Marymount Villa Retirement Center.
Marymount Villa Retirement Center is Ranked in the bottom 16% on citation severity among California peers with 13 CDSS citations on record; last inspected May 2026.




99-Bed RCFE with Memory Care Services in San Leandro, reviewed on public record.

© Google Street View
Compared to 56 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
Marymount Villa Retirement Center has 13 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.
13 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
13 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 Marymount Villa Retirement Center's record and state requirements.
State records show 31 complaints filed with CDSS during the inspection period — what were the primary subjects of these complaints, and how many were substantiated by investigators?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The facility received one Type B deficiency (potential for harm) — what was the specific citation, and what corrective actions were implemented?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
With 99 licensed beds, what is your current staff-to-resident ratio on day, evening, and overnight shifts, and how does this change on weekends?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
22 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-05-15Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Continued from LIC9099. Allegation: Staff interfered with resident visitation Finding: Unsubstantiated During investigation, LPA conducted interviews with W1, W2, W3, residents, staff and reviewed R1’s documents. Review of R1’s admission agreement dated 11/13/2023 showed that the visitation hours are 7 days a week from 9AM to 7PM. S1 stated that W1 has come to the facility to see R1 but not during visitation hours. S2 stated that W1 has come to the facility at 6am or even at 8pm (not sure on exact dates). W1 stated that they have come to the facility to visit R1 but not during visitation hours due to their work schedule. W1 stated that the facility has accommodated W1 with seeing R1 not within the visitation hours. S1, S2, S3, S4, and W1 stated that R1 has a roommate. S2 stated that for all residents, if a resident has visitors but they have a roommate, the visitors are still allowed to visit them in their room, but the visitors do have a limit on how long they can be in the room out of respect for their roommate. Based upon the interviews and record review conducted during the investigation, the above allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Exit interview conducted with Bessy and a copy of report provided.
2026-01-28Other VisitType A · 3 findings
Plain-language summary
On January 28, 2026, state inspectors conducted an unannounced health and safety check and found three issues: a cabinet handle missing in a common area on level 3, a dresser and floor in disrepair in room 315, and cleaning supplies like Lysol and razors stored in an unlocked cabinet where residents could access them. Inspectors also found that hot water in shared bathrooms was measured at 95.7 degrees Fahrenheit, which is below the required temperature. The facility was given a deadline to submit corrections for these deficiencies.
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that disinfectants and cleaners like Lysol sprays, Petroleum Jelly, Razor, and A+D Ointment, were in an unlocked cabinet in the common area where residents have access which poses an immediate safety risk to persons in care.”
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that the cabinet in the common area on level 3 is missing a handle, dresser and floor in room 315 is in disrepair, which poses a potential safety risk to persons in care.”
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that the water temperature was measured at 95.7 degrees Fahrenheit in a random sample of residents shared bathrooms which poses a potential health and safety risk to persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 1/28/2026, at 11:00 AM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs), Y. Brown and P. Manalo arrived unannounced conduct a case management health and safety check. LPAs met with Dolly Rizvi, Administrator. LPAs toured the facility with the care staff including but not limited to residents' apartments, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, common area and courtyard. There are no bodies of water observed. LPAs observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. Residents’ bathrooms are equipped with grab bars and non-skid mats. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable food s. Continue on LIC809C. 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 LIC809. The Following Deficiencies were observed during visit: At 10:41 am, LPAs observed that the cabinet in the common area on level 3 is missing a handle, dresser and floor in room 315 is in disrepair. At 10:51 am, LPAs observed that there were disinfectants and cleaners like Lysol sprays, Petroleum Jelly, Razor, and A+D Ointment, in an unlocked cabinet in the common area. At 10:55 am, the water temperature was measured at 95.7 degrees Fahrenheit in a random sample of residents shared bathrooms Deficiencies are cited per Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on LIC809D. Failure to submit proof of corrections (POC) by plan of correction due date and/or any repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted with Dolly Rizvi and a copy of the appeal rights and this report provided.
2026-01-06Other VisitType A · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
On January 6, 2026, state inspectors visited the facility to investigate an incident from December 31, 2025 when a resident left the facility unattended and was later found at a shopping center; staff retrieved and returned the resident. Inspectors reviewed the resident's medical records and spoke with the resident's doctor, who confirmed the resident cannot leave without assistance. The facility was cited for violations of California regulations, and the state warned that failure to correct these issues may result in civil penalties.
“Based on record review and interviews, the facility did not meet the requirement above by staff neglecting to ensure that R1 who is a memory care resident was being supervised during group activities with assisted living residents in the common area which led to R1's elopement. There was also not a process in place to assure residents safety during activities which posed an immediate safety risk to residents in care.”
