Belmont Village la Jolla.
Belmont Village la Jolla is Ranked in the top 26% of California memory care with 4 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Apr 2026.

A large home, 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
Belmont Village la Jolla has 4 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.
4 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
4 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
The rules that apply to this facility.
State requirements with the exact regulation citation, plain-language explanation, and a question to ask on tour. Rules this facility has been cited for appear first.
Plain language
Because a facility markets dementia or Alzheimer's care, state law mandates higher training standards: 12 hours of initial dementia training (6 hours before a staff member works independently with residents, 6 more within the first 4 weeks), 8 hours of annual dementia in-service every year thereafter, and an administrator must include 8 hours of dementia-specific continuing education in every 2-year recertification cycle. Training must cover individualized care plans, behavioral expressions, appropriate supervision, and the facility's dementia care philosophy.
Ask on tour
“Can you show me each direct-care staffer's most recent dementia training certificate, and tell me when their next refresher is due?”
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Belmont Village la Jolla's record and state requirements.
The facility has 2 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.
Four 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.
The January 6, 2026 inspection found 4 deficiencies — can you provide the deficiency notice from that visit and walk families through the corrective action completed for each item?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
16 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-04-30Other VisitNo findings
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
(Cont. from LIC 9099) Records review of R1's physician's report revealed diagnoses of irritable bowel syndrome, and care plan revealed that R1 required assistance with changing continence products and personal hygiene. Communication logs from 04/10/2026–04/29/2026 showed frequent toileting checks, regular assistance with continence changes, and ongoing wellness checks. Review of R1's care plan notes indicated that staff reported the irritation, a follow-up medical appointment occurred, and treatment instructions were implemented. A physician’s order dated 04/27/2026 attributed the skin irritation to the resident’s gastrointestinal episode and directed increased care for R1. LPA observed R1 clean and well-groomed. LPA attempted to interview R1, however due to cognition, R1 did not qualify for further interview. Based upon the information obtained during this investigation, it is determined that the preponderance of evidence was not met to support or corroborate the allegation and therefore deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director James Arp. A copy of this report and Licensee's Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided and their signature on this report confirms receipt of the Licensee Rights.
2026-03-18Complaint InvestigationType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A state licensing analyst conducted an unannounced visit in response to the facility's self-reported medication errors on three separate dates between December 2025 and March 2026, in which residents received a second dose of the same medication the same day because the first dose was not documented in the medication record. No residents experienced adverse reactions from these errors. The facility was cited for one violation and has agreed to a plan to correct the issue.
“Based on records review and interviews, the Licensee did not ensure proper medication administration procedures, resulting in a medication error, posing a potential health and safety risk to 2 out of 195 residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA)Janet Ngallo conducted an unannounced case management visit. LPA identified herself and met with Catherine Tomboc Director of Resident Care, to discuss the purpose of the visit. Today's visit was in response to the self-reported incident reports. The incident reports dated 12/20/2025, 01/17/2026, and 03/09/2026, all involved medication errors. The incident reports received by the Department indicated that, in each of the three events, the residents involved were administered a second dose of the same prescribed medication within the same day. Per the reports, the initial medication administrations were not documented in the facility’s medication administration record (MAR). Per staff interviews, no adverse reactions were observed or reported in any of the residents involved. One(1) deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22 (refer to the LIC 809-D page). A Plan of Correction was jointly developed with the licensee. An exit interview was conducted with Catherine Tomboc, Director of Resident Care, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 9099-D page, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.
