Bellara Senior Living.
Bellara Senior Living is Ranked in the top 49% of California memory care with 6 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Apr 2026.
Large Memory Care Community in Downtown Hayward, reviewed on public record.
© Google Street View
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.
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.
FACILITY WATCH · BETA
Bellara Senior Living has 6 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
6 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
6 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
Elopements, fires, epidemic outbreaks, and poisonings must be reported immediately. Abuse with serious bodily injury requires a 2-hour phone report + 2-hour written report to CDSS, Adult Protective Services, and law enforcement. Abuse without serious bodily injury must be reported within 24 hours. A resident death requires a phone call by the next working day and a written report within 7 days. Injuries requiring medical treatment beyond first aid, and bankruptcy/foreclosure/utility shutoff notices, must also be reported. Incidents not reported on time are a separate violation — families may file a complaint directly with CDSS.
Ask on tour
“When was the last incident report filed with CDSS, and may I see your incident log summary for the past 12 months?”
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Bellara Senior Living's record and state requirements.
The facility received a Type A citation indicating actual harm to a resident — what was the specific nature of that deficiency, what corrective action was taken, and what safeguards are now in place to prevent recurrence?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Four complaints were filed with CDSS during the inspection period — which of these were substantiated, what were the subjects, and how did the facility respond to each?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
With 175 licensed beds, what is the staff-to-resident ratio during overnight shifts in the memory care units, and how does staffing adjust when census is at capacity?
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. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-04-01Complaint InvestigationType A · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During a complaint investigation on April 1, 2026, inspectors found that a staff member providing one-on-one care had not completed required fingerprinting, and the facility failed to report an allegation of financial abuse that occurred in January 2026. The state assessed a $500 civil penalty and required the facility to submit a plan to correct these violations. The facility's leadership was notified and given appeal rights.
“-Based on interviews and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section above in resident's 1:1 caregiver not fingerprinted which poses an immediate risks to persons in care.”
“-Based on interviews and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section above in not submitting incident report and SOC341 which pose a potential personal rights risks to person in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On this day, April 1, 2026, while at the facility investigating a complaint (Control # 15-AS-20260326120524) and upon conducting interviews and record review, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Delmundo learned that the resident's 1:1 is not fingerprinted. LPA also learned that the facility did not submit incident report and SOC341 for the alleged financial abuse that occurred on January 2026. Deficiencies are cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 809Ds. A $500.00 civil penalty is assessed for deficiency section # 87355(e)(2) and will continue until corrected. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date for the other deficiency may result in additional civil penalty. Deficiencies, civil penalty, and plan and proof of corrections were discussed with ED. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights, LIC421IM Civil Penalty Assessment, LIC9098 Proof of Correction form and copy of this report provided.
2026-03-03Other VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
This was an inspection that investigated complaints about freedom of movement, the healthfulness of the environment, and sanitation practices at the facility. Investigators interviewed 16 residents and 10 staff, toured multiple apartments, and found no evidence of restricted movement, unsafe conditions, or poor cleanliness—residents reported they could move freely, the facility was clean with no odors or pest problems, and the facility's practice of offering alcohol on Thursdays was based on residents' medical records and was not charged for. All allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.