“Based on interviews, the licensee did not comply with the section above by not having sufficient and competent number of staff to meet R1's care needs. Executive Director states that staff were not aware of R1's elopement and they did not complete head counts until after the activity which resulted in R1 having eloped for approximately 40 minutes before the facility was aware which is a potential safety and personal rights risks to residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 1/6/2026 at 12:45 PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Y. Brown and A. Gomez arrived unannounced to conduct a Case Management visit in regards to an unusual incident report received 1/5/2026. LPAs met with Executive Director, Dolly Rizvi, and explained the purpose of the visit. It was reported that on 12/31/2025 resident (R1) eloped from the facility. At approximately 4:18 pm, the front desk received a call from R1's POA about R1 leaving the facility. R1 was located at a shopping center. Staff picked up R1 and brought R1 back to the facility. During visit LPAs reviewed R1's physicians report and care plan. LPAs also contacted R1's physicians that stated that R1 is not able to leave unassisted. The deficiencies were observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulation, Title 22. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted with Dolly Rizvi appeal rights and a copy of this report provided.
2025-12-29Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a follow-up investigation into a financial abuse allegation involving a resident's room charges. Investigators interviewed staff and the resident's family and found no evidence that the facility was financially abusing the resident, though they noted the resident was charged a private room rate without having requested a private room. The allegation was unsubstantiated.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Continued from LIC9099. Allegation: Licensee is financially abusing resident in care. Finding: Unsubstantiated Based on interviews with staff and W1 revealed that R1 receives monthly income from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the remaining income was provided by the family. Interview with complainant indicated that R1 was being charged private room rate when R1 did not request to be in a private room. There was a lack of evidence that licensee is financially abusing R1. Although the allegation may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . No deficiencies are being cited on this date. Exit interview conducted with Dolly Rizvi and a copy of this report provided.
2025-11-07Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On November 7, 2025, inspectors made an unannounced visit to check on health and safety conditions at the facility. They toured the building including residents' apartments, bathrooms, activity rooms, kitchen, and outdoor areas, and found adequate lighting, working grab bars and non-skid mats in bathrooms, sufficient food supplies, and medications and hazardous materials properly locked away. No violations were found.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 11/7/2025, at 2:45 PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs), Y. Brown and L. Hall arrived unannounced conduct a case management health and safety check. LPAs met with Bessy John, Care Coordinator. LPA toured the facility with the Bessy John, Care Coordinator, including but not limited to residents' apartments, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, common area and courtyard. There are no bodies of water observed. LPA observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. Residents’ bathrooms are equipped with grab bars and non-skid mats. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable foods. Centrally stored medications, sharps and toxic are locked and inaccessible to residents in care. There are no imminent health/safety concerns on today's date. No deficiencies cited during the Health and Safety visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-11-06Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found no violation of three allegations: that a resident was physically assaulted due to lack of supervision, that a resident was diagnosed with severe dehydration, and that staff failed to assist a resident with feeding. In each case, the department could not find sufficient evidence to prove the allegations occurred.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
CONTINUE FROM LIC9099 Allegation: Due to lack of supervision, a resident physically assaulted another resident resulting in injury and hospitalization Investigation Finding: Unsubstantiated The Department interviewed R1, R2, S2, S1, S3, S4, and S5. Staff reported that during lunch service, R1 was heard screaming from R1s room, and that Staff immediately responded. S4 stated seeing R2 leaving R1s room, then found R1 on the floor with blood and what appeared to be defensive wounds. Per Staff, R1 reported that R2 was in her room and in her closet when R1 attempted to stop R2, whereby both had struck the other. R1 had fallen backwards. R2 was unable to provide information related to the event. Review of a police report responding to the incident showed that there was no determination as to whether an assault had taken place or if R1 had an unwitnessed fall. R1 was immediately transferred to hospital where it was found that R1 had sustained a fracture, a cut above the eyebrow, and bruising. Hospital records indicate that R1 also had a back injury. It was indeterminate when that injury took place and it was noted that it could have been associated with R1s overall condition. A review of R1’s file did not indicate that R1 was a fall risk, and there was no record to indicate a history of falling at the facility. There was also no information to suggest that R1 had displayed a history of aggression. The Needs and Services Plan and the Physician’s report had no information to indicate that R1 needed additional supervision. A review of R2’s file indicated a history of aggression towards staff, but had no information to indicate known aggression towards other residents. There was no indication of R2 needing additional supervision, or a 1:1 caregiver. All staff interviewed stated having no knowledge of R2 having a behavior of aggression towards other residents. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. 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 CONTINUE FROM LIC 9099 Allegation: Resident In care was diagnosed with severe dehydration Investigation Finding: Unsubstantiated Interviews and record review (R1’s care notes) revealed that R1 was provided water, ensures, and juices. Charting shows that R1 was drinking the liquids that were provided to R1, however charting also revealed that R1 would on some occasions skip the ensure but would drink the water and juices provided. Interview with S1 revealed that R1 drank beverages on R1 own and was vocal about what drinks R1 wanted, and staff would provide and chart. Interview with S2 revealed that R1 loved coffee and would drink beverages on R1s own and that staff would measure intake. Interview with S3 revealed that R1 would drink beverages on R1s own and staff kept track of R1s intake. Interview with S4 revealed that R1 would drink beverages on R1s own and that staff would keep track on R1s intake. The Department obtained and reviewed R1s hospitalization report and there was no information to indicate that the resident had been dehydrated. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated . 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 CONTINUE FROM LIC9099 Allegation: Staff did not assist resident with feeding Investigation Finding: Unsubstantiated Interviews and record review revealed that R1 is able to feed self. Review of R1’s physician report shows that R1 is able to feed self. Interview with S1 revealed that R1 ate on own. Staff would prepare the food and bring it to R1 but staff never assisted with feeding. S1 stated that R1 also liked extra snacks and food and would eat on R1’s own. Interview with S2 revealed that R1 ate on R1s own and no one had to assist R1 with feeding. S2 also stated that staff would ask R1 if R1 wanted snacks and R1 would eat them all. Interview with S3 revealed that R1 would feed R1 self and staff would keep track of how much R1 ate and drank and that R1 ate normal portions and would give snacks and R1 would eat them and loves coffee. Interview with S4 revealed that R1 would eat all food in R1s room on R1’s own and that the facility provided R1 with water, ensure, coffee and tea and R1 would eat and drink normal portions. S4 stated that staff has never fed R1, R1 and without assistance. A review of the Needs & Services plan and the Physician’s report indicated that R1 is capable of feeding self. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegation is Unsubstantiated. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove it; therefore, the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. No deficiency was cited during this visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2025-10-14Other VisitType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
On October 14, 2025, the state conducted a routine annual inspection of the facility and found the building safe and well-maintained, with adequate lighting, proper water temperatures, working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and secure storage of medications and hazardous materials. The inspection identified one violation: five staff members did not have current first aid training as required. The facility was given until October 21, 2025 to submit a plan showing how it would correct this deficiency.
“Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in that 0 out of 5 staff members did not have first aid certification on file which poses an immediate health and safety risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 10/21/2025 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 By POC date, the Administrator agrees to schedule all five (5) staff members to recieve first aid training and submit documentation of scheduled training and the completion of the training to CCLD.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 10/14/2025 at 10:00 AM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) Y. Brown arrived unannounced to conduct 1-Year Annual Required inspection. LPA met with Administrator (ADM), Dolly Rizvi, and explained the purpose of the visit. The facility’s fire clearance was approved for ninety nine (99) non-ambulatory residents, of which nine (9) may be bedridden and approved for eighteen (18) hospice. LPA toured the facility with the ADM, including but not limited to residents' apartments, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, common area and courtyard. There are no bodies of water observed. LPA observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. The hot water temperature in a sample of resident's bathrooms were measured at 112.1,113.1, and 110.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Residents’ bathrooms are equipped with grab bars and non-skid mats. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable foods. Centrally stored medications, sharps and toxic are locked and inaccessible to residents in care. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detector were in operating condition during visit. Fire extinguisher all around the facility was last serviced on 10/16/2024. LPA reviewed six (6) staff and seven (7) resident records. LPA reviewed a sample of medication. Continued on LIC809C. 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 LIC809. The following forms will be updated and submitted to CCLD by 10/21/2025: LIC610D: Emergency disaster plan The following deficiency was observed: At 1:00 pm, LPA observed missing first aid training from 0/5 staff members. Deficiency was cited per Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on LIC809D. Failure to submit proof of corrections (POC) by plan of correction due date and/or any repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted. A copy of the appeal rights and this report provided.
2025-09-24Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility failed to provide a former resident's medical records to their authorized representative in a timely manner. The representative submitted a written request in early June 2025, but the records were not received until mid-August 2025—about two months later—despite follow-up attempts. The facility acknowledged receiving the request but did not respond or process it promptly.
