Crescendo Senior Living.
Crescendo Senior Living is Ranked in the top 37% of California memory care with 4 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Mar 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
Crescendo Senior Living has 4 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Where are you in the process? (optional)
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 Crescendo Senior Living's record and state requirements.
The facility has 1 serious citation on file across all inspections — can you provide your corrective-action plan for the 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.
8 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 March 11, 2026 inspection resulted in deficiencies — can you provide the deficiency notice and your corrective-action documentation for each cited item?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
12 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-03-11Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
An inspector investigated a complaint about plumbing problems at the facility. Most residents and staff denied having plumbing issues, though one resident reported a pipe burst in another resident's room about three months earlier that caused flooding; the inspector found no current plumbing problems during the visit and could not confirm the earlier incident. The complaint was found to be unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
During their interview, Resident 2 (R2) denied personally having any plumbing issues in their room and was unable to confirm or deny if any other residents have had plumbing issues. Resident 3 (R3) denied having any plumbing issues and stated they were unaware if any other residents have had plumbing issues. During their interview, R4 stated their room became flooded after a pipe in R5’s room burst approximately three months, however, stated they have not had any plumbing issues since. During their interview, R5 was unable to confirm or deny if they have had any plumbing issues or if the pipe in their room burst. Three additional facility residents were interviewed and denied personally having any plumbing issues and denied having any knowledge of any other resident having plumbing issues. During the course of the investigation, LPA did not observe any plumbing issues at the facility and observed resident bathroom and bedroom floors to be free of any liquids, fluids, or puddles. During their interview, two of four staff interviewed denied having any knowledge of any plumbing issues at the facility. During their interview, Staff 3 (S3) denied a pipe bursting in any resident’s room and denied the facility having any chronic or recurring plumbing issue. S3 stated although residents’ toilets do occasionally clog, due to large wipes down being flushed the toilet, the toilets are unclogged immediately by Staff 4 (S4). During their interview, S4 denied a pipe bursting in any resident’s room and denied the facility having any chronic or recurring plumbing issue. Per S4, residents’ toilets do clog occasionally, due to large wipes down being flushed the toilet, however, stated the toilets are immediately unclogged by them personally or a professional plumber, in the event they are unable to unclog the toilet themselves. Due to the allegation being uncorroborated during interviews conducted, the Department is unable to determine if Staff does not ensure facility plumbing is in good repair . Although the above allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection.
2026-03-02Complaint InvestigationType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A state investigator visited the facility to look into a complaint and found that one staff member did not have the required training hours. The facility was cited for this deficiency. The facility was notified of the findings and given information about how to appeal.
“Based on record review, Licensee failed to ensure S1 had required annual training, This poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Kimberly Lyman conducted an unannounced case management visit in conjunction with complaint investigation #22-AS-20260224164536. LPA was greeted and granted entry into the facility and explained the reason for the visit. During the course of the investigation, LPA reviewed training records for Staff 1 (S1). S1 does not have required training hours. Based on observations made during today’s inspection, deficiency is being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report and appeal rights was provided.
2026-02-23Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility failed to provide two prescribed medications (an anti-anxiety medication and eye drops) to a resident, even though active orders were on file and staff confirmed neither medication was available. The investigation also substantiated that the facility did not adequately supervise a resident who fell four times in five days in mid-February 2026—including one fall severe enough to require hospitalization for skin lacerations—and the facility did not reassess the resident's needs or put fall-prevention measures in place despite the pattern of falls.
“Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, the Licensee did not ensure that all presribed PRN medications were present at the facility, and available to Resident #1 if needed. This poses a potential health, safety, and personal rights risk to persons in care.”
“Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, the Licensee did not ensure that Resident #1 has sufficient supervision, or a sufficent care plan, to address his frequent falls at the facility. This poses a potential health, safety, and personal rights risk to persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
LPA observed that R1's Hydroxyzine Pam 50 MG medication was prescribed on January 29, 2026. LPA observed that R1's Systane Balance 0.6% eye drops were prescribed on December 12, 2025. LPA reviewed R1's medication orders as of February 23, 2026, which confirmed both medications still had active orders. Two staff present during the visit confirmed the facility did not have R1's prescribed Hydroxyzine Pam 50 MG medication or his Systane Balance 0.6% eye drops physically present, or available to R1 if they were needed. Additionally, LPA observed the facility did not have discontinue orders on file for these two as needed medications for R1, and therefore, these medications should be available at the facility. LPA attempted to conduct an interview with R1, however, R1 was unable to be qualified for an interview. LPA attempted to conduct an additional five resident interviews. However, none of the residents were able to be qualified for an interview. Regarding the allegation, staff does not provide adequate supervision resulting in resident sustaining multiple falls, the following has been concluded: It was alleged that staff does not provide adequate supervision resulting in R1 sustaining multiple falls. LPA reviewed R1's records. LPA observed that R1 was admitted to the facility on December 12, 2025. LPA reviewed R1's resident assessment dated November 15, 2025, which states that R1 is a fall concern. LPA reviewed R1's patient visit summary dated February 13, 2026, which stated that R1 has a history of repeated falls, and is an increased risk for falls due to confusion, muscle weakness, and immobility. LPA observed that R1 has sustained four documented falls while at the facility, including on February 8, February 10, and twice on February 12, 2026. LPA observed that the fall R1 sustained on February 8, 2026, required R1 to be sent out to the hospital due to multiple skin lacerations, as well as R1 refusing first aid treatment from staff. LPA observed the three other falls did not require R1 to be sent to the hospital, however, R1 sustained skin tears as a result of the falls. LPA conducted four staff interviews. Four out of the four staff interviewed confirmed R1 has sustained multiple falls while at the facility. LPA observed that there are no re-assessments on file for R1, despite having four documented fall at the facility, to determine if there was a change in condition or if more supervision is necessary. Furthermore, there are no documented fall prevention techniques in place despite R1 having four documents falls at the facility between February 8, and February 12, 2026. Based on the evidence gathered during this investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiencies are being cited on the attached LIC9099-D. An exit interview was conducted with Director of Wellness Alex Gutierrez. A copy of the report and Appeal Rights were provided.
2026-02-03Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that staff were preventing a resident from participating in activities because of language preference. During the investigation, interviews with nine residents, the resident in question, and staff found no evidence supporting this claim—all residents reported being welcome to participate in activities regardless of what language they speak, and the facility has posted activity calendars and made accommodations like displaying bingo numbers visually to help residents of all language backgrounds participate together.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
preference of what to speak. Interview with 9 of 9 residents stated that they have never been told that they can’t speak another language at the facility. They speak the language they want when communicating with others. There are staff at the facility that speak other languages and can accommodate them when needed. It is alleged that staff are not allowing resident to participate in activities, specifically being told that resident (R1) is not allowed in any activities where they speak English. Interview with R1 stated that they do not recall that they were told they could not do activities. They do activities all the time and when needed staff help them on a 1 to 1 basis. When I do not participate in activities, I do other things here at the facility because there is a lot to do here. Interview with 2 of 2 staff stated that they do not tell residents when they can or can’t do activities because all residents are welcome to do activities when they want to. The activities calendar is posted and also printed out and available for residents to see what activities are for that day and time. Staff stated that various residents did complain that when doing Bingo, it would take longer because it was being translated in Spanish only when there are other residents that speak other languages other than Spanish. As a solution the facility has purchased a rolling TV as well as a Bingo application to display the bingo numbers largely for all residents to see. Where it no longer required for staff to say the number out loud in any language other than English. Interview with 8 of 8 residents stated that they have not been told they can’t participate in the activities regardless of their primary language. They have not had issues with doing activities. LPA toured the physical plant of the facility and observed a large posting of the activities calendar throughout the facility as well as printed copies available for residents to take with them. Based on the information mentioned above, the Department is unable to ascertain if the allegations occurred as reported. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove or refute the alleged violations occurred; therefore, these allegations are deemed Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with the Executive Director and a copy of this LIC9099 report was left at facility.
2025-12-26Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility refused to accept a resident back after a hospital stay, leaving them unable to return home. The facility's refusal to readmit this resident was substantiated as a violation. An exit interview was held with facility management and they were provided with appeal rights.
“Based on interviews and records review, the Licensee did comply with section cited above as R1 has not been issued a 30-day eviction notice and has not been accepted back to the facility following their hospital stay.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On today's date, LPA conducted an interview with ED, who indicated WD had informed them of the Department’s decision, however, R1 has not been accepted back to the facility and remains at the hospital due to Licensee refusing to accept R1 back to facility following their hospital stay. Based on interviews and records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiencies are being cited per Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report and appeal rights was provided at the end today's inspection.
