California · Santa Cruz

Westwind Memory Care.

Westwind Memory Care is Ranked in the top 24% of California memory care with 2 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Dec 2025.

RCFE · Memory Care59 licensed beds · largeDementia-trained staff
160 Jewell Street · Santa Cruz, CA 95060LIC# 445202597
Facility · Santa Cruz
A 59-bed RCFE · Memory Care with 2 citations on file — most recent Oct 2023. Ranks in the 76th percentile among California peers.
Last inspection · Dec 2025 · cleanSource · CDSS
Licensed beds
59
Memory care
✓ Yes
Last inspection
Dec 2025
Last citation
Oct 2023
Operated by
Seasons Mgt; Sm Santa Cruz Memory; Amv Capital Grp
Snapshot

A large home, reviewed on public record.

Westwind Memory Care

© Google Street View

Approximate location
Peer Comparison

Compared to 26 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.

Severity rank
76th
Weighted citations per bed.
peer median
0
100
Repeat rank
Not enough repeat citations
among peers to rank.
Repeat deficiencies as share of total.
Frequency rank
52nd
Deficiencies per inspection.
peer median
0
100

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

Westwind Memory Care has 2 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.

New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.

The Record

Citation history, plotted month by month.

2 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.

0weighted score · 24 mo
0–100 scale · lower = better · peer median 3
No citation activity in this window.
peer median
Jun 2024as of May 2026

Finding distribution

2 total · 36 months

Scope × Severity (CMS A–L)

Isolated
Pattern
Widespread
Sev 4 · IJ
J
K
L
Sev 3
G2
H
I
Sev 2
D
E
F
Sev 1
A
B
C
The Rulebook

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.

What dementia-care training must staff complete?22 CCR §87705 / HSC §1569.625
+
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?

Tour Prep

Questions to ask before you visit.

A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Westwind Memory Care's record and state requirements.

01 /

The facility holds 59 licensed beds and is designated for memory care — can you provide the written dementia-care program required by Title 22 §87705, including the assessment protocols and individualized activity plans?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

02 /

No inspection reports are on file with CDSS — when was the facility's license first issued, and can you provide documentation of the initial licensing inspection and any subsequent routine visits?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

03 /

Zero complaints have been filed with CDSS — what is the facility's internal process for handling family concerns before they escalate to state complaints, and can you share examples of how recent concerns were resolved?

Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.

Full Inspection Record

Every CDSS visit, verbatim.

8 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.

8
reports on file
2
total deficiencies
2
severe (Type A)
2025-12-15
Annual Compliance Visit
No findings
Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marcella Tarin arrived unannounced to conduct the facility's required 1 year inspection. LPA met with Executive Director (ED) Steven Silacci. LPA stated the purpose of the visit. LPA toured the interior and exterior of the facility with ED to include but not limited to the kitchen, resident rooms, dining room, and resident bathrooms. The facility was observed to be clean, safe, sanitary and in good repair. All exit and passageways were free and clear of obstruction. LPA observed facility doors on the first and second floor are keypad alarmed. LPA toured the kitchen area and observed a perishable food supply of at least two days and a non-perishable food supply of at least seven days. LPA observed the refrigerator temperature at 35 F and Freezer at -10 F. LPA observed the medication storage area, knives storage area, and cleaning product storage area as locked and inaccessible to residents in care. The facility fire system was inspected by a third party vendor on 12/10/2025 and passed inspection. Fire extinguishers were last serviced on 10/17/2025. LPA reviewed the facility first aid kit, and it was observed to be complete. The facility emergency drill log was reviewed. The facility's last drill was conducted on 11/10/2025. Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 LPA toured 5 resident bedrooms. All 4 resident rooms have a bed, functioning lights, dresser/table, bedding and space for personal belongings. LPA toured 5 bathrooms. All 5 bathrooms had hand soap, paper towels, functioning lights, and covered trash bins. LPA measured water temperature with a range of 108.5 F to 115.5 F. LPA reviewed 3 resident records. LPA reviewed 3 resident’s Centrally Stored Medication and Destruction Records (CSMDR’s). LPA reviewed 3 staff records. No deficiencies were cited during today's visit per California Code of Regulations Title 22. An exit interview was conducted with Executive Director (ED) Steven Silacci and a signed copy of this report was provided. Page 2 of 2 END OF REPORT

2025-03-20
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Marcella Tarin
Read raw inspector notes