“Based on record review and interviews, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in by not submitting requested former resident's, R1's, records to law firm in a timely manner which poses a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
LIC9099-C (Page 2) Allegation: Staff did not make resident's records available to their designated representative upon written consent Finding: Substantiated On 07/01/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) L. Alexander interviewed Witness (W1). W1 stated that on 06/04/2025, they submitted a request for R1’s file via fax. After allowing one week for acknowledgment, W1 followed up with the facility on 06/11/2025 by emailing the authorization and status request to Staff (S2) and leaving a voicemail message. W1 reported no response was received. W1 confirmed that R1 was a former resident of the facility. On 07/02/2025, LPA interviewed Staff (S1). S1 confirmed a faxed request was received but stated they were unsure which document W1 was referring to due to the volume of faxes. S1 stated that per facility policy, once a resident leaves the facility, S2 is responsible for reviewing and releasing records. LPA reviewed the following documents: Authorization to Handle Claim (05/29/2025), Authorization to Release Medical Documents (06/04/2025), Durable Power of Attorney for Financial Management (05/20/2023), Advance Health Care Directive (05/20/2023), Subpoena Request for Medical Records (06/04/2025), and the facility’s Policy for Release of Resident Records. Documentation verified that R1’s legally authorized representative was acting on R1’s behalf. On 09/14/2025, S1 confirmed the requested records had been sent. On 09/15/2025, LPA followed up with W1, who confirmed the records were received on 08/19/2025—approximately two months after the initial request. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the facility did not release records within a reasonable or timely manner. Therefore, the allegation is substantiated . LIC9099-C Continued... 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 LIC9099 (Page 3) Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted and record reviews, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegations are found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2025-08-27Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility initially refused to readmit a resident unless the family paid for private care, delaying his return from the hospital. The facility's own infection control policy states that hospital discharge or readmission should not be delayed due to COVID-19 status, and the investigation determined this policy was violated.
“Based on interview, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above for not allowing R1 to return back to the facility due to the COVID-19 status of the patient which poses a potential safety risk to the persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Continued from LIC9099. During the interview with S1, S1 stated due to R1’s diagnosis R1 needed a private caregiver to keep him isolated and would not take him back into the facility without a private caregiver. S1 had spoken with Kaiser staff and R1’s responsible party. S1 stated R1’s responsible party refused to pay for a private caregiver. On August 1, 2025, R1 had a private caregiver provided by Kaiser and was transported back to the facility via ambulance. LPAs reviewed the facility’s infection control plan. On page 17 of the infection control plan it states “Hospital discharge and admission or re-admission to a facility should not be delayed or prevented due to the COVID-19 status of the patient.” Based on LPA's information obtained during investigation, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Code of Regulations, Title 22, are being cited on the attached LIC9099D. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights provided.
2025-08-01Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that staff left two residents unattended outside the facility, and both residents then left the property unsupervised. The staff member stated they forgot the residents were outside and assumed they had gone back inside on their own, though medical records showed both residents are unable to leave the facility without assistance. The facility has been notified of this substantiated violation.
“Based on interview and record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in having R1 and R2 left unattended which resulted in residents eloping in which poses an immediate health and safety risk to persons in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
...continued from LIC9099. Staff did not provide adequate supervision resulting in residents eloping. LPAs interviewed S3 and S3 stated that R1 and R2 were fighting with each other before S3 took the residents outside. S3 stated that they left R1 and R2 outside unattended while they went inside the facility. S3 stated that they went inside to tell the front desk that they were leaving the residents outside. S3 stated that "they forgot the residents outside" and S3 stated that they thought the residents "went inside themselves." S3 stated that "R1 and R2 like to be outside by themselves." S3 stated that "the staff got busy and didn't know where the residents went." LPAs reviewed R1 and R2's Physician's Report (LIC602) and it revealed that R1 and R2 are unable to leave the facility unassisted. Based on information obtained, the allegation is SUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint is substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Exit interview conducted, appeal rights and a copy of this report provided to Bessy John.
2025-07-17Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that staff were blocking emergency exit doors at the facility, creating a fire hazard for residents. This was a repeat violation—the facility had been cited for the same problem in February 2025—and the state assessed a $500 penalty. The facility was ordered to correct this immediately and provide proof of correction.