2026-02-25Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that a resident sustained unexplained injuries from neglect and was over-medicated by staff; however, the investigation found no evidence to support either allegation. The resident had advanced dementia, fragile skin, a history of frequent falls, and combative behavior that caused skin injuries, and received wound care from both hospice and facility staff multiple times weekly. All medications were prescribed and ordered by the resident's hospice provider and administered according to those orders, with dosages adjusted by hospice based on the resident's response.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
(Cont. from LIC 9099) Regarding the allegation that neglect resulted in a resident sustaining unexplained injuries, interviews did not corroborate the allegations. Interviews with facility staff and outside sources consistently described R1 as having fragile skin, a history of frequent falls, and episodes of combative and resistive behavior. Interviews stated that R1 was often combative during care, exhibited paranoia upon admission, and would swing their arms into objects, causing skin tears and often reopened previously dressed wounds. Staff reported that R1's hospice provider visited twice weekly to provide wound care, and both hospice and facility staff provided ongoing dressing changes throughout R1's time at the facility. Outside source interviews stated that R1 experienced multiple falls, and had skin tears that were not related to abuse or neglect but instead were consistent with R1’s condition and behaviors. Records review of R1's physician's report revealed that R1 had advanced dementia with recent significant progression and had a high fall risk. The report documented episodes of refusal of care, verbal aggression, and the need for fall-prevention measures. Records review of Hospice visit notes documented almost daily falls due to R1's difficulty rising from seated positions. Visit notes also documented ongoing paranoia and aggression, including an incident in which R1 struck a caregiver. No evidence supports that R1's injuries resulted from neglect. Injuries were consistent with the resident’s diagnosis, behaviors, fall history, and skin condition. Regarding the allegation that staff overdosed R1, interviews and records review did not support that staff over-medicated R1. Interviews reported that R1 exhibited significant anxiety, agitation, and aggressive behaviors, and that all medications were administered under hospice orders. Hospice ordered the facility to adjust dosages of R1's medication based on R1's response and any side effects. Interviews stated that R1 was prescribed Lorazepam for anxiety and shortness of breath, and that sedation and reduced activity were known side effects. (Cont. on LIC 9099-C pg. 1) 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 (Cont. from LIC 9099-C) Records review of the Medication Administration Record showed that R1 received lorazepam on an as-needed basis, with no more than one administration per day, and often administered non-consecutively. The prescribed order instructed staff to administer one tablet every four hours as needed. Records review of R1's hospice visit notes revealed that hospice initiated trials of certain medications to address the resident’s significant agitation and anxiety, and dosages were adjusted accordingly when sedation or other side effects were observed. R1's responsible party requested that one trial medication be discontinued, and hospice discontinued the medication accordingly. No evidence corroborates concerns that staff administered medication inappropriately or beyond what was ordered. Based on interviews and records review, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to prove that the alleged violations occurred, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided to Executive Director James Arp, whose signature below confirms receipt of these rights.
2026-01-06Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A licensing analyst visited the facility to follow up on a resident's death in December 2025. The resident was a 89-year-old who had been living independently at the facility and was in good physical health; four days after a fall with a head strike, the resident was found unresponsive in bed and could not be revived despite CPR efforts, and was pronounced deceased. The licensing review found no violations and determined the facility handled the incident appropriately.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Purpose of Visit: Incident Follow-Up – Death of Resident Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Renita Hall conducted an unannounced case management visit to follow up on an incident reported to Community Care Licensing. LPA met with the Executive Director and the Director of Resident Care and discussed the purpose of the visit. This report documents the follow-up related to the death of Resident 1 (R1). A review of records indicates that R1 was assessed on 03/26/2025 and determined to be independent and not requiring assistance. A Physician’s Report dated 04/25/2025 documented that R1 was 89 years old with a diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation (A-Fib). The report noted no physical or mental health limitations, no diagnosis of dementia, and that R1 was able to communicate needs, follow instructions, self-administer medications, ambulate independently, and transfer independently. R1 was able to leave the community unassisted and was in good physical health. 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 Facility notes dated 12/11/2025 reflect that R1 remained independent with ambulation, was physically in good condition, worked with a personal trainer once per week, required no redirection, and was actively engaged in community social activities. On 12/26/2025, records indicate that R1 experienced a fall in their apartment and struck the back of their head. No bleeding was noted. R1 was taking Xarelto, a blood thinner. Emergency services were contacted, and R1 was transported to the hospital via 911 for further evaluation. R1 was evaluated and returned to the facility the same day. Staff conducted rounds to make sure R1 was doing well. On 12/30/2025, R1 was found unresponsive in bed by their partner, who contacted the front desk. The nurse on duty assessed R1 and noted no pulse, no heart sounds, and no respirations. R1 was designated as Full Code, and CPR was initiated but was unsuccessful. Emergency Medical Services responded and pronounced R1 deceased on 12/30/2025 at 7:42 a.m. No additional information was obtained during this follow-up. Based on the information gathered, the facility appears to have acted appropriately and in compliance with applicable regulations regarding this incident. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to the Director of Resident Care along with appeal rights (LIC9058 03/22) and an LIC 811.