During the Department’s investigation, on 1/21/2025 and 1/23/2025, 7 staff were interviewed. 5 Out of 7 staff did not observe R1’s nose pinched by S7 on 1/8/2025 when R1 was having behaviors while 2 Out of 7 staff state they observed R1’s nose being pinched by staff S7. 7 Out of 7 staff state R1 was having behaviors on 1/8/2025, where R1 was in an agitated state, screaming, yelling, and moving toward staff. These two staff members who observed the alleged abuse by a staff pinching R1’s nose also noted it caused R1 to lose consciousness. S7 stated on 1/8/2025 he/she was in the hallways when he/she observed R1 agitated and being aggressive with staff. S7 states he/she went over to help de-escalate and calm R1 by speaking calmly to R1 and only touching his/her shoulders to re-direct. S7 states it took 30 seconds to calm down R1. S7 denies pinching R1’s nose. On 1/18/2025 and 2/18/2025, the Department interviewed 5 residents (referred as R1 to R5) during the investigation. 4 Out of 5 residents state they did not observe a staff pinch R1’s nose. 1 Out of 5 residents (R1) stated his/her nose was “grabbed” by a staff described as a “heavy girl” but could not identify any of the staff involved in the incident. R1 states the incident occurred three weeks ago. On 1/23/2025, the Department conducted an interview with ADM regarding the allegation. ADM states on 1/13/2025, an internal investigation was conducted by the facility. ADM states he/she conducted interviews with 7 staff S1 to S7 wherein staff recollection of the incident made inconsistent statements. Due to insufficient evidence, the facility was unable to substantiate the allegation that R1’s nose was pinched by a staff on 1/8/2025. Page 2 of 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 The Department obtained R1’s Physician’s report and Appraisal Needs and Services Plan (ANS). During a review of R1’s Physician’s Report dated 12/20/2024, R1’s mental condition is associated with confusion, disorientation, and is sometimes able to follow directions and has major neurocognitive disorder. R1’s ANS dated 12/24/2024 states R1 requires “ongoing assistance with care…with speech, functional and behavioral impairments due to disoriented to person/time/place….” and R1’s needs moderate assist with “interventions and care coordination to de-escalate negative behaviors.” Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, and records reviewed, although the allegations listed above may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. No Deficiencies were cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22. This report was reviewed with Administrator Steven Silacci and a copy of this report was provided.

2025-01-07
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · David Marrufo
Read raw inspector notes

