Westmont of Carmel Valley.
Westmont of Carmel Valley is Ranked in the top 29% of California memory care with 2 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Apr 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
Westmont of Carmel Valley has 2 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.
2 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
2 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 Westmont of Carmel Valley'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.
Three 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 most recent inspection on 2026-04-07 resulted in 2 total deficiencies — can you provide families with a copy of the deficiency notice and walk through the specific corrective actions implemented for each cited item?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
8 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-04-07Other VisitType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During an unannounced case management visit, inspectors found that a staff member was working at the facility without their background clearance properly transferred from a sister facility, even though the clearance itself was valid. The facility corrected this during the visit, but the state cited this as a violation because the facility had the same problem three months earlier in March 2026. The facility was assessed $4,000 in civil penalties for the repeat violation.
“Based on LPA file review and interview, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in ensuring that a staff member had their clearance transfered prior to working at the facility, which poses an immediate health, safety, and personal rights risk to 131 out of 131 persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to the facility. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Amy Banaga and Regional Director of Residential Services Stefanie Ancheta. While conducting file review of staff records, LPA noted that a staff member (identified as S1) was not associated to the facility. Per additional LPA interview and file review, it was revealed that S1 was working temporarily at this location and associated to a sister facility nearby. Per review of the Guardian system, S1 did have an eligible background clearance, just that their clearance was not transferred over to this facility. S1 was able to be associated to this facility during the visit. One type A Deficiency is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 on the attached LIC 809-D for S1 working without having their clearance associated to the facility. A Civil Penalty is being assessed and details are noted on the attached LIC 421BG form. As a citation for the same regulation violation was assessed on 3/4/26, within a twelve (12) month period, a repeat violation Civil Penalty is being assessed and details are noted on the attached LIC 421IM. The combined amount of the Civil Penalties assessed today is $4,000.00 One Deficiency was cited during the visit. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Banaga to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 421BG, LIC 421IM, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2026-03-04Annual Compliance VisitType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine unannounced inspection, inspectors found that two staff members had been working at the facility for weeks to months without their background clearances properly transferred to the facility's records, even though the clearances themselves were valid. The facility was cited for this violation and assessed $1,000 in civil penalties; both staff members' clearances were associated with the facility during the visit. Three other staff members on site were minors working part-time in the kitchen who did not require clearances.
“Based on LPA file review and interview, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in ensuring that 2 staff members had their clearances transfered prior to working at the facility, which poses an immediate health, safety, and personal rights risk to 134 out of 134 persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced Case Management visit to the facility. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to Executive Director Amy Banaga, Residential Services Director Le Sutton, and Business Office Director Erica Saade. While conducting file review of staff records, LPA noted that five (5) staff members were not included on the facility's association roster. Further review revealed that the three (3) of those staff members were minors who worked part time as kitchen/serving staff, hence no background clearances. The other two (2) staff members (identified as S1 and S2) had eligible background clearances with previously conducted background checks, however their clearances were not transferred over to this facility. Per staff interviews, S1 had been working at the facility for a few months and S2 for a period of a few weeks. S1 and S2 were able to be associated to the facility during the visit. One type A Deficiency is being cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6 on the attached LIC 809-D for the two (2) staff working without having their clearances associated to the facility. In addition, Civil Penalties are being assessed for the total amount of $1,000.00. Details are noted on the attached LIC 421BG form. One Deficiency was cited during the visit. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Banaga to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 421BG, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) were provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of these documents.
2025-11-13Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was the facility's required annual inspection, conducted without notice. The inspector found the facility clean and well-maintained, with adequate food and supplies, working equipment and safety devices, proper medication storage, complete staff files, and no violations.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ramin Hashemi conducted an unannounced Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by and discussed the purpose of the visit to Le Sutton, Resident Services Director (RSD). The facility's license shows a maximum capacity of one hundred and thirty-eight (138) non-ambulatory residents, ages 60 and over. The facility has an approved hospice waiver for twenty (20). During today’s inspection there were 132 residents in care. LPA and Le Sutton, RSD toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected resident rooms. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were free of obstruction and slip hazards. Resident bedrooms contained the required furnishings. Doors, windows, screens, toilets, and showers were in working order. 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 Resident activities. The facility contained at least 2 days of perishable food, and at least 7 days non-perishable food, all safely stored. Cooking, dining equipment, and utensils were present. No toxic chemicals or poisons were accessible to clients. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. Per Le Sutton, RSD, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all in working order. Fire extinguisher(s) were serviced within the last 12 months. First aid kit(s) were complete and readily accessible. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. LPA interviewed staff and clients, and reviewed facility records. The files reviewed by LPA contained required documents. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Le Sutton, RSD to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.