2025-12-18Other VisitType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A resident with dementia left the facility unsupervised in December 2025 when door alarms failed and a security guard was not at their post; the resident was found by police about a block away with a head laceration that required staples at the hospital. The facility has since moved the resident to a secured memory care unit, repaired the alarm systems, increased front entrance staffing, and plans to add tracking devices for residents at risk of wandering. The state cited this as a violation resulting in injury and assessed a $500 penalty, with additional penalties under review.
“Based on file review and interviews, the Licensee did not ensure R1 was unable to leave the facility unassisted, resulting in elopment causing serious bodily injury to R1, posing an immediate health and safety risk to 1 out of 187 residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to follow up on an incident reported to Community Care Licensing. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director (ED) James Arp. Note, LPA did step out for lunch from 12pm-1pm. Community Care Licensing received an Incident Report on 12/05/25 in which it was reported that Resident #1 (R1) had eloped from the facility during the night and had been located by police approximately a block away from the facility, and taken to the hospital. Per the report, R1 sustained a laceration to the head, which was treated at the hospital. R1's responsible party and primary care physician were notified of the incident. LPA had also received a verbal report via phone call by ED Arp same day, where additional details regarding the incident were shared. Per the verbal report, R1 had a Diagnosis of Dementia and that exterior door alarms had failed, thus not notifying staff. Additionally, per ED Arp, the security guard that was supposed to be at the front entrance where R1 passed as they left the property was not at their post, and thus did not see R1 wander away either. During today's visit, LPA conducted a health and safety visit with R1 and provided consultation with ED Arp. The facility has moved R1 to the secured Memory Care unit post hospital discharge. The facility is working on updating/repairing their exterior door alarm systems and adding additional alarms to them. Additionally, the facility has increased staff presence at the front entrance to ensure someone is present at all times. The facility plans to implement trackable devices for at-risk residents for wandering/elopement in the coming months. [Continued on LIC 809-C] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [Continued from LIC 809] Per review of R1's physician's report dated from May 2023, though R1 had no noted wandering/exit seeking behaviors, they were noted to be unable to leave the facility unassisted. Per review of R1's care assessment and service plan from November 2025, R1 required escort assistance to meals and activities due to their memory, but needed no assistance with guidance and redirection. Interviews with staff and R1's responsible party corroborated that R1 did not exhibit wandering behaviors prior to this incident. Interviews also corroborated that R1 received multiple staples to treat the laceration to their head sustained during their elopement. A type A deficiency was cited per Title 22 regulations and are noted on the attached LIC 809D. The citation is issued for the facility having been unable to meet the needs of R1 to ensure they did not leave the facility unassisted. As this is a violation that resulted in an injury to an individual in care, a Zero Tolerance Violation Civil Penalty is being assessed in the total amount of $500.00 and details are noted on the attached LIC 421IM. Additional Civil Penalties are under review by the Community Care Licensing (CCL) Department and may be assessed at a later date. A Technical Violation (TV) was also issued due to an accessible body of water located in the outdoor patio area of the ground floor. LPA explained the risks of residents who require additional supervision being around such fixtures. One deficiency was cited during the visit and one TV. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Arp to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2025-12-18Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A resident with dementia who requires constant supervision wandered out of the facility on December 17, 2025, through an unsecured side door and gate, and was found by the fire department at their station. The facility's records showed the resident needed escorts and frequent checks due to confusion and a history of attempting to leave, but external doors and the gate were not alarmed during daytime hours and staff did not notice the resident leave. The state substantiated the complaint, finding a lack of supervision, and assessed a $500 civil penalty.