R1’s Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicates staff checked R1’s skin from 07/13/2023 to 07/17/2023 and found no issues. The next skin monitoring in R1’s MAR is recorded on 08/29/2023 to 08/31/2023. The AM entry for 08/29/2023 states that R1 has no skin issues. The PM entry for 08/29/2023 states that R1 does have skin issues. The entries for 08/30/2023 and 08/31/2023 state that R1 has skin issues. The entry in R1’s MAR for 09/01/2023 states R1 has skin issues. The 24-Hour Communication Logs from July 2023 state the following: R1 was observed to be confused on 07/13/2023, 07/16/2023, 07/18/2023, 07/26/2023, and 07/27/2023. On 07/27/2023, the 24-Hour Communication Log states R1 refused to shower and R1’s rectal area was observed to be red and painful. The 24-Hour Communication Log from 07/31/2023 states R1 was observed to be hoarding dirty underwear and didn't want to wash them or change clothes because R1 believed that R1 would be leaving the facility soon. The ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Resident Refusal Form from 07/13/2023 states that R1 refused an ADL on that day; however, the form does not specify the specific ADL that R1 refused. The form states that staff provided three interventions and R1 refused all the interventions. The form states that undergarment/brief change, peri care, clothing change, and face/ear wash were completed as alternate hygiene care for R1. The 24-Hour Communication Logs from August 2023 indicate staff provided R1 with a shower on the following dates: 08/02/2023 (time not indicated), 08/09/2023 PM, 08/16/2023 PM (R1 refused), 08/17/2023 PM, 08/20/2023 AM (R1 refused), 08/20/2023 PM, 08/23/2023 AM, and 08/27/2023 AM. R1’s Chart Note from 08/16/2023 9:38 PM states that R1 refused three staff prompts for a shower. On 01/07/2024, LPA Marrufo interviewed staff S2-S5. S2-S4 stated that staff would provide showers to R1 twice a week. S5 stated that R1 would often refuse staff’s encouragement to take showers. Page 2 of 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 LPA Marrufo received an email from R1’s Responsible Person on 08/31/2023 7:26 PM. R1’s Responsible Person stated in the email that staff could not provide the ointment that R1’s Responsible Person provided to R1 since the ointment was not prescribed. R1’s Responsible Person states staff told R1’s Responsible Person that they provided a barrier cream instead and R1’s rash was now gone. R1’s Physician’s Orders states that on 08/23/2023, R1 was prescribed an ointment as a PRN for a rash diagnosis. R1’s Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicates staff checked R1’s skin from 07/13/2023 to 07/17/2023 and found no issues. R1’s MAR indicates there was no entry into the Skin Issues log but staff nonetheless applied R1’s prescribed ointment for skin rashes on the following dates: 08/23/2023, 08/24/2023, 08/25/2023, and 08/27/2023. R1’s MAR indicates staff recorded skin issues with R1 and applied R1’s prescribed ointment for skin rashes on the following dates: 08/292023, 08/30/2023, 08/31/2023, and 09/01/2023. LPA Marrufo did not observe any other dates in R1’s MAR that indicated R1 was observed to have had skin issues. On 09/01/2023, LPA Marrufo conducted a medication review of residents R1-R3 with staff S1. During medication review, LPA Marrufo observed 5 medications belonging to R1. 3 out of 5 of R1’s reviewed medications did not contain a start date on the medication container. LPA reviewed 4 of R2’s medications, and all 4 medications had a start date. LPA reviewed 7 of R3’s medications. 2 out of 7 reviewed medications belonging to R3 did not have a start date on the medication container. S1 stated that typically medications have stickers with start dates on the medication container. S1 stated to not be able to say why some of the medications were missing start dates. During interview on 01/07/2025, S6 stated that when a resident is newly admitted to the facility and the resident's family brings medications with the resident, the medications often do not have start dates on them because there is no way to verify the actual start dates of the medications. S6 stated to be certain that this was the case with R1's medications and possibly other resident medications. S6 stated that medications of new residents are counted when they first arrive. Page 3 of 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 On 01/07/2024, LPA Marrufo interviewed staff S2-S5. S2-S5 stated to have never observed a time when R1’s prescribed rash ointment was not given as prescribed. S2 stated to have never observed a time when R1 was not given medications as prescribed. S3-S5 stated to not have any information as to whether or not R1 was ever not given medications as prescribed. An Advisory Note has been issued. See LIC9102 for more information. Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, and records reviewed, although the allegations listed above may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are unsubstantiated. No Deficiencies were cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22 This report was reviewed with Administrator Steven Silacci and a copy of this report was provided. Page 4 of 4. END REPORT

2024-12-03
Other Visit
No findings
Inspector · Marcella Tarin
Read raw inspector notes

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marcella Tarin conducted an unannounced annual inspection and met with Administrator (ADM) Steven Silacci. LPA toured the interior (1st and 2nd floor) and exterior of the facility with the ADM to include the resident activity areas, dining rooms, kitchen, resident bedrooms, bathrooms, and exterior. Facility temperature maintained at 72 degrees F. Facility staff are fingerprint cleared and associated to facility. All emergency exits were observed to be clear of obstruction. LPA toured the kitchen area and observed a perishable food supply of at least two days and a non-perishable food supply of at least seven days. Refrigerator temperature maintained at 35 degrees F and freezer maintained at -10 degrees F. No toxins, chemicals or items that can pose a danger to residents observed. The facility was equipped with smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Fire extinguishers were last serviced on 8/22/2024. LPA observed the facility first aid kit and it was observed to be complete. The facility fire/earthquake drill log was reviewed and drills are being conducted quarterly. The last fire drill was conducted on 11/25/2024. Facility has emergency disaster plan. LPA Tarin toured 6 resident bedrooms. LPA toured 3 resident bedrooms on the 1st floor and 3 resident bedrooms on the 2nd floor. 6 out of 6 resident bedrooms had functioning lights, storage space for personal belongings, clean bedding, and a dresser/table. LPA measured hot water temperature, with a range of 108.3 to 119 degrees F for 6 out of 6 resident bathrooms. LPA reviewed 6 residents electronic Centrally Stored Medication and Destruction Records (CSMDR). LPA observed 6 out of 6 electronic CSMDRs are complete with all medications accounted and documented. LPA observed the medication storage area was locked and inaccessible to residents in care. See 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 LPA reviewed 6 out of 6 resident records. LPA observed 6 out of 6 resident records as complete to include a medical assessment, TB result, updated appraisal/needs and services plan, identification and emergency contact information, personal rights, and consent forms. LPA reviewed 6 out of 6 staff records. LPA observed 4 out of 6 records as complete to include fingerprint clearance, health screening, TB result, personnel record, and annual training . Staff (S4) and (S5) records were observed as incomplete. S4 and S5 files did not contain current CPR/First Aid training. ADM states both S4 and S5 completed the CPR/First Aid training, but the facility did not have the documentation in S4 and S5 staff files. ADM stated he would obtain copies of the CPR/First Aid training and submit copies to LPA by 12/06/2024. No deficiencies were cited today per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. A Technical Violation was issued. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Steven Silacci. A copy of this report was provided.