2025-07-21Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was an unannounced visit to investigate the facility's self-reported death of a resident on July 16, 2025. The inspector toured the facility, checked on other residents, reviewed records, and interviewed staff; no safety concerns or violations were found.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[Report Amendment: Correct Census is 133 for the RCFE-licensed portion, excluding the "Casitas" on the campus which are not licensed by CCLD.] Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced Case Management - Incident visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Executive Director Amy Banaga and Resident Services Director Le Sutton, 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 07/16/2025. [See LIC 811 Confidential Names List for a description of select person identifiers used in this report]. Per the written report, R1 passed away at the facility on 07/16/2025. During today’s visit, LPA performed a brief facility tour and welfare check on remaining residents, finding no immediate safety concerns. LPA also collected copies of and reviewed pertinent records, and interviewed relevant staff. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's visit. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director Amy Banaga, 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.
2025-05-13Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
An investigator looked into a complaint that a resident wasn't getting enough food and found no evidence of a problem. The facility provided three meal options at lunch and four at dinner daily, plus three snacks and a snack station that residents could access anytime, and staff confirmed all residents' food needs were being met.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Review of R1’s medical assessment records dated March 27, 2025, revealed that R1 had a diagnosis of dementia, was confused/disorientated, exhibited sundowning behaviors, and could feed themselves but required assistance with all other activities of daily living. Review of R1’s service plan date April 1, 2025, revealed that R1 was independent with feeding but required on going care for advanced dementia that caused speech, functional, and behavioral impairments. LPA conducted a tour of the facility, during the facility’s lunch hour, to which LPA observed three different meal options being provided to the residents. LPA did not observe a lack of food for the residents. Review of the facility’s menu revealed that residents are provided three meals a day with lunch having three different entrée options and dinner consisting of four different entrée options. Interviews with staff revealed that the residents are provided a snack three times a day in addition to a snack station that residents have ongoing access to. Interviews with residents and outside sources did not reveal a concern for an insufficient amount of food to meet residents' needs. Based on interviews, direct LPA observations and records review, the investigation did not yield a preponderance of evidence to conclude that staff did not ensure quantity of food was sufficient to meet resident's needs. Based on the foregoing, the allegation is unsubstantiated. This finding means that although the allegation may have happened or may be valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Services Director Sutton, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.
2024-11-22Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was the facility's required annual inspection conducted without advance notice. The inspector found the facility clean and well-maintained with adequate staffing, proper staff training, current resident care plans, correct medication practices, balanced meals, recreational activities, and working emergency procedures—the facility was found to be in compliance with state regulations.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Renita Hall, conducted an unannounced Required 1 year Annual Visit. LPA was allowed entry by Chad Boeddeker, Executive Director. LPA identified herself and disclosed the purpose of the visit with the Executive Director and was later joined by Le Sutton, LVN. Physical Environment: The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and free from any safety hazards.Adequate lighting and ventilation were observed in all areas of the facility. All necessary safety equipment, such as fire extinguishers and emergency exits, were present and in good working condition. The facility's outdoor spaces were properly maintained and accessible to residents. Staffing and Training: The facility had a sufficient number of qualified staff members to meet the needs of the residents. The staff member was observed to be professional, courteous, and knowledgeable in their respective roles. All staff members had completed the required training and certifications per the licensing regulations. 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 Resident Care and Services: Residents' care plans were reviewed and found to be comprehensive and up-to-date. Medication administration was observed to be in accordance with the facility's policies and procedures. Residents' nutritional needs were met, and the meals provided were nutritious and well-balanced. Recreational activities and social engagement opportunities were available to residents regularly. Health and Safety: Regular health assessments and monitoring of residents' well-being were conducted by qualified healthcare professionals. Infection control measures were in place and followed by staff members. The facility had established protocols for emergencies and evacuation plans were readily available. Overall, the facility was found to comply with the licensing regulations. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with the Licensee Rights (LIC 9058) was provided to Chad Boeddeker, Executive Director. His signature on this form confirms receipt of the documents.