“Based on file review and interviews, the Licensee did not ensure R1 was supervised as needed, resulting in elopement, posing an immediate health and safety risk to 1 out of 187 residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[Continued from LIC 9099] On 12/17/25, the Department received an incident report from the facility regarding the elopement of R1. Per the report, the facility had received a phone call from the fire department that the resident was at their fire station. The fire department transported R1 to the hospital for evaluation and was discharged back to the facility same day with no noted injuries. Per interview with administrative staff, after review of facility camera footage, it was determined that R1 had wandered alone from their unit to the ground floor common area and eloped through a side door by the cafe into the fenced in patio area outside. R1 then exited through the gate leading from the patio to the front entrance and street where staff did not notice R1 wander away. Per administrative staff interview, the external doors and gate were not alarmed during the day. Per review of R1's records, R1 is diagnosed with Dementia and is unable to leave the facility unassisted. Per R1's assessment and service plan dated November 2025, R1 required escorts while going to meals and activities due to confusion. Additionally, the service plan stated that R1 required redirection and guidance, which is noted to be done through the use of frequent "eyes-on" checks. R1 is also noted to have a score of two (2) on their wander risk, and a comment that R1 "likes to walk outside in the neighborhood at home." Interview with R1's spouse revealed that R1 had attempted to wander off the facility once before but that staff immediately saw and redirected them back into the property. Based on LPA's review of records, interviews with staff, residents, and outside sources, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. A deficiency is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 on the attached 9099D. As this is a violation pertaining to absence of supervision, a Zero Tolerance Violation (ZTV) Civil Penalty is being assessed. The Civil Penalty is being assessed in the total amount of $500.00 and details are noted on the attached LIC 421IM. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Arp to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2025-11-21Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a file review and investigation visit prompted by multiple allegations against the facility. Investigators found that while a resident made complaints about slow staff response to call buttons and inadequate incontinence care, evidence from staff interviews, call logs, outside medical professionals, and other residents did not support these claims—call button logs showed most calls were answered within 25 minutes, and a medical professional found no physical evidence the resident had been left in soiled conditions for extended periods. The facility also appropriately followed eviction procedures when the resident engaged in abusive behavior toward staff and other residents.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[Continued from LIC 9099] On April 21st, 2025, R1 was given a 30-day notice from the facility due to failure to follow facility rules, specifically for engaging in verbal abuse against staff and other instances of disruptive behavior in common areas. Initially a cease and desist, dated March 7th, 2025 was provided to R1, however R1's behaviors continued, and the facility issued the 30-day notice. An appeal meeting with R1 was held May 27th, 2025 and on June 6th, 2025 the facility provided R1 with a notice of the denied appeal and an unlawful detainer was filed. File review of over ten (10) staff member statements throughout April and May 2025 revealed a pattern of racial and derogatory statements being made by R1 towards staff. Staff interviews corroborated abusive behavior by R1, as well as multiple outside sources interviewed. The facility followed regulations regarding eviction procedures and failure to adhere to facility policies falls under the list of valid reasons for evictions, per regulation 87224. Regarding the allegation of staff not preventing the development of R1's pressure injuries, review of R1's physician's report (dated September 2024) revealed R1 had no history of skin condition or breakdown and that R1 did not require continuous bed care. Interview with administrative staff revealed R1 had a history of pressure injuries and even had one prior to move in, which delayed R1's official move in as the facility requested the injury be treated and resolved before moving in. Review of R1's medical documents do note a history of stage 1 pressure injuries since 2020. Records reviewed revealed Home Health and Hospice treatment for R1's recurring pressure injuries from 2024-2025. Per staff interviews, though R1 was not formally bed bound (R1 is noted to be non-ambulatory on their physician's report) they spent most of their time in bed. Two (2) staff interviews corroborated that R1 had periodic sores in their genital area and facility staff would assist with applying ointments to the affected area(s) per instruction from Home Health. Home Health visit records note instructions for facility staff in care for the wounds. Interview with an outside source medical professional revealed that R1's diagnosed condition of Renal Disease contributes to the development of the pressure injuries. This interview also corroborated that facility staff assist in care for the injuries and keep the area clean. [Continued on LIC 812-C] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [Continued from LIC 812-C] Regarding the allegation of staff not ensuring R1's incontinence care needs are being met, this is also entwined with the allegation of staff not