2024-09-19
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · Grace Donato
Read raw inspector notes

According to Title 22 Regulation 87466 Observation of the Resident, The licensee shall ensure that residents are regularly observed for changes in physical, mental, emotional and social functioning and that appropriate assistance is provided when such observation reveals unmet needs. When changes such as unusual weight gains or losses or deterioration of mental ability or a physical health condition are observed, the licensee shall ensure that such changes are documented and brought to the attention of the resident's physician and the resident's responsible person, if any. With a resident with Dementia, an annual medical check up by a residents physician is required. Facility is also allowed to to assessments and reassessments whenever there is a change in condition. LPA was also able to obtain emails showing proof that the facility gets in touch with the residents responsible parties/family members. Based on records review, the department has determined that 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. Report is reviewed and copy is provided.

2023-11-08
Complaint Investigation
Unsubstantiated
No findings
Inspector · David Marrufo
Read raw inspector notes

On 10/20/2023, LPA Marrufo conducted a telephone interview with staff S2. During interview, S2 denied having any inappropriate interactions with another staff, including staff S3. LPA Marrufo attempted to conduct telephone interviews with S3 on 08/15/2023, 10/20/2023, and 11/07/2023, but was not able to reach S3. During interview on 08/23/2023, Administrator Silacci stated to have interviewed S2 and S3 separately and both S2 and S3 denied having had any inappropriate interactions in the presence of a resident or in the facility. During interview on 10/03/2023, Administrator Silacci stated to have asked S2 and S3 what they were doing in a resident room together, and S2 and S3 stated to have been assisting residents together in the residents’ rooms. Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, and records reviewed, although the allegations listed above may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. Therefore, the allegations are unsubstantiated. No Deficiencies were cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22. This report was reviewed with Parvendar Kaur, Wellness Director, and a copy of this report was provided. Page 2 of 2. END REPORT

2023-10-31
Complaint Investigation
Mixed
Type A · 2 findings
Inspector · David Marrufo
Type A22 CCR §87465(h)(B)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87465(h)(B)

This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Licensee did not ensure that R2 did not have unsecured medication in R2’s living unit, which poses an immediate safety risk to residents in care.

Type A22 CCR §87633(d)
Verbatim citation text · 22 CCR §87633(d)

This requirement was not met as evidenced by: Licensee did not ensure that staff followed R3’s hospice care plan by contacting R3’s hospice agency before administering comfort paks to R3.