“Based on observation and interview, licensee did not comply with the section cited above by having inoperable delayed egress door which poses a potential health and safety risk to the residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Based on the information obtained, the preponderance of evidence is met; therefore, the allegation is substantiated. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date and any repeat violation within 12 month period may result in civil penalty. Deficiency and plan and proof of correction were discussed with ED. 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 LPA Interviews with 16 residents did not reveal any instances in which their freedom of movement was restricted inappropriately. 16 out of 16 Residents stated they were able to move freely within the facility and access common areas consistent with their individual care plans. Allegation: Licensee does not ensure that residents are provided a healthful environment while in care - Unsubstantiated It was alleged that the licensee does not ensure that residents are provided a healthy environment while in care. During the investigation, LPA conducted interviews with 16 residents, 10 staff, reviewed facility records, and observed a display case with alcohol. Interviews with 11 residents did not indicate concerns regarding alcohol served at the facility, safety, or overall healthfulness of the environment. Resident 1 through Resident 11 stated, “Every Thursday, the facility has happy hours that offer us alcohol; however, facility staff never tried to sell any alcohol. R1 through R11 stated, “The facility offered alcohol to us; however, they based their decision on our medical records, and those who cannot drink were not offered.” S1, S2, and S3 stated, “We don’t ever charge for that; it was just part of our beverages that we offered”. LPA reviewed facility admission agreements; there was no indication of alcohol charges in the admission agreement. Allegation: Licensee does not ensure that the facility is kept in a sanitary condition – Unsubstantiated It was alleged that the licensee does not ensure that the facility is kept in a sanitary condition. Observations made by the LPA on 1/30/26 and 3/3/26 did not reveal unsanitary conditions, including accumulation of trash, odors, pests, or other conditions that would pose health risk to residents. LPA toured a random section of the random Memory Care (MC) apartment (APT) and Assisted Living (AL) apartments. LPA toured the MC and AL apartment, including but not limited to APT: 201, 202, 215, 225, 217, 222, 225, 505, 506, 502, 501, 316, and 133. All APTs are clean and sanitary. There is no odor in any of the apartments. Report continued on LIC 9099c1 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 conducted 16 random selections of residents. 16 out of 16 residents interviewed did not report concerns regarding sanitation or cleanliness of the facility. LPA conducted 10 Staff interview and 10 out of 10 stated that routine cleaning schedules and sanitation practices are in place and followed to maintain a clean environment. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-12-24Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a complaint investigation into how the facility handled a request from a state ombudsman for a resident's financial records. The investigation found one violation: the facility sent documents to the ombudsman without first getting the resident's permission, which violates state regulations. However, a separate allegation that the facility failed to have proper staff oversight when the executive director was absent was not substantiated by the evidence.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
LPA interviewed the Ombudsman (W1) who confirmed they received an SOC341 along with copy of a 30-day notice, R1's financial ledger, and a bill associated with the R1's account. W1 also stated they have not obtain permission from R1 to release the documents to them. LPA interviewed the staff (ED, S2 and S3) and confirmed those documents were mailed out to Ombudsman. Based on information obtained, the preponderance of evidence is met, therefore, the allegation is substantiated. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date and any repeat violation within 12 month period may result in civil penalty. Deficiency and plan and proof of correction were discussed with ED. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights, LIC9098 Proof of Correction form and 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 W1 stated that another Ombudsman came to the facility on 12/19/25 and ED was out. W1 stated there was no designated staff in ED's absence. S1 confirmed that he was the MOD on the said date and that Ombudsman (W2) came over and asked for R1's financial documents, however, only S4, ED and corporate have access to residents' financial records. S1 further stated he sent email that same day to W2 regarding the conversation that transpired between him and W2 and included ED and S4 on the email, however, the email didn't go through. Copy of the email confirmed S1's statement. S1 also stated that any information pertaining to residents' care, there's always staff present to provide information. LPA interviewed ED who confirmed he was not at the facility on the said date, however, the manager on duty (MOD) that day was S1 and MOD's support was S3. ED further stated that on his days off, there's always MOD assigned. ED stated that only him, S4 and corporate have access to the residents' financial records. S3 confirmed she was at the facility on 12/19/25. S3 and S2 both stated there's always MOD scheduled when ED is out. Based on information gathered and review of LIC500, the allegation in unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. No deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2025-11-17Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a routine inspection that investigated a complaint about bathroom lighting. The facility's director has been in contact with the family and a contractor about replacing the motion-sensor light, and had scheduled the contractor to do the work; inspectors found no violation.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
LPA interviewed the DFO who stated that the issue is not ignored. DFO indicated he had communicated with a family member and recommended the plug-in light as an alternative as he continues to research for a potential light switch that will be more convenient. DFO further stated that he had a conversation with the building contractor sometime last week. Although the building contractor informed him that it is okay to purchase the light switch to replace the motion sensor light, but because it is electrical, he would like to have the contractor do the work. On this same day, DFO called the contractor to schedule the replacement of the bathroom lights. Based on information gathered, the allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. No deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2025-11-12Other VisitType A · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine annual inspection on November 12, 2025, inspectors found the facility's common areas, kitchen, dining areas, and resident units generally well-maintained, with proper food storage temperatures and emergency procedures in place; however, two issues were noted: a cleaning chemical was stored in an unlocked cabinet on the second floor, and one resident's bed had rails without a doctor's order on file. The facility was required to submit several missing documents by November 26, 2025, and violations were cited in the inspection report.