2025-12-18Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that a staff member handled a resident roughly by lifting and swinging them. During interviews, the staff member and other employees said this would not have been physically possible given the resident's weight (335 pounds) and the facility's requirement that multiple staff members assist with all moving and handling tasks. The facility could not find evidence to substantiate the complaint.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
During their interview, S1 denied the allegation and stated they are never alone with R1 as it takes at least four care staff to assist R1 with ADLs, and they would be physically unable to lift R1 independently due to R1’s weight. Per R1’s Physician Report (LIC602A), R1’s weight is 335 lbs and R1 requires assistance with repositioning and transferring. During their interview, S2 stated R1 had informed them S1 had handled them in a rough manner by cradling them and lifting them up in the air. Per S2, they were unsure how the events had unfolded, but stated they were unsure S1 would be able to lift R1 as described, due R1’s weight. During their interview, S3 stated R1 had informed several staff members that S1 had lifted them by the head and neck area and swung R1 around for 10 to 15 minutes. Per S3, due to R1's size and weight, all care staff present on shift are necessary to assist R1 with ADLs, and they were unsure of how S1 would have been able to lift or swing R1 by the head and neck. Due to the allegation being uncorroborated during interviews conducted, the Department is unable to determine if Staff handled resident roughly. Although the above allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection.
2025-11-25Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine inspection found that a resident's bedroom flooded with waste water from a neighbor's toilet on at least two occasions in November 2025, and maintenance staff cleaned but did not thoroughly disinfect the carpet—waste water residue remained visible on the carpet and baseboards when inspectors visited. The resident, who had to move belongings on their own while staff were unavailable to help, was eventually moved to another room temporarily but has since returned to the same flooded bedroom where they continue to sleep on a couch. The facility's failure to adequately respond to residents' requests for assistance during the flooding and moves was substantiated, though the inspection could not confirm whether the plumbing system was properly maintained.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
R2 stated their bedroom carpet became so saturated that their feet became submerged completely upon stepping on the carpet. Per R2, the carpet was cleaned by maintenance staff however, was not thoroughly cleaned or disinfected, as waste water debris remains on the carpet and hallway baseboards. R2 continues residing in the same bedroom which was flooded. During their interview, Resident 3 (R3) confirmed that their toilet had clogged but had only caused a puddle in their room. Per R3, R2’s room, however, did flood and were unsure how extensive the flooding had been in R2’s room. During their interview, Resident 4 (R4) also stated R2’s bedroom had flooded with waste water from R3’s toilet. Per R4, carpet in R2's room was cleaned by maintenance staff however, was not thoroughly cleaned or disinfected as debris from the waste water remained on the hallway baseboard and R2’s carpet. During the course of the investigation, LPA observed waste water residue on R2’s carpet and hallway baseboard. Interviews were conducted with four facility residents regarding the allegation, Staff did not answer resident's requests in a timely manner. During their interview, R1 stated that upon being moved to another bedroom, facility maintenance staff assisted with moving their large furniture, however, were not responsive to other aspects of the move, including providing them with a chair. During their interview, R2 stated that upon their bedroom flooding with waste water on the second occasion during the week of November 17th, 2025, the carpet became so saturated they worried about water damage to their belongings and began to move items independently, as staff were unavailable to help. R2 stated that they were temporarily moved to another room on November 23, 2025, and were also not assisted by staff with that move. LPA obtained a copy of an email dated November 13, 2025, from R2’s responsible party, which stated R2 had been assisted by facility maintenance staff to move furniture and boxes, however, the email read in part, “[R2’s] room was impacted by water tonight for a second time this week due to a neighbor clogging [their] toilet with wipes… [R2] has been forced to sleep on [their couch] this week because many of [their] things are being temporarily stored on [their] bed while the fans dry the carpeting.” As of today’s date, R2 has returned to the same room which flooded and continues sleeping on their couch. During their interview, R4 corroborated the allegation and stated R2 had moved most, if not all, of their belongings on their own. Based on resident interviews and records review, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Deficiencies are being cited per Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report and appeal rights was provided at the end today's inspection. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Due to the allegation being uncorroborated during interviews conducted, the Department is unable to determine if Staff does not ensure facility plumbing is in good repair. Although the above allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore at this time the above allegation is unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted and copy of this report was provided at the end of the inspection.