Read raw inspector notes

The Department conducted an initial complaint visit on 10/19/2020 and conducted additional complaint investigation visits on 07/09/2021, 08/23/2023, 10/03/2023, and 10/24/2023. R2’s Charting Notes from 07/11/2020 at 6:47 PM states, “Family member found medication of resident on the floor, family member asked if it could be crushed so it could be administered, explained it could not due to label specifications/instructions.” R3’s Hospice Team Care Plan indicates that R3 had a comfort pak that included orders to give 0.25 ml of Morphine Sulfate, Lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet every 6 hours for PRN for anxiety or agitation, and to call the hospice agency to initiate any comfort pak medication. R3’s Charting Notes entry from 01/08/2020 at 5:52 AM indicate that staff administered PRN of morphine to R3; the entry does not indicate if hospice was notified. R3’s Charting Notes from 01/08/2020 at 3:00 PM states, “[R3’s spouse] requests that we give small (0.25 ML) dose of morphine during waking hours and only use (0.5ML) dose during the night.” R3’s Charting Notes entry from 10/12/2020 2:00 PM stated R3 was given 0.25 ML of morphine and 0.5 MG of Lorazepam, but there is no statement about if the hospice agency was contacted prior to administering the comfort pak medications. On 10/24/2023, LPA Marrufo interviewed facility staff S1. During interview, S1 stated that staff are supposed to log that they have contacted the hospice care agency prior to initiating a comfort pak. S1 stated staff are not to take medication orders from families. On 10/03/2023, LPA Marrufo interviewed facility staff S2. During interview, S2 stated to have the job role as medication technician at the facility and was trained for almost two months in that role. S2 stated that before administering comfort paks, facility staff have to call the hospice agency and let the hospice agency know the resident’s condition. S2 stated the hospice agency will then let the staff know if the resident can use the comfort pak, which medication, and the dosage. S2 stated staff are supposed to chart the phone call with hospice care in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) in the resident’s chart notes. S2 stated if a family member asked if a resident could receive a comfort pak, staff would still need to contact the hospice agency first before administering the comfort pak. Page 2 of 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 LPA Marrufo obtained copies of R5 and R6s Charting Notes. The Charting Notes for R5 from 07/18/2023 and for R6 on 09/09/2023 both indicate that staff contacted the hospice agency prior to administering comfort paks. R2’s Charting Notes from 07/09/2020 at 5:34 AM states, “Before 3:30 am [R2] was pacing the hallways and a little agitated. Gave PRN.” The Charting Notes entry does not indicate which PRN was administered to R2 and if the hospice agency was notified. Based on records review and interviews, there is preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did occur. Therefore, the allegations are substantiated. See 9099-D for deficiencies cited per the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Steven Silacci and a copy of the report and appeal rights were provided. Page 3 of 3. END REPORT 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 S3 stated staff would also divert R4’s attention with various activities to prevent R4’s behaviors with feces. S3 stated to not remember if there was a time when facility staff were told R4 had ingested feces but staff did not respond. Administrator Steven Silacci stated S3 is the only staff at the facility who worked with R4 and is still employed at the facility. Based on information from interviews conducted with staff, and records reviewed, although the allegation listed above 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. No Deficiencies cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22 This report was reviewed with Steven Silacci and a copy of this report was provided. Page 2 of 2. END REPORT

2023-10-24
Complaint Investigation
No findings
Inspector · David Marrufo
Read raw inspector notes

During interview on 08/23/2023, facility staff S1 stated that resident R1 had a behavior of running throughout the facility. S1 stated the facility policy regarding use of anti-anxiety PRN medications is for staff to attempt a redirection first before administering any anti-anxiety PRN medications. S1 stated that this policy was followed with R1 when R1 would run throughout the building. S1-S4 stated staff would attempt to redirect R1 before administering anti-anxiety PRN medications. S1 also stated during that time, there were always sufficient staff at the facility. Staff S5 stated to have provided redirections to R1 but did not have knowledge as to whether or not R1 was given anti-anxiety PRN medications. Staff S6-S7 stated to have not worked with R1. Staff S1, S2, S3, S6, S7 stated that there were enough staff at the facility to meet the residents’ needs in the year 2020. Staff S4 and S5 stated that there were many staff shortages due to the COVID pandemic at that time. Facility Staff Schedules from July and August 2020 show a full schedule of staff. R1’s Physician’s Orders from 12/08/2020 state Lorazepam is a PRN medication for R1 to be used as needed for anxiety. R1’s PRN Medication Log from 12/2020 records the interventions given prior to administering Lorazepam medication for anxiety. The interventions include “One on one,” “Music,” “Visited with Resident,” and “Photo Albums.” This agency has investigated the complaint allegations listed. Based on interviews and review of records, the CCLD has found that the complaint allegation is unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. This report was reviewed with Steven Silacci and a copy of the report was provided. Page 2 of 2. END REPORT.

5 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.

5 older inspections from 2021 are not shown in the free view.

Nearby

Other facilities in Santa Cruz County.

Other memory care facilities in Santa Cruz County with similar care offerings.

Family reviews

No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience

Related in this city

Other memory care options nearby.

Nearby cities · same county

More options in neighboring cities

Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.

Is this listing wrong? Report an issue →
Reports help us maintain accurate facility information. Your report will be reviewed within 1-2 business days.
Editorial Independence

StarlynnCare receives no referral commissions, lead fees, or paid placement from any operator. Rankings are derived solely from state inspection records and verified family reviews.