google · 1440 By The Bay Senior Living
Facility · Emeryville
A 175-bed RCFE · Memory Care with 4 citations on file.
Licensed beds
175
Last inspection
Feb 2026
Last citation
May 2025
Operated by
Emeryville Sr. Hsng, Llc; Atsc Ii Llc
Snapshot

175-Bed RCFE with Memory Care Services in Emeryville, reviewed on public record.

1440 by the Bay

© Google Street View

Map showing location of 1440 by the Bay
© Mapbox · OpenStreetMap
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
71st%
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
30th%
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

1440 by the Bay has 4 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.

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

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 1440 by the Bay's record and state requirements.

01 /

State records show 13 complaints filed with CDSS — can you describe the nature of these complaints and which, if any, were substantiated by investigators?

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

02 /

The facility advertises memory care but this is not a formal CDSS licensing designation — what specific dementia-care programming, secured areas, or specialized staffing does the facility actually provide?

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

03 /

California Title 22 §87705 requires staff training specific to dementia care — how do you document and verify that all caregivers, including per diem and overnight staff, have completed this training?

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

Full Inspection Record

Every inspection visit, verbatim.

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

12
reports on file
4
total deficiencies
2026-02-10
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · David Doidge

Plain-language summary

An investigator looked into a report that a resident felt isolated and that staff weren't encouraging socializing. The investigator found that staff had repeatedly invited the resident to join group activities throughout the facility, the resident had declined these invitations, and the resident was able to leave the facility freely to go to local stores several times a week. The complaint could not be substantiated as a violation.

Read raw inspector notes

Continued from LIC9099 Investigation Findings: It was reported to the department that a resident feels isolated from peer group. LPA met R1 in the lobby by R1’s self. LPA overserved other residents keeping their distance and not making eye contact with R1 as LPA and R1 walked through the lobby. LPA interviewed R1 who expressed concerns about other residents avoiding R1 which makes making friends and socializing difficult. R1 feels cut off from others and that staff do not encourage socializing amongst residents. R1 was seen by staff returning to R1’s room after speaking with LPA. LPA spoke with S1 who informed LPA that R1 is in Independent Living and tends to keep to R1’s self. S1 stated R1 is able to leave the facility unassisted and will make trips to local stores a few times a week, alone. S1 and S2 have multiple times encouraged R1 to join group activities and have suggested different events for R1 to join. Neither have ever seen R1 show interest nor attend. S2 reported that R1 is not unconfrontational nor rude but does seem to avoid talking to others. S2 noted R1 is quiet and stays to self. LPA observed activity calendars with multiple events taking place throughout the day. LPA asked R1 if any seemed interesting. R1 said none did. Based on interviews and record reviews conducted, the above allegation is unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted and a copy this report was provided.

2025-10-06
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings

Plain-language summary

Inspectors conducted a routine annual inspection on October 6, 2024, and found no violations. The facility met all requirements including adequate lighting and temperature control, secure medication storage, working fire safety equipment, and complete resident and staff records.

Read raw inspector notes

On 10/06/2024 at 10:00 PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) David Doidge and Andrew Christy arrived unannounced to conduct 1-Year Annual Required inspection. LPAs met with Executive Director Robert Alverado and explained the purpose of the visit. LPAs toured the facility including but not limited to, resident rooms, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, and common areas. LPAs observe lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. Hallway temperature was maintained at 72 degrees Fahrenheit. The hot water temperature in a common bathroom was measured at 116.4 degrees Fahrenheit. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable foods. Centrally stored medications, sharps are locked and inaccessible to residents in care. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were in operating condition during visit. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 03/05/2025. Emergency disaster drills are conducted quarterly; last conducted on 10/01/2025. First aid kit was observed to be complete. LPAs reviewed five (5) resident records and five (5) staff records, all were complete. No deficiencies observed or cited during this visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided

2025-05-20
Complaint Investigation
Substantiated
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · David Doidge

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found a violation of state regulations for residential care facilities. The facility was provided with the findings, appeal rights, and a copy of the report during an exit interview. The specific violation is detailed in the accompanying citation.

