Everest at Oceanside.
Everest at Oceanside is Ranked in the top 13% of California memory care with 1 CDSS citation on record; last inspected Jun 2026.

A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 123 California facilities with a similar number of beds.
RCFE · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: California Dept. of Social Services · Community Care Licensing.
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 · FREE
Everest at Oceanside has 1 citation on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Where are you in the process? (optional)
Citation history, plotted month by month.
1 deficiency on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
1 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 Everest at Oceanside's record and state requirements.
The facility holds 175 licensed beds and is operated by Everest Oceanside Blessing Star — can you provide the current license document showing the expiration date and any conditions attached to the license?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
No inspection reports are on file with CDSS as of May 2026 — can you explain when the facility opened, and provide documentation of the initial licensing inspection that would have been required for operation?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The facility is not formally designated for memory care in CDSS licensing records — if you serve residents with dementia, can you provide the written dementia-care program required by California Title 22 §87705?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
9 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-06-04Other VisitNo findings
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 Receptionist Betty Oyanguren and Business Office Manager Sydney-Ann Recce. Community Care Licensing received an Incident Report on 6/4/26 in which it was reported that on 6/2/26, a Resident (identified as R1) had made multiple sexual advances on a housekeeper who was attending to R1's unit. Per the report, the facility held a meeting with the resident to address the behavior, along with notifying R1's primary care physician for request of a reassessment in order to see if the Assisted Living unit remains appropriate for R1's level of care. Additionally, housekeeping protocols have been temporarily modified for R1's unit in order to aid in staff safety. During today's visit, LPA consulted with Business Office Manager Recce about R1's care/supervision needs and the facility's plan moving forward. At this time, LPA observed no health and/or safety concerns and no deficiencies were cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Business Office Manager Recce to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided . Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2026-04-23Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
A resident fell at the facility on April 15th, sustained a head laceration and internal bleeding requiring stitches and a blood transfusion, was hospitalized, and passed away on April 19th after being admitted to hospice care. The facility called emergency services promptly when the fall was discovered and arranged appropriate medical attention. The state inspector found no violations or immediate health and safety concerns during this follow-up visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angelica Boyles conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to follow up on a resident death reported to Community Care Licensing. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Sydney Recce, Business Office Director. Community Care Licensing received a Death Report on 4/22/26 in which it was reported that Resident #1 (R1) had passed away on 4/19/26 at the facility, following a hospitalization from a fall at the facility on 4/15/26. Per the report, R1 had an unwitnessed fall and was found by care staff and promptly called for emergency services. Per th e report, R1 sustained a laceration to bridge of nose and forehead which required stitches in addition to needing a blood transfusion. Upon being discharged back to the facility, R1 was admitted to hospice services. [See LIC811 Confidential Name List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report.] During today's visit, LPA conducted a file review. The facility is currently awaiting the death certificate and will forward to the Department once received. Per LPA file review and interviews, the facility responded appropriately by arranging for prompt medical attention for R1 upon notification of incident. At this time, LPA observed no immediate health or safety concerns and no deficiencies were cited during today's visit. Additional visits and follow-up may be necessary for complete review of this incident based on additional information from the Death Certificate once obtained. An exit interview was conducted with Sydney Recce, Business Office Director to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2026-03-24Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that resident records were left unattended in the facility's copy room. The Department investigated on two visits in February and March 2026 and found that the copy room is only accessible to staff through locked doors and that staff denied leaving records unattended; investigators found no evidence that records were ever left in areas accessible to residents or visitors. The complaint was not substantiated.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Generally, resident records were only removed for Department review, to make copies of documents for reporting purposes, or to update resident care charting. Staff stated that when resident records needed to be copied, they would be taken to the facility’s copy room. Staff denied any knowledge that resident records were ever left unattended in the facility’s copy room, however evidence collected during the investigation contradicted these claims. Interviews stated that the copy room is only accessible to facility staff, and LPA observations during on-site visits on 2/20/2026 and 3/24/2026 determined that the copy room could only be accessed through the CDR's office located behind the receptionist desk or via a locked door in a common hallway. Interviews with staff confirmed that the hallway door was locked and only accessible via a key and that all staff had a key to the copy room. The Department’s investigation did not reveal any evidence that resident records were left in areas commonly or easily accessible to residents, visitors, or any other individuals without the presence of facility staff. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and observation, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with CDR Yadi Moreno, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22).