2025-09-23Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A state inspector conducted a routine annual inspection and found the facility in compliance with all requirements. The inspector toured both the assisted living and memory care buildings, checked resident rooms, bathrooms, safety equipment, food supplies, medication storage, and staff and resident files, and observed residents engaged in activities and socializing. No violations were found.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Claudia Gutierrez made an unannounced visit for the purpose of conducting a Required/Annual Inspection. LPA met with Administrator (AD) Laurie Galal and Wellness Director (WD) Kim Mims and explained the purpose of the inspection. During the inspection, LPA, AD, and WD conducted a tour of the inside and outside of the facility, common areas, resident rooms, dining rooms, kitchen, and observed the following: The facility consists of a two-story building for assisted living and an adjacent two-story building for memory care. Select resident bedrooms were inspected and observed to have the required furnishings. LPA observed resident beds had linens and blankets. There are two courtyards, and each have a shaded sitting area. LPA observed residents socializing, engaging in leisure activities, such as listening to music, and resting in their respective bedrooms. Bathrooms were observed to be free of debris and mildew, faucets and toilets were operational. Water temperature tested between 109.9-119.6 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA observed the facility has a 2-day supply of perishables and a 7-day supply of non-perishable food as required by regulations. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors tested operational. Fire extinguishers which are located at the end of every hallway were observed to be fully charged with service tags dated April 28, 2025. Kitchen appliances, and laundry washers and dryers were all inspected and observed to be operable. Medication was observed to be centrally stored and locked. LPA reviewed centrally stored medication for select residents and did not observe any discrepancies. LPA reviewed eight resident files and five staff files. Files were observed to contain required documentation. LPA interviewed select residents and staff. Based on the observations made during today’s inspection, no deficiencies are being cited per Title 22 Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was left at the facility.
2025-02-19Complaint InvestigationNo findings
2024-08-26Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a pre-licensing inspection to verify that the facility had corrected issues identified during a previous visit in August 2024. Inspectors found that all previous corrections had been made, water temperatures in the memory care unit were appropriate, and the facility met requirements to operate. The facility has been cleared for licensing and will receive final approval from the state.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Claudia Gutierrez made an announced visit to the facility for purpose of conducting a pre-licensing inspection to follow up on corrections identified during visit on August 6, 2024. LPA met with designated Administrator (AD) Laurel “Laurie” Galal and Wellness Director Kim Mims. An application to operate a Residential Care Facility for the elderly (RCFE) for (210) capacity, (0) ambulatory, (200) non-ambulatory, and (10) bedridden residents was received by CCL on December 14, 2023. At 11:30 a.m. LPA toured the facility and observed the following: · Water temperatures in memory care tested between 112.2 – 115.5 degrees F. All items noted from visit on August 6, 2024 have been addressed. Component III: was conducted during this inspection, information provided about how to operate the facility within compliance and reporting requirements. The facility is ready to be licensed. The designated AD was notified that the final application approval will be issued by the Centralized Applications Bureau (CAB) in Sacramento. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was left at the facility.
2024-08-06Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a pre-licensing inspection of a new memory care facility with a capacity of 210 residents. The inspector found that hot water in the memory care unit was too warm (127.5-129.5 degrees) and needs to be adjusted to no higher than 120 degrees, with a follow-up inspection scheduled to verify the correction. Fire safety clearance and linen supplies were in order.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Claudia Gutierrez made an announced visit to the facility for purpose of conducting a pre-licensing inspection. LPA met with designated Administrator (AD) Laurel “Laurie” Galal and Wellness Director Kim Mims. An application to operate a Residential Care Facility for the elderly (RCFE) for (210) capacity, (0) ambulatory, (200) non-ambulatory, and (10) bedridden residents was received by CCL on December 14, 2023. At 2:40 p.m. LPA toured the facility and observed the following: · Water temperatures tested between 127.5-129.5 degrees F in memory care. · LPA observed fire clearance granted to indicate the approval of delayed egress in memory care. · A supply of extra linen available in the linen closet. The following corrections to be addressed by 08/26/2024: · Water temperature in memory care to be adjusted to meet regulation of not more than 120 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA will make an additional announced inspection to follow-up on corrections listed above. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to designated AD.
2024-06-14Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a telephone interview to verify that the facility's administrator and ownership understood California's licensing requirements for memory care facilities. The administrator confirmed they had read and understood state laws covering facility operations, staffing, medication handling, and general safety standards.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Facility Type: RCFE Application Type: CHOW Capacity: 210 Census (if any clients in care): 86 COMP II Participants: Laurel (Administrator), Steven (corp member) Interview Method: Telephone interview On June 14, 2024, applicant/administrator participated in COMP II. Identification of the applicant and administrator was verified through interview questions based on photo ID and other identifying personal information. During COMP II, applicant and administrator confirmed that they have read and understand community care facility licensing laws included in the Health and Safety Codes and the California Code of Regulations Title 22. Signed LIC 809 with copy of photo ID have been obtained. During COMP II, CAB analyst confirmed Applicant/Administrator’s understanding of following areas: 1. Facility operation: License type, client/resident populations, and program 2. Staffing/Medications 3. General provisions/pre licensing readiness
Other facilities in Orange County.
Other memory care facilities in Orange County with similar care offerings.
Free · Contract Decoder
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.