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in unlocked cleaning agent which poses an immediate health, safety and/or personal rights risks to persons in care. POC Due Date: 11/13/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Staff locked the item. In addition, Executive Director stated will do the following and submit proof by 11/13/25: in-service the staff; have lock installed”
“Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in having no doctor's order for resident's (R1) half bed rails which poses a potential safety and/or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 11/26/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Executive Director stated he'll obtain doctor's order. Copy to be submitted by 11/26/25.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On this day, November 12, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Delmundo arrived unannounced to conduct an annual required inspection. LPA met with Executive Director (ED) Jeff Sumabat, and informed the reason for visit. LPA also met with Director of Facilty Operations (DFO) Arturo 'Art' Blancas. LPA toured the facility with ED and DFO. Facility is a 5 story building. LPA inspected the following: common areas; kitchen; dining area; salon, barber shop and wellness center on the first floor; courtyard on the 2nd floor; electrical, housekeeping and trash room on the 4th floor. Food supplies were observed good for 2 days of perishables and 7 days of non-perishables. Walk-in freezer and refrigerator temperatures were at -7 and 37 degrees Fahrenheit respectively; temperatures were checked by kitchen staff and recorded daily, and records showed temperatures were within Regulations range. Facility has emergency food suppies. LPA randomly selected 10 resident apartment units for inspection - 2 on each floors. Medication room was observed locked. Hot water temperature in one of the resident's apartment units was tested and measured at 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Facility has evacuation chairs on stairwells. Facility conducts disaster drills and records showed last conducted September 14, 2025 LPA reviewed 5 staff and 7 resident's files, and interviewed 3 residents. Doctor's orders were inspected. Facility does not handle resident's cash resources/P&I. .....continued on 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 LPA observed the following: -at 11:00 am, cleaning agent in unlocked cabinet on the 2nd floor in the servery area. -resident's (R1) bed has bed rails but no doctor's order on file. The following updated/current documents to be submitted by November 26, 2025: 1. LIC308 Designation of Facility Responsibility 2. LIC500 Personnel Report 3. LIC610E Emergency Disaster Plan (9 pages) 4. LIC9182 Infection Control Plan 5. $3M Liability Insurance certificate Deficiencies are cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 809Ds. Failure to submit proof of corrections by plan of correction due dates and any repeat violation within 12 month period may result in civil penalty. Deficiencies and plan and proof of corrections were discussed with ED. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights, LIC9098 Proof of Correction form and copy of this report provided.
2025-10-29Complaint InvestigationMixedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that two residents had a physical altercation on October 18, 2025, during which they pushed and grabbed each other; a bruise was observed on one resident's arm. The facility did not report the incident to one resident's family member until that family member contacted the facility, and the report was not answered until two days later. The investigation determined the allegation of a violation was unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence, though the incident itself did occur.