“This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff failing to keep emergency exit doors unobstructed which posed an immediate health and safety risk to residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Based on LPA’s interviews and record reviews which were conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation(s) that facility staff block emergency exit doors presenting a hazard to residents was found to be substantiated. This is a repeat violation of Title 22 Section 87203 Fire Safety which was issued on 02/21/25. An immediate civil penalty of $500 is being assessed due to fire clearance violation. Deficiency is cited per Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on LIC9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction (POC) by plan of correction due date and/or any repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2025-04-24Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that staff refused to readmit a resident after a hospital visit because her personal bed's remote control was broken, and that staff failed to ensure the bed worked and that the resident was fed. The investigation found no violation: staff said the bed was broken but offered solutions including a rental hospital bed, the resident was sent to the hospital by family request, and when the inspector visited, the bed was working; staff also said they offered food multiple times and documented when the resident refused.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Page 2 Allegation: Staff refused to accept resident (R1) back to the facility after an emergency (ER) visit. The reporting party (RP) stated that the facility administrator (ED) refused to accept R1 back to the facility due to a bed issue. The RP stated that R1’s semi electric bed which was brought to the facility from R1’s home was broken and unless R1 is provided with a replacement bed, either a hospital bed or another semi electric bed, ED won’t admit R1 back, and that ED said R1 has not eaten in 24 hours and has become agitated because of the bed being broken. ED denied the allegation that she refused to admit R1 back. ED stated the staff reported to her on 7/17/22 that the remote control of R1’s bed was broken and that R1’s daughters (FM1 and FM2) came to the facility on 7/18/22 and R1 was agitated because of the bed being broken and would not eat. R1 can feed self but would not want the staff put pillow to elevate/raise her head and was refusing to eat that day. ED also stated that she told the hospital several times to arrange the rental bed which will take only one hour, and that they can send the bill to the facility and the facility will get paid by the responsible party. ED further stated she told FM1 and FM2 they can rent a hospital bed temporarily, but the daughters were saying the insurance would not cover 100% of the cost. FM1 and FM2 told them to call 9-1-1 so R1 was sent out. R1 may also have UTI because R1 was very agitated that day. R1 was discharged back to the facility on 7/19/ 22. R1 stated not remembering what happened to her bed. LPA observed R1’s bed was working on 7/27/22. LPA tried to reach to FM1 and FM2 to obtain information, but they did not return LPA’s call. S1 and S4 confirmed ED’s statement that the remote control of R1’s bed was broken and that R1 was agitated and refusing to eat. S1 stated R1’s bed was broken on and off and the issue reported to R1’s daughters. S1 also stated that R1 was sent out on 7/18/22 and discharged back on 7/19/22. Hospital After Visit Summary showed R1 was admitted on 7/18/22 for feeding and behavior problems and discharged on 7/19/22. Based on information gathered and LPA unable to obtain information from FM1 and FM2, the allegation is unsubstantiated. ....continued on 9099C (page 3) 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 Page 3 Allegation: Staff did not ensure that resident's (R1) bed was in working condition. S1 stated R1's bed has been on and off broken and R1’s daughters were informed and aware. Prior to the last time the bed was broken on 7/17/22, the daughter sent a motor to the facility and the motor of the bed was replaced. The bed was not a hospital bed, but part of the bed can be raised with a remote control. S4 confirmed that the remote control of R1’s bed was broken. During interview on 7/27/22, R1 was not able to provide information about her bed but stated she’s happy. LPA observed R1’s bed was working that day. LPA tried to reach to FM1 and FM2 to obtain information, but they did not return LPA’s call. Based on information gathered and LPA unable to obtain information from FM1 and FM2, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff did not ensure that resident (R1) was adequately fed. S2 stated she fed residents during her shift and if residents refused to eat, she reported to her supervisor and facility nurse who gave her instructions what to do and she followed the instructions. S2 further stated they cannot force feed the residents, and that residents have right to refuse, but she came back and offer food 2 or 3x. She documented if resident still refused. S4 stated the caregivers were feeding R1. S4 also stated that R1 knew that R1 has medications that needed to be taken with food. S4 further stated that she does not remember any incident where caregivers refused and/or didn't feed R1. R1 stated she likes to eat dinner at 5:00 p.m. and dinner is already prepared at that time but was not able to provide information if caregivers refused to give her food. ....continued on 9099C (page 4) 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 Page 4 Based on information gathered and LPA unable to obtain information from FM1 and FM2, the allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. No deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2025-04-04Complaint InvestigationMixedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
This complaint investigation found one substantiated violation: during the height of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021, the facility had inadequate housekeeping staff—only 3 to 5 housekeepers total—and some were unable to clean all resident rooms because they were also assigned to laundry. Five other allegations—about severe dehydration, failure to notify family of health changes, inadequate COVID-19 isolation, missing dentures, and missing eyeglasses—could not be proven with sufficient evidence and were closed as unsubstantiated.