Type B22 CCR §87506
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87506

Based on interview, licensee did not provide requested documents to requesting party.

Read raw inspector notes

Based on interview, 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 9099-D. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.

2025-05-13
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · David Doidge

Plain-language summary

This was a complaint investigation about transportation services at the facility. Inspectors interviewed staff and reviewed records but found no evidence to support the complaint; the facility offers residents the option to arrange their own transportation or use the facility's van service. No violations were cited.

Read raw inspector notes

Continued from LIC9099 Staff have made every effort to reasonably accommodate all residents' transportation needs. Resident have the option of booking their own transportation and paying out of pocket or utilizing the facilities van service. Based on interviews and record reviews conducted, the above allegation is unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided.

2025-03-24
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Kelly Nguyen

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that staff did not promptly seek medical attention for a resident who had a bruise under her eye on October 27, 2020; the resident was not evaluated at the hospital until 10 days later on November 6, 2020, despite the doctor ordering x-rays and instructing staff to send her to the emergency department if the bruise worsened. Two other allegations—that the resident sustained injuries while in care and that the facility failed to provide medical records to family—were found to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence. The resident was later diagnosed with a brain bleed and died; the death certificate listed heart attack and high blood pressure as the causes of death.

Type B22 CCR §87465(g)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(g)

This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff there were no records of an x-ray done and R1 did not go to the ER until 11/6/2020, approximately 10 days after the bruise was first observed, which posed a potential health & safety risk to resident in care.

Read raw inspector notes

R1 was diagnosed with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, hypertension, macrocytic anemia, history of Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), dementia and seizure. However, R1 death certificate indicated her causes of death were cardiopulmonary arrest, myocardial infarction and hypertension. There were no other contributing factors to R1 death. A manner of death was not indicated. Allegation: Resident sustained injuries while in care: Unsubstantiated On 3/15/2023, The department reviewed record of R1 care notes and interview RP, and staffs indicate that R1 was sent to the hospital for evaluation. RP stated “While coming on to a Zoom meeting with Verna on 10/27/2020, RP daughter noticed and obvious bruise under R1 right eye. Staff did not report anything to R1 daughter prior to the Zoom meeting and did not know how R1 sustained the bruise”. During staff interviews, caregivers and med techs recalled R1 having a bruise, but vaguely recalled what happened after it was observed. Staff did not know how R1 sustained the bruise. Depending on the severity of an injury, residents are sent out to the hospital for further evaluation. Staff stated family members can always decline to have the resident transported to the hospital. During R1 hospitalization, R1 was diagnosed with a nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, dementia and seizure. Report Continue on LIC 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 Allegation: Facility did not provide resident's records to responsible party. Unsubstantiated On 3/15/2023, The department interview R1 daughter indicated that recorded requested for R1 medical records and R1 file are all on the text messages that are being submitted to CCLD department. The department reviewed record of R1 daughter text messages, but didn’t not find that either R1 medical record and R1 files was being requested. However, there was a request of x-ray being requested by R1 daughter. Based on interviews and record reviews conducted, the above allegations are unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was 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 seek medical attention in a timely manner- Substantiated On 3/15/2023, The department reviewed record of R1 including medical record, care note, facility’s protocol, and interview staff. The facility's protocol for residents sustaining a fall or an injury, if severe enough, are automatically sent out to the hospital for an evaluation. Because memory care residents are unable to verbalize whether they have fallen, in pain or injured themselves, there could be underlying issues after they sustained a fall or injury that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Despite the decision to transport the resident to the hospital, their families or responsible party can always decline medical transport. Caregiver recalled seeing R1 bruise and reporting it to the med tech. Caregiver was not positive, but believed R1 was sent to the hospital two days later to have it looked at. Program Director did not recall R1 bruise. After being shown photos of it, Program director confirmed that it was definitely a bruise and staff should have immediately sent R1 to the hospital to be evaluated. Caregiver remembered seeing the bruise on R1 eye and reported it to the med techs, but she did not know what was done after the fact. Report Continue on LIC 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 text messages between R1 daughter and the second-floor med tech (names unknown) between 10/28/2020 through 10/31/2020, the med tech was told to send R1 to the Emergency Department (ED) if the bruise worsened, per R1 doctor, Dr. Artemio Perez. On 10/29/2020, the med tech on duty advised they would send R1 out to the ED or request an x-ray if the bruise worsened. Dr. Perez ordered x-rays to be done, but it did not appear they were as R1 daughter inquired about it and there was no response by staff via text message. There were no records of an x-ray done and R1 did not go to the ER until 11/6/2020, approximately 10 days after the bruise was first observed. Based on evidence obtained during the course of this investigation, the Department has substantiated staff did not seek medical attention in timely manner. This is a factual determination based on all the facts and circumstances of the case. The preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.