“-Based on document review and interviews, the licensee did not comply with the section above in not reporting the incident to the residents' family and not responding timely.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
S1 stated that staff, S2, reported to S1 that R1 went down to the front desk on the day of the incident. S1 further stated it was R2's family member, FM2, who sent her text message about the incident and S1 assumed FM2 reported the incident to FM1. S1 stated FM2 indicated that R1 and R2 had a fight because R2's cpap was broken. S1 stated she went to R1 and R2's apartment on 10/19/25 and observed R2's arm has bruise and that R2 reported R1 grabbed R2. ED stated the incident happened after ED was gone for the day and that S1 and S2 reported the incident to the ED that night. FM1 stated that R1 and R2 had an incident on 10/18/25, of which R2 punched R1 in the ribs. R2 admitted the physical altercation to FM1 but the incident was not reported by the facility to FM1. FM1 further stated that on the day of incident, R1 went down to the front desk and called FM1 to report the incident. R1 was crying and distraught. R1 stated having altercation with R2 and that R1 grabbed R2 in the arm. R2 stated pushing R1 during the altercation. Review of email communications revealed it was FM2 who reached out to ED on 10/19/25 regarding the incident and the email was only responded on 10/21/25. Based on information gathered, the allegation is substantiated. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date and any repeat violation may result in civil penalty. Deficiency and plan and proof of correction were discussed with ED. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights, LIC9098 Proof of Correction form and 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 S2 confirmed the incident that R1 went to the front desk staff. The front desk staff called her, and she along with the care staff, S3, went to R1 and R2's apartment. R2 broke down and admitted to calling R1 out from drinking alcohol which made R1 got out of control. S2 further stated that they facilitated R2 and told R1 to watch tv. R1 and R2 are not on hourly check and S2 only provides passing of medications to R2. S1 confirmed the incident; however, S1 was off on the day it happened. R2 admitted to having an altercation with R1 and that R2 pushed R1 in the ribs. R2 further stated R1 grabbed him in the arm which R1 admitted but R1 does not remember the date it happened. ED stated a personal companion provided by a third party was placed for R1 back in December 2024 until the family discontinued paying the 3rd party. ED further stated that R1 and R2 are not on hourly check which LPA confirmed upon review of Service Plan. Based on all the information gathered, the allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. No deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2024-10-16Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a training visit where state licensing staff provided instruction on regulatory requirements to the facility's executive director and regional operations manager. The training was conducted via presentation and discussion, followed by an exit interview where findings were reviewed with management. No violations or complaints were identified during this visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Jill Clancy-Czuleger and David Doidge conducted an announced Component III Training. Component III was attended by Jeff Sumbat (Executive Director) and Regional Vic President of Operations (VPO ) Zach Butcher. LPA Clancy-Czuleger presented the training via Power Point presentation and had a discussion with the ED and . Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided at the conclusion of the training
2024-09-30Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a phone-based pre-licensing applicant review rather than an inspection of an operating facility. The applicant and administrator confirmed they understand California regulations covering facility operations, staff qualifications, abuse reporting, medication management, complaints, and physical plant requirements. No violations or complaints about resident care were involved in this review.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
COMP II by CAB successfully completed Method: Phone Call at CAB Applicant/administrator participated in COMP II at CAB telephone call with analyst at CAB. Identification of the applicant and administrator was verified by presenting photo ID via phone. During COMP II, applicant and administrator confirmed the understanding of Title 22. Component II was successfully completed. Applicant and administrator were advised to email/fax signed LIC 809 with copy of photo ID to CAB. During COMP II, CAB analyst confirmed Applicant/Administrator’s understanding of following areas: 1. Facility operation: License type, client/resident populations, and program 2. Staff qualifications and responsibilities 3. Applicant and Administrator qualifications 4. Program policy: Abuse, admission agreement, medication management, reporting incidents to CCL, restricted & prohibited conditions 5. Grievances, Complaints, Community resources 6. Physical plant, food service 7. Application document review and technical assistance: Criminal record clearance, Health screening, Fire clearance, First Aid/CPR certificate, Administrator certificate, Financial verification, Pre-licensing inspection, Compliance history, Control of property
Other facilities in Alameda County.
Other memory care facilities in Alameda County with similar care offerings.
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.