“-Based on interviews, the licensee did not comply with the section above when the resident's room was not cleaned which posed personal rights risk to person in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Page 2 LPA conducted inspection on 10/14/21 and interviewed staff on 12/06/24 and 4/04/25. All three housekeepers interviewed stated that during peak of Covid-19 on 2020 and 2021, there were only about 3, 4, 5 housekeepers. Two out of this 3 housekeepers stated they were not able to clean all the residents' rooms. One of these 2 housekeepers stated that this housekeeper was also assigned to do the laundry. Therefore, the allegation is substantiated. A finding that a complaint is substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of evidence standard is met. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 9099D. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date and any repeat violation within 12 month period may result in civil penalty. Deficiency and plan and proof of correction were discussed with the ED over the phone. ED authorized Ernesto Buendia to sign and receive this report. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Right, LIC9098 Proof of Correction form and copy of this report provided. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Page 2 Allegation: Resident (R1) was severely dehydrated. - UNSUBSTANTIATED R1's family member (FM) stated that on 11/04/20, the facility called and told FM that R1 needed to go to the hospital due to the resident not eating for 2 weeks. R1's doctor told FM that R1 was severely dehydrated. The 2 caregivers interviewed stated they give water to residents. One of these caregivers stated giving water to residents 4 to 5 times during their shift. LPA reviewed the documents obtained from the facility and the Plan of Care showed R1 came back from the hospital after being treated for UTI. There was no hospital discharge document or other document indicating R1 was dehydrated. LPA tried to obtain records from FM but unsuccessful. Allegation: Staff did not notify responsible party of resident's (R1) change in health condition. - UNSUBSTANTIATED FM stated that the facility did not inform FM that R1 was not eating and positive of COVID-19. R1's doctor told FM on 11/04/20 that R1 was positive of COVID-19. LPA interviewed 4 staff (2 caregivers and 2 care coordinators) who all stated that when there's a change in resident's health condition, med-tech and facility nurse are informed who in-turn assess the resident. The med-tech or the facility nurse notifies the resident's family member. LPA also reviewed the copy of line list showing the names of residents who were tested positive of COVD-19 from 10/23/20 to 11/20/20 submitted by the facility to the Department of Public Health and provided to Community Care Licensing. R1 was not included on the list. Allegation: Facility did not ensure the COVID-19 positive residents were isolated. Six staff (2 caregivers, 2 housekeepers and 2 care coordinators) were interviewed who all stated that residents who tested positive of COVID-19 were isolated. Two of these staff stated that residents in Memory Care, because of dementia, came out of their rooms to the common area. One of these staff also stated that resident who's not positive of COVID-19 comes out to the common area. ....continued on 9099C (page 3) 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 Allegation: Resident (R1) was missing teeth from dentures. - UNSUBSTANTIATED Six staff (2 caregivers, 2 housekeepers and 2 care coordinators) were interviewed who all stated they never heard or observed any resident missing teeth from dentures. Two of these staff stated that residents dentures may gone were missing but were found in the residents clothing. LPA was not able to interview R1 as R1 had passed away prior to the Department receiving the complaint. Allegation: Resident (R1) missing personal property. UNSUBSTANTIATED FM stated that R1's prescription glasses were missing. Six staff (2 caregivers, 2 housekeepers and 2 care coordinators) were interviewed who all stated they never heard any resident missing eyeglasses. One out of 2 residents interviewed stated not losing anything. The other resident stated not losing eyeglasses. LPA was not able to interview R1 as R1 had passed away prior to the Department receiving the complaint. R1's LIC621 Resident Personal Property And Valuables was reviewed which showed eyeglasses not listed. Based on records review and interviews, the 5 allegations are closed as unsubstantiated. A finding that a complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there's not a preponderance of evidence to prove that violations occurred. No deficiency cited. The ED authorized Ernesto Buendia to sign and receive this report. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2025-02-21Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found a violation at this facility. The inspector reviewed observations and interviews and determined that the allegation was substantiated. A citation was issued.
“Based on interviews facility staff admits that fire exits were being temporarily blocked to redirect residents which posed a potential safety violation to resident in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Based on LPAs observations and interviews which were conducted, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED . California Health and Safety Code , are being cited on the attached LIC 9099D. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report provided.