2024-12-18
Complaint Investigation
Substantiated
Citation on file
Inspector · Jill Clancy-Czuleger

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found a violation of state regulations. The facility was provided with appeal rights and a copy of the inspection report. Details about the specific violation are not included in this summary document.

Substantiated — the state found a violation and issued a citation. Full citation details are on file with the state.

Read raw inspector notes

...Continued from 9099 Based on LPAs interviews, 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. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.

2024-11-20
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · David Doidge

Plain-language summary

On November 20, 2024, inspectors conducted the annual required inspection and found no deficiencies. The facility was clean and well-maintained, with adequate lighting and temperature control, secure medication storage, working fire safety equipment, and complete resident and staff records.

Read raw inspector notes

On 11/20/2024 at 01:30 PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) D. Doidge and C. Fowler arrived unannounced to conduct 1-Year Annual Required inspection. LPAs met with, Stephanie Hall, Executive Director and explained the purpose of the visit. LPAs toured the facility including but not limit to, bedrooms, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, and common area. LPAs observe lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. Hallway temperature was maintained at 72 degrees Fahrenheit. The hot water temperature in a common bathroom was measured at 107.1 degrees Fahrenheit. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable foods. Centrally stored medications, sharps are locked and inaccessible to residents in care. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were in operating condition during visit. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 01/15/2024. Emergency disaster drill was last conducted on 10/20/2024. First aid kit was observed to be complete. LPAs reviewed five (5) resident records and five (5) staff records, all were complete. No deficiencies observed or cited during this visit. . Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided

2024-05-03
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Jill Clancy-Czuleger
2024-04-12
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Jill Clancy-Czuleger

Plain-language summary

An investigator looked into complaints that residents were being mishandled and developing bedsores in care. Interviews with staff and residents found no evidence of mishandling, and residents with bedsores were all bedridden and on hospice care. The complaints could not be substantiated based on the evidence gathered.

Read raw inspector notes

...Continued from LIC9099 On the allegation Residents are being mishandled. Interviews with staff and residents indicated that staff does not mishandle residents while in care. Staff or residents have not seen any staff mishandle residents. On the allegation Residents developing bedsores while in care. LPA was given a list of all of the residents who are bedridden and a list of residents who have bedsores. S1 stated that all of the residents with bedsores are bedridden and on Hospice. Based upon the information obtained during investigation. The above allegations are unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there are not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.

2024-04-09
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Luisa Fontanilla

Plain-language summary

A complaint investigation found that a resident tested positive for Covid and alleged issues with care during isolation and privacy. Staff said they provided full assistance with daily activities and wore protective equipment when in the resident's room, and they explained that a staff member accidentally opened a package thinking it was the resident's medicine, apologized, and the resident responded positively. The investigator could not reach the person who filed the complaint to get more details, so the allegations could not be proven or disproven, and no violations were found.