answering R1's pendant calls in a timely manner. Per the complaint, R1 would regularly wait over an hour and a half for staff to respond to their pendant calls and that R1 has sat in their feces for nearly four hours before staff changed their briefs. Multiple staff and outside source interviews revealed that R1 tends to "exaggerate" their claims on how long it takes to be tended to, when in reality it's only been several minutes. Two (2) staff interviews revealed that R1 specifically calls around shift changes in order to know who is working. Per staff interviews, during shift changes there is a brief staff meeting to pass over information, which then can cause a slight delay in responding to calls during that time. Staff interviews revealed that as R1 is a two (2) person assist, it can take additional time for a secondary staff member to assist on a call if they are assisting someone else at the moment, one (1) mentioning that it on average takes up to 20 minutes to assist R1. The outside source medical professional interviewed revealed that there was no physical indication of R1 having been sitting in their stool for long periods of time as it would've been apparent on R1's pressure injuries. This interview also revealed that as R1 is fully incontinent, they cannot feel when they have had a bowel movement. Other residents interviewed revealed no concerns about the timeliness of staff responses to pendant calls or the speed of incontinence care. File review of R1's Needs & Services plan reveal that staff provide 3-4 brief checks per shift. File review of call button response logs for R1 for a span of three (3) months reveal that R1 utilized their call button on average ten (10) to fifteen (15) times a day and that the majority of calls were resolved within 25 minutes. However, on several occasions response times exceeded an hour, with two (2) being over 2 hours. Based on interviews and records review, while the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred – therefore the allegations have been determined to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Arp to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2025-10-08Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On July 20, 2025, a resident fell and was found with a head laceration and leg swelling; emergency services took them to the hospital where they were treated for a broken neck, broken nose, and broken ankle. The facility notified the resident's family and doctor and responded appropriately to the incident. The resident has since passed away, and no violations were cited during the follow-up visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to follow up on an incident reported to Community Care Licensing. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director James Arp and Assistant Executive Director Donnie Johnson. Community Care Licensing received an Incident Report on 8/6/25 in which it was reported that on 7/20/25 staff responded to a resident fall. Per the report, the resident, identified as R1, was found sitting on the floor with a laceration to the head and a bruise with swelling on the right lower extremity. Emergency services were contacted and R1 was taken to the hospital where they were treated for a C2 fracture, nose fracture, and right ankle fracture. R1's Responsible Party and Primary Care Physician (PCP) were notified. During today's visit, LPA conducted file review, interviews, and provided consultation with Executive Director Arp. A health and safety visit with R1 could not be conducted as R1 has since passed away. No Deficiencies were cited during the visit as the facility responded accordingly and appropriately. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Arp to whom a copy of this report was provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of this document.
2025-10-08Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A licensing analyst visited the facility on an unannounced inspection to present an amended report from a complaint investigation conducted on August 8, 2025. The executive director reviewed and signed the amended report. The facility was provided copies of the amended report and information about appeal rights.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to offer an Amended Report for a complaint visit conducted on 8/8/2025. LPA met with Executive Director (ED) James Arp and Assistant Executive Director Donnie Johnson and informed them of the purpose of LPA's visit. During today's visit, LPA obtained Executive Director Arp's signature on the amended report LIC 9099 (10/8/2025). ED Arp was also provided a copy of the amended report. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Arp to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2025-07-25Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a routine annual inspection of the facility on April 27, 2026, which found the building clean and in good repair, with properly functioning safety systems including fire sprinklers, emergency lighting, and smoke detectors. Inspectors checked resident rooms, dining and activity areas, medication storage, food supplies, and pool safety procedures, and found no deficiencies. Staff interactions with residents were respectful and responsive, and all required licensing documents and postings were in place.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced, required Annual Inspection. The facility file and personnel report was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Associate Executive Director (AED) Donnie Johnson. The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of 220 non-ambulatory residents, of which 100 may be bedridden. All rooms are approved for bedridden and the facility is approved for delayed egress on floors 2, 3, 4, and 5. Additionally the facility has an approved hospice waiver for 20. During today’s inspection there were 171 residents in care. LPA, accompanied by AED Johnson and Building Manager John Miller, toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected common areas as well as a sample of occupied and unoccupied resident rooms. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Client bedrooms inspected contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. Hot water temperature at taps accessible to clients were all compliant: Bathroom sinks tested on floors 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 16 temped at 106.6, 105.2, 105, 105, 108.6, 105.2, and 106.5F, respectively. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present, as well as Personal Protective Equipment. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and client activities. The facility contained at least two (2) days of perishable food, and at least seven (7) days non-perishable food, all safely stored. Kitchen staff demonstrated precautions taken for dietary restrictions. Cooking, dining equipment, and utensils were present. Knives were stored in areas inaccessible to residents. [Continued on LIC 809-C] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [Continued from LIC 809] No toxic chemicals or poisons were accessible to clients. Laundry areas were noted to be locked or if they were in use and doors opened, staff were present to monitor. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. Med room staff demonstrated to LPA medication administration procedures and LPA also observed med room staff pass medications to residents. A pool exists on the premises. LPA observed the pool to have a surrounding gate per regulation and gates noted to be secured. Per interview with AED Johnson and Building Manager Miller, only staff have keys to the gates and residents who check out keys are monitored by staff while in the pool area. Per AED Johnson, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, fire sprinkler system, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all in working order. Fire extinguishers were serviced within the last 12 months. Most recent emergency drill conducted with staff was held on 6/26/25 for the topics of earthquakes and fires. First aid kit was complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. LPA observed residents engaged in facility led activities, particularly in the Connections for Living and Memory Care units. Various calendars and postings throughout common areas of the facility noted various scheduled activities and events. LPA observed various staff and resident interactions throughout their visit and noted residents to be attended to quickly and treated with respect. LPA interviewed 2 staff and 2 clients, and interviews did not reveal any licensing or regulatory concerns. LPA reviewed facility records. The files reviewed by LPA contained required documents. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. LPA did provide a Technical Assistance for best practices on ensuring 1st Aid/CPR Certificates were current and valid. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Associate Executive Director Johnson to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2025-05-22Other VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
On May 21, 2025, a resident received another resident's medications by mistake; staff noticed the error and reported it, the resident was assessed by a nurse and taken to the hospital for evaluation, and was cleared to return the same day. The facility's family and the resident's doctor were notified. A follow-up inspection found a deficiency related to medication handling.
“Based on file review and interviews, the Licensee did not ensure proper medication administration procedures, resulting in a medication error, posing a potential health and safety risk to 1 out of 166 residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to follow up on an incident reported to Community Care Licensing. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director (ED) James Arp and Assistant Executive Director (AED) Donetta Johnson. Community Care Licensing received an Incident Report on 5/21/25 in which it was reported that Resident #1 (R1) had been given another resident's medications by Staff #1 (S1). Per the report, once S1 noticed the error, they reported to the nurse on duty, who performed an assessment on R1. R1 experienced a change in condition and emergency services were called. R1 was evaluated by medical personnel in the hospital and cleared to return back to the facility the same day. R1's Responsible party and Primary Care Provider (PCP) were notified of the incident. During today's visit, LPA conducted file review, a health and safety visit with R1, and provided consultation with ED Arp and AED Johnson. A Deficiency was cited during the visit. An exit interview was conducted with ED James Arp to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2025-03-13Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A state licensing official visited the facility to obtain signatures on an amended form related to facility management and ownership. The visit was administrative in nature; no violations or complaints were investigated. The facility's leaders were provided copies of the visit report and information about their licensing rights.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Sabel Martinez conducted a case management visit to obtain signatures and deliver an amended 9099D form. The LPA met with Assistant Executive Director Donnie Johnson, introduced himself and disclosed the purpose of the visit. Executive Director James Arp arrived during the visit. During the visit, the LPA secured signatures and delivered an amended 9099D form. An exit interview was conducted with Johnson and Arp, to whom a copy of the this report, and Licensee Rights (LIC 9058), were provided via email.