2025-12-15Annual Compliance VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection found that a staff member used rough handling during incontinence care and received a written warning and retraining on abuse prevention; no other incidents of rough handling were found during interviews with staff and residents. A separate allegation that staff members yelled or cursed at residents was not substantiated, as residents described staff as pleasant and helpful, and no evidence of such behavior was found.
“Based on interviews and records review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that R1 was physically forced to sit down, which poses a potential personal rights risk to 115 of 115 residents.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Interviews with staff and review of staff personnel records revealed that S1 was temporarily placed on disciplinary leave while the facility conducted an internal investigation, and S1 ultimately received a written warning and retraining on abuse and providing incontinence care to residents. Interviews with staff and residents did not disclose any other incidents of rough handling by staff. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of the evidence has been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed substantiated. The following deficiency is cited per CA Code of Regulations Title 22 and noted on the attached LIC9099-D page. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Jill McDonald, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22). 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 Residents stated that staff were pleasant, considerate, and helpful and did not disclose any concerns or complaints regarding staff interactions. Interviews with staff did not reveal any complaints of staff behaviors or any staff that received disciplinary action for yelling or cursing towards residents. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on interviews, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Jill McDonald, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22).
2025-12-15Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A resident complained about mold in their apartment in July 2025, and the facility offered to relocate them and hired a professional mold testing company. The professional testing found no mold contamination or water damage, though the spore count was slightly elevated; the inspector did not observe mold, mold odors, or wet flooring during the visit, and the carpet was later replaced and the foundation cleaned. This complaint was found to be unsubstantiated.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Interviews revealed that R1 notified facility management of their concerns about the mold sometime in late July 2025 and management offered to relocate R1 to another apartment in the facility at no cost to R1. While interviews provided conflicting information for R1 not relocating to the other apartment, interviews and LPA observation during on-site visit on 8/12/2025 revealed that R1 was not relocated to an alternative apartment until 8/12/2025. Interviews with staff and R1 revealed that facility staff tested R1’s carpet using mold test kits purchased at a local retailer and those tests did not show any mold present in R1’s carpet. However, R1 insisted on having a professional company test R1’s apartment for mold, which was scheduled for 8/12/2025. Interviews with staff revealed that following the mold testing, the facility planned on removing R1’s carpet, sanitizing the foundation, and installing non-absorbent plank flooring. Facility management stated that R1 would be relocated to a different apartment on 8/12/2025 to allow for the construction. During the on-site visit on 8/12/2025, LPA Borunda was able to tour R1’s apartment and observe the mold testing conducted in R1’s apartment by the professional mold company. LPA did not observe any mild or strong odors to be present in R1’s kitchen, living room, bedroom, closet, or bathroom. Additionally, LPA did not observe any damp or wet flooring in R1’s apartment. LPA did observe multiple carpet discolorations in R1’s apartment, but, those discolorations did not have any odors, specific coloring, or a clear cause. Review of the inspection report from the mold company revealed that the testing revealed no evidence of mold contamination or water related damage in R1’s bedroom, bathroom, or closet. Additionally, the testing did not reveal any evidence of a leaking pipe or water in the foundation. The report did note that spore count inside R1’s apartment was higher than the outside spore count, which was uncommon, however, the report stated that there are no current state or federal regulations governing mold and indoor air quality. The report also stated that the higher levels could be due to a hidden source, older carpet, dust buildup, or the presence of a small pet. Interviews with staff revealed that the carpet was replaced and the foundation was cleaned and disinfected prior to R1 returning to their room sometime by end of September 2025. The Department has investigated the above-mentioned allegation and based on observation, interviews, and records review, the preponderance of the evidence has not been met, therefore, this allegation is deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Jill McDonald, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22).