2024-11-19Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation looked into whether staff responded promptly to resident call buttons and whether medical care was arranged after a resident fell in the dining room. The facility's records showed staff answered 80% of call buttons within 10 minutes and 86% within 15 minutes, and while there was a brief delay of three to ten minutes before 911 was called for the resident after the fall, the delay did not affect the resident's treatment or recovery; both allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
[CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] CCLD studied the signals data for six (6), randomly selected, twenty-four-hour days, chosen from the complaint allegation period. During the surveyed days, there were a total of 227 resident pendant calls, of which 182 (or 80.2%) were answered by staff in ten (10) minutes or less, and of which 206 (86.3%) were answered by staff in fifteen (15) minutes or less. Work schedules showed that on the surveyed days, Licensee consistently utilized third-party staffing agencies, when needed, to plug/fill staffing vacancies which were not already filled internally by facility caregivers. Interviews of Medication Technicians and Caregivers showed a pattern of teamwork, communication, and clarity of expectation, as it related to responding to resident signal alerts. Staff interviews and documentation further showed that facility managers met several times per week to review and discuss signals report data, from a quality assurance standpoint. Based on the totality of records and interviews, a preponderance of evidence does not exist to show that Licensee’s staff did not timely respond to resident signals/alerts. The allegation was therefore Unsubstantiated, and no deficiency was cited for it. An exit interview was conducted with Boeddeker, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] Interviews showed: After P1 slipped and fell in the facility’s dining room, they told staff they had pain in their hip. There was brief hesitation from facility staff about whether they could call 911 for P1. Ultimately, another visitor of the facility called 911 for P1. (Interviews showed the delay being somewhere between three and ten minutes. The delay was not consequential for P1’s subsequent treatment/recovery). Based on records and interviews, the allegation that Licensee did not arrange medical care for resident in care is Unfounded, meaning it was false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. The Department has therefore dismissed the allegation, and no deficiency was cited for it. During today’s visit, LPA provided Technical Assistance (TA) to Licensee regarding CCR 87411 Personnel Requirements – General (refer to the LIC9102 page). An exit interview was conducted with the Boeddeker, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC9102 page, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.
2023-11-22Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a pre-licensing inspection of a new memory care facility. The inspector found the facility clean and well-maintained, with proper fire safety equipment, working plumbing and kitchen appliances at correct temperatures, secure storage for medications and hazardous items, and all required safety features in compliance with state regulations, and the facility passed the inspection.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an announced Pre-Licensing visit to observe the facility’s physical plant for compliance with Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations and California Health & Safety Code. LPA was greeted by, identified himself to, and explained the purpose of the visit to the applicant’s representative, Regional Vice President of Operations Maria Rossi. The facility fire clearance was granted on 10/10/2023 and reflected that the facility was approved for 138 residents in total, of which all may be non-ambulatory but none may be bedridden. The facility's fire clearance included approval for delayed-egress doors specific to the facility's memory care unit, and LPA found that such doors were compliant during today's visit. The facility's fire clearance did not include approval for secured perimeter, and that was not present during today's visit. The submitted facility sketch was consistent with the current layout of the facility. During today’s visit, LPA, accompanied by the applicant’s representative, toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected each room. The facility was clean, sanitary, and in good repair. Pathways were well lit and free of obstruction and slip hazards. Resident bedrooms allowed for easy passage and contained the required furnishings. Toilets, sinks, and showers were in working order. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was compliant at 71 degrees F. Hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents were also compliant: 1st Floor Men's Public Restroom sink was 114.1 F, 1st Floor Women's Restroom sink was 115.3 F, Memory Care Public Restroom sink was 107.1 F, Courtyard Men's Restroom sink was 116.6 F, Courtyard Women's Restroom sink was 114.1 F, Bistro/Cafe sink was 117.1 F, Activity Room sink was 116.4 F, and Lounge sink was 118.4 F. Room #102 sink was 109.2 F, Room #125 sink was 110.3 F, Room #164 sink was 109.9 F, Room #184 sink was 117.5 F, Room #202 sink was 107.2 F, Room #224 sink was 111 F, Room #246 sink was 118.4 F, and Room #260 sink was 118.8 F. [CONTINUED ON LIC 808-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] The facility has enough linens, hygiene supplies, cooking and dining supplies, and perishable and non-perishable food for resident use. All kitchen appliances were in working order. Refrigerator and freezer temperatures were also compliant: In the Main Kitchen, the Walk-In Refrigerator was 40 F, the Walk-In Freezer was 0 F, and the Ice Cream Freezer was -13 F. The Bistro Freezer was 0 F. The Medication Room Refrigerators were both 39 F. The facility has sufficient space and equipment to facilitate laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. The facility has locked areas for storage of sharp objects, medication, and confidential resident and staff records. The facility's swimming pool was secured behind a fence and locking gates meeting regulatory requirements. There were no toxic chemicals/poisons, fireplaces, or open-faced heaters accessible to residents. Per the applicant’s representative, no firearms or ammunition are or will be stored at the facility. Smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all operational. All fire extinguishers were serviced within the last twelve months. A complete first aid kit was present. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. The items reviewed were complaint with Title 22, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations and California Health & Safety Code. The applicant passed the pre-licensing inspection. LPA also provided the Component III Training during today’s visit. Rossi was advised that the facility’s application is pending management final review and approval. An exit interview was conducted with the applicant’s representative, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during the visit.
Other facilities in San Diego County.
Other memory care facilities in San Diego 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.