2025-01-29Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A licensing inspector visited the facility on an unannounced basis to investigate a death that the facility reported in January 2025. The inspector toured the facility, interviewed staff, and reviewed records, but found no violations or immediate health and safety concerns.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Sabel Martinez conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. The LPA introduced himself and discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director James Arp. Nursing Director Cat Tomboc and Assistant Executive Director Donnie Johnson assisted the LPA during the visit. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624A Death Report, which the licensee self submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 1/28/2025). [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of Resident # 1 (R1).] During today’s visit, the LPA conducted a tour of the facility, conducted interviews, and collected pertinent records. A death certificate for R1 was also requested during the visit. No immediate health and safety concerns were observed during today's visit and no deficiencies were cited. An exit interview was conducted with Johnson, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058), were provided.
2024-07-31Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
During an unannounced annual inspection, the facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and properly stocked with food and supplies, with all tested safety systems working correctly. No deficiencies were cited during this portion of the inspection. The inspection will continue on another day to complete the full review.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Sabel Martinez conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The LPA introduced himself and disclosed the purpose of the visit to Director of Resident Care Services, Cat Tomboc. The facility was licensed for a capacity of two hundred twenty (220) non-ambulatory residents, of which one hundred (100) may be bedridden. The facility was also approved a hospice waiver for twenty (20) residents. Floors # 2, # 3, # 4, and #5 were approved for delayed egress. A secured perimeter was also approved. The LPA, accompanied by staff, toured the interior of the facility. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstructions and slip hazards. Residents bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. Pull cords were tested randomly to confirm the signal system in different floors was operational. Sufficient space was observed for resident activities, meetings, visitation, and laundry. There was at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food present, all safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment, utensils, and emergency supplies were present. There were no toxic chemicals/poisons accessible to clients, and medications were labeled, and stored in a locked area. The LPA reviewed resident and staff records. Due to time constraints, a continuation visit on a subsequent day is necessary to complete the annual inspection. No deficiencies were observed, nor cited on today's date. An exit interview was conducted with Director Tomboc, to whom a copy of this report, and Licensee/Appeal Right (LIC 9058), were provided.
2024-02-05Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
The state conducted an unannounced visit on January 31, 2024, to investigate the facility's self-reported death of a resident on January 30, 2024, and two incident reports from earlier that month. The inspector reviewed records, interviewed staff, toured the facility, and checked on the remaining residents, finding no safety concerns and citing no violations.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Amy Rodgers conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Resident Service Director Cat Tomboc during the visit. Today's visit was in response to licensee’s self-reported death of Resident #1 (R1), received at the CCLD San Diego Regional Office on 01/31/2024 as well as self-reported incident report received at the CCLD San Diego Regional Office on 1/15/2024 and 1/31/2024. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1]. Per the self-reported death document, R1 passed away on 01/30/2024. During today’s visit, LPA performed a brief facility tour and welfare check on remaining residents, finding no safety concerns. LPA also collected copies of and reviewed pertinent records and interviewed relevant staff. The Death Certificate was also requested during the visit. No deficiency was cited at the time of the visit. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Service Director Cat Tomboc, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report, the LIC811 and the Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 01/16).
2023-08-30Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
The facility was inspected in response to a report that a resident left the facility without staff supervision on August 24, 2023 and returned unharmed the same day. The facility had a written plan in place for notifying staff if this resident left, and staff followed the plan correctly. No violations were found during the inspection.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with executive director James Arp and director of resident care Cat Tomboc. Today's visit was in response to an LIC624 Incident Report, which licensee self-submitted to the CCLD San Diego Regional Office (received on 8/25/2023). According to the LIC624: on 8/24/2023, Client #1 (C1) eloped from the facility (left without staff supervision). [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of C1.} C1 returned to the facility unharmed on 8/24/2023. During today’s visit, LPA performed a facility tour / welfare check, collected records, and interviewed C1 and staff. According to C1’s latest LIC602 Physician’s Report (dated 6/29/2023) their doctor determined that C1 was not able to safely leave the facility unassisted. Interviews and records showed that Licensee had a written Absentee Notification Plan as part of C1’s record of care, and that staff followed this plan. No deficiencies were cited for this incident. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Tomboc, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC811 Confidential Names List, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.
4 older inspections from 2022 are not shown in the free view.
4 older inspections from 2022 are not shown in the free view.
Other facilities in San Diego County.
Other memory care facilities in San Diego 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.