2025-11-17Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a required annual inspection visit that could not be completed in a single day, so the inspector will return for a follow-up visit to finish the review. No violations were found during the portion of the inspection that was conducted today. The facility's executive director received a copy of the report and was informed of appeal rights.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced Required 1-Year visit. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Activities Director Karie Winchester. Executive Director Jill McDonald arrived during the visit. During today's visit, LPA toured the facility, reviewed facility records, and observed residents in care. Due to time constraints, the annual inspection could not be completed and a return visit on a subsequent day is needed.LPA was away from the facility for approximately one hour between 12:15pm and 1:15pm. No deficiencies were cited on today's date. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Jill McDonald, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).
2025-11-13Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
An unannounced management visit was conducted where the analyst provided guidance on appeal rights, processes, and civil penalty payment procedures. No violations were found during this visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced case management visit. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Chief Information Officer (CIO) Jane Owens. During today’s visit, LPA provided CIO Owens with guidance regarding the appeal rights, process, and timelines, and guidance regarding civil penalties payment. No deficiencies were cited on today’s date. An exit interview was conducted with CIO Jane Owens, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).
2025-10-20Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
The facility reported an incident between a resident and staff member that occurred on October 17, 2025, and the state conducted an unannounced visit on that basis. The inspector observed residents, checked health and safety conditions, and reviewed records but found no violations. No deficiencies were cited.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Borunda conducted an unannounced case management visit regarding a self-reported incident. LPA was greeted by, identified herself to, and explained the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Jill McDonald. On 10/17/2025, the Department received a self-reported incident report from the licensee that described an incident that occurred between Resident 1 and Staff 1. [Executive Director was provided with LIC811 Confidential Names List to identify individuals] During today’s visit, LPA conducted a health and safety check, observed residents in care, and reviewed facility records. No deficiencies were cited on today’s date. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Jill McDonald, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).
2024-10-25Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a pre-licensing inspection of a new memory care facility with 175 total beds across one main building and two separate memory care units. The inspector toured all areas including resident rooms, bathrooms, kitchens, and common spaces, and found the facility clean, safe, and in good repair with properly functioning safety equipment, secure chemical and medication storage, and adequate food supplies. No violations were found, and the facility is recommended for licensing.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Rebecca Ruiz conducted an announced Pre-Licensing visit. LPA was met by Applicant Ferlina McBride and was granted entry into the facility. The purpose of today's visit is to inspect the facility to ensure that it is in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6. The fire inspection was completed on 10/17/2024 and the facility is approved for a total of 175 residents, 127 may be non-ambulatory and 48 may be bedridden. The facility is has one main building and two separate memory care buildings, and the facility is approved for delayed egress in the two memory care buildings. The facility has an approved hospice waiver for 50 residents. During today's visit, LPA toured the facility and inspected each building, including common areas, main kitchen, dining areas, common bathrooms and a random sampling of resident apartments and private bathrooms. The facility was found to be clean, safe, and in good repair with no pathway obstructions and was kept at a comfortable temperature. Common and private bathrooms were observed to be clean and the toilets and showers were found to be in working order. The facility's water temperature was randomly sampled in common and private bathrooms in each building and the temperatures were measured between 105 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA observed locked storage areas where all hazardous and/or toxic chemicals were stored and secured. LPA observed locked storage for resident medications. Fire extinguishers were observed throughout the facility and found to be in compliance. Functioning carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors were observed in the facility. No bodies of water were observed on the premises. LPA observed a 7-day supply of non-perishable food and a 2-day supply of perishable food located in the facility's main kitchen. Required postings were observed in the lobby of the facility. LPA reviewed facility’s Infection Control Plan, Emergency Disaster Plan, and a random sampling of resident and staff files. Continued on LIC809-C page... 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 Component III with the applicant. The topics discussed were continuing operation requirements, record keeping/reporting, and physical plant compliance. LPA was away from the facility for approximately one hour between 12:20pm and 1:20pm. Pre-licensing is complete, and this facility has no deficiencies. It is recommended that this facility be licensed pending final review and approval. An exit interview was conducted with the applicant, whose signature below confirms receipt of a copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC9058 3/22).
Other facilities in San Diego County.
Other memory care facilities in San Diego County with similar care offerings.
Free · Full Inspection Record
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.