Read raw inspector notes

While at the facility, R1 tested positive for Covid. Staff interviewed state all the care needed including but not limited to assistance with ADLs as indicated in the assessment, housekeeping/changing of sheets once a week were provided. Staff state they wore full PPEs when going inside R1’s room to make sure care is provided. Regarding R1’s meal during isolation, staff interviewed state that dining staff would bring all of R1’s foods and leave them outside R1’s room. Then the caregivers would bring the food inside R1’s room wearing full PPEs. In regard to the privacy allegation, LPA interviewed S3. S3 states that while waiting for one of R1’s medicines that was ordered, a package was delivered. Thinking that it was R1’s medicine, S3 states that S3 opened the package. When S3 found out that it was not the medicine, S3 went to R1 and apologized. S3 states that R1 seemed fine and appreciated everything that the staff do for R1. LPA attempted to contact Reporting Party (RP) multiple times and left voice messages to obtain additional information and clarification regarding employee training. LPA did not get any call back from RP. Based on interviews and record reviews conducted, the above allegations are unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were noted. Exit interview was conducted with the Hendricks and a copy of this report was provided.

2023-09-11
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Lori Alexander-Washington

Plain-language summary

On September 11, 2023, a state licensing analyst visited the facility following an incident reported to the state on September 8, 2023, and met with the executive director to review documents related to the matter. The analyst collected relevant records including personnel files and police documentation; no violations were found during the visit.

Read raw inspector notes

On 09/11/2023 at Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) L. Alexander conducted an unannounced Case Management visit regarding an incident that was reported to CCLD on 09/08/2023. LPA met with Executive Director, Stephanie Hall, and explained the purpose of the visit. Stephanie had copies of pertinent documents relevant to this incident. Stephanie says that there wasn't any witnesses to this incident. Stephanie will Stephanie stated that the suspect was recently hired at Elegance at Berkeley, 2100 San Pablo Ave, Berkeley, CA. Per Stephanie, supposedly the suspect is working as a private caregiver in general. LPA L. Alexander collected documents pertinent to the incident report. Documents received: Suspect's Personnel File Emails from victim's daughter Emeryville Police Dept Report# 2309-0449 No deficiencies issued during the visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report was provided.

2023-08-10
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
Type B · 1 finding
Inspector · Daisy Panlilio

Plain-language summary

This was a complaint investigation of the memory care unit. The facility was found to be clean and well-maintained with secure access, appropriate staffing levels, and adequate furnishings and amenities; the complaint about inadequate living conditions could not be substantiated based on the evidence gathered during the tour.

Type B22 CCR §87468.2(a)(16)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87468.2(a)(16)

This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff relocating conserved resident from assisted living to memory care prior to securing proper authorization from conservator which posed a potential health & safety risk to resident in care.

Read raw inspector notes

LPA toured the facility’s secured memory care unit on the second floor and observed the following: secured entrance with code or key fob activation required for access, thermostat reading at 73 deg F in common carpeted hallways, large TV room with carpeted floors, 30 plus chairs for residents to use, 2 activity rooms with arts/crafts and storage cubes, inside garden with patio umbrellas, tables/ chairs, dining room with tables/chairs and big windows with sliders. The private room temporarily used by R1 in memory care was observed to be unlocked, have hard wood floors with a private full bath (toilet and shower stall with several handicap grab bars on walls, shower chair & towel holders), 2 wooden armoires, big window with sliders, independent air conditioner attached to the left upper wall with an accessible remote controller and kitchen sink with storage cabinets. ED stated rooms come unfurnished and residents bring their own furniture to use in their apartments. LPA observed the facility to be clean, odor free and in good repair. LPA observed 8 staff on the floor assisting 14 memory care residents who were comfortable in their surroundings during visit. 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 resident was not provided adequate living conditions while in care is unsubstantiated. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.

9 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.

9 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.

Family reviews

No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience

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

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.