2024-12-06Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On December 6, 2024, the state investigated an unusual incident report after a resident returned from an outing with family on December 1st with a broken wrist that was discovered at the hospital. The inspection found no violations; the broken wrist occurred while the resident was away from the facility with family members, not at the facility itself.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
At 12:30 pm on this day, December 6, 2024, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Delmundo arrived unannounced in response to the Unusual Incident Report (UIR) received by the Department from the facility on December 5, 2024. LPA met with Wellness Coordinator (WC) Kristinia Morgan and Care Coordinator (CC) Bessy John and informed the reason for visit. UIR indicated that on December 1, 2024, resident (R1) was out with R1's family when R1 was complained of pain in the left wrist. The family took R1 to the hospital where it was discovered that R1's wrist is broken.The UIR is missing last page (page 2) which LPA obtained from CC on this same day. LPA reviewed R1's records and obtained copies of the following documents: Face Sheet; LIC602A Physician's Report; facility notes; hospital's After Visit Summary. LPA conducted interviews. No deficiency cited on this day. WC has to leave the facility and gave permission to have CC sign and receive this report. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2024-11-19Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
An inspector made an unannounced visit on November 19, 2024 to deliver an amended report from a previous inspection in October 2024. No violations were found during this visit. The facility administrator was notified of the findings.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 11/19/24 at 2:35 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Greg Clark arrived unannounced to deliver an amended report from the visit that occurred on 10/01/24. LPA met with Administrator, Dolly Rizvi and explained the purpose of the visit. Amended report delivered. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2024-11-18Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On November 18, 2024, the state conducted a routine annual inspection of the facility and found no violations. The inspector toured the building, reviewed resident and staff records, and confirmed that safety features including fire detectors, grab bars, and locked medication storage were in place and working properly. The facility is approved to care for up to 99 non-ambulatory residents, including up to 9 who are bedridden and 18 in hospice care.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 11/18/2024 at 9:15 AM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPA) J. Clancy-Czuleger arrived unannounced to conduct 1-Year Annual Required inspection. LPA met with Administrator, Dolly Rizvi, and explained the purpose of the visit. The facility’s fire clearance was approved for ninety nine (99) non-ambulatory residents, of which nine (9) may be bedridden and approved for eighteen (18) hospice. LPA toured the facility with Wellness Coordinator Kristinia Morgan, including but not limited to residents' apartments, bathrooms, multiple activity rooms, kitchen, common area and courtyard. There are no bodies of water observed. LPA observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. The hot water temperature in visitor bathroom was measured at 110.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Residents’ bathrooms are equipped with grab bars and non-skid mats. There is a minimum of one week supply of nonperishable and 2-day of perishable foods. Centrally stored medications, sharps and toxic are locked and inaccessible to residents in care. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detector were in operating condition during visit. Fire extinguisher all around the facility was last serviced on 10/15/2024. At 10:02 am LPA reviewed 9 residents records. At 10:45 am, LPA reviewed 4 staff records and 4 of 4 were fingerprint cleared and associated to the facility. No deficiencies cited during visit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.
2024-10-01Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint was investigated alleging that staff improperly accepted money from a resident. The facility stated the money was counterfeit and that staff were reassigned. The investigator found insufficient evidence to prove whether the allegation occurred.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
S1 stated that for the protection of the staff involved the staff was reassigned to another section of the facility and that the money R1 gave the staff was a fake $100 bill. This agency has investigated the above complaint. We have found that the complaint was unsubstantiated. Although the 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 the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview conducted, a copy of this report provided.
2024-09-27Other VisitType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During an investigation visit on September 27, 2024, an inspector found a wound on a resident's right elbow about 2 inches by 1.5 inches with exposed flesh and fresh blood; staff had observed the wound but forgot to bandage it or report it to the facility nurse, and the facility was not able to explain how the injury occurred. The nurse was not notified of the wound until the inspector spoke with her during the visit. The facility has been cited for this violation and must submit a plan to correct the problem.
“-Based on observation and interviews, the licensee did not comply with the section above when staff did not attend to R1 nor call the facility nurse when R1 sustained injury which posed an immediate health, safety and/or personal rights risks to person in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
While conducting an investigation of a complaint (Control # 15-AS-20211026093939), resident (R1) showed to Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Delmundo a wound on R1’s right elbow while LPA was interviewing R1. The wound was about 2 inches x 1 1/2 inches with fresh blood, skin scraped and part of flesh exposed. LPA interviewed the staff (S6) who was assigned to R1 that day. S6 stated she observed R1's wound on the right elbow that day and that the blood was fresh. She attended to other residents and forgot to put bandage on R1's wound nor report to the facility nurse (LVN). S6 further stated does not know what happened and that it could be that R1 hit the bed rails. LPA called LVN who confirmed it was not reported to her. LVN attended to R1 after LPA spoke with her. On this day, September 27, 2024, LPA conducted a case management resulting from the above. LPA met with Wellness Coordinator (WC), and informed the reason for visit. LPA also spoke over the phone with Executive Director (ED) Dolly Rizvi. The ED gave permission to WC to sign and receive this report. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations and listed on 809D. Failure to submit proof of correction by plan of correction due date and any repeat violation within 12-month period may result in civil penalty. Deficiency and plan and proof of correction were discussed with the ED over the phone in the presence of WC. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights, LIC9098 Proof of Correction form and copy of this report provided.
2024-09-27Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that staff hit a resident and caused a fractured finger; investigators found that the resident had a fractured finger confirmed by hospital evaluation in October 2021, but could not establish that staff caused it. Multiple staff members denied hitting the resident, the resident reported staff were "good," and the resident's family confirmed the resident had aggressive behavior and dementia—no violation was found.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Page 2 Allegation: Resident (R1) sustained fractured finger while in care. On 11/02/21, LPA Delmundo interviewed S1, S2, S4, S6, and R1. S2 stated having observed R1 had purplish discoloration at one of the small fingers that on 10/24/21, and that R1 yelled out when it was touched. S2 then had R1 transferred to hospital for evaluation. All other staff interviewed was not able to provide information as to how the injury occurred. S6 stated having observed a fresh wound at R1’s right elbow but had no knowledge of how it happened. S2 and S7 were not aware of the subject incident. S1 reported being aware that the facility’s LVN observed that R1 had swelling on one of R1’s finger. S4 only stated having knowledge that R1 was transferred to hospital due to a swollen finger. R1 reported not remembering how the wound happened and did not state that there was any staff involvement. On 8/13/24, LPA Delmundo interviewed FM, who reported being aware that R1 was sent to hospital for the finger injury; and that R1 can be combative and “out of control” and “could see” R1 causing self-injury due to the behaviors. On 11/2/21, LPA Delmundo reviewed R1’s file and observed the Physician’s report indicating a diagnosis of Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance. Based on all information gathered, the allegation is closed as unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. Allegation: Facility staff hit resident (R1). During complaint intake, the reporting party (RP) stated that R1 informed the RP that R1 is beaten by facility staff. The RP further stated that RP had spoken to FM, who reported being aware that R1 needed transfer to the hospital for an injury. FM further stated that R1 is “manipulative,” “delusional,” and “paranoid”; and did not believe that staff had hurt R1, but that due to aggressive behavior R1 has hurt the staff; and that R1 showed no caution for self-safety. RP stated R1 was sent to hospital via ambulance and diagnosed with right finger fracture. ....continued on 9099C (page 3) 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 Page 3 All 5 staff (S1-S5) interviewed denied hitting residents and stated not observing any staff hitting residents. S4 stated there was an incident when R1 twisted a spoon and scratched S4. S1 confirmed R1 was sent out on 10/2021. S2 stated R1 asked S2 to check R1’s finger and S2 observed discoloration on the left pinkie and R1 was transferred to hospital; however, R1 was discharged back to the facility without the After Visit Summary. Facility’s Internal Incident Report matched S2’s statement. R1 was not able to provide information regarding the subject incident and indicated that staff are “good.” R3 and R4 declined to be interviewed. R2 and R5 stated having no knowledge of or having been aware of staff abusing any resident. Review of R1’s records showed R1 has dementia, aggressive behavior, and behavior disturbance. LPA interviewed R1’s family member (FM) who confirmed RP and staff’s statements that R1 has agitation and behavior issues. FM stated R1 was combative and hurt herself. Based on all information gathered, the allegation is closed as unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred. No deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2024-09-18Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that staff handled a resident roughly. An investigator interviewed five residents, four staff members, and a family member, and all stated they had not witnessed or heard of any rough handling, falls, or residents being dropped. The allegation could not be substantiated based on the available evidence.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Allegation: Staff handled resident roughly Unsubstantiated. During the course of investigation, LPAs interviewed residents (R), staff (S), and resident family members (W). R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5, stated that they have not witness any staff rough handle any residents at the facility nor heard any of the staff rough handle any residents. S1, S2, S3 and W1 stated they have not witness nor heard any of the facility staff rough handle any residents. All individuals interviewed stated that they have not witnessed any resident's falling, any resident being rough handled or any resident being dropped on the ground. Although the 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 the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED . Exit interview conducted, a copy of this report provided.
2023-06-20Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
An unannounced follow-up visit was conducted to check on six residents who had previously needed to be transferred from the facility. Interviews with these residents found no health and safety concerns at the time of the visit.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On this day at approximately 10:40 am, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) arrived at the facility unannounced to conduct case management visit to follow up on six residents that needed immediate transfer from Montgomery Springs Manor. LPA met with Administrator Dolly Rizvi. LPA explained to Rizvi the purpose of visit. During the visit, LPA interviewed Residents 1-6. Based on interviews conducted, there are no immediate health and safety concerns noted. A copy of this report was provided to Administrator.
25 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.
25 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.
Other facilities in Alameda County.
Other memory care facilities in Alameda County with similar care offerings.
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.



