Large community · Licensed for 55 · Chula Vista
Veterans Home Chula Vista
700 East Naples Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911Licensed since 2000
Overview
No openings reported
- Approved by the state: Wheelchair · HospiceState licensing record · October 26, 2026
- Licensed for 55: a large care communityThe state license record
Ask this home
Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.
Care and support
- Wheelchair
- Hospiceup to 5 residents
Not on file: dementia and bedridden approvals.
Approved by the state · State licensing record · October 26, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.
Read the state’s own wording
FACILITY SERVES ELDERLY RESIDENTS AGES 60 YEARS AND ABOVE; ALL OF WHOMMAY BE NON-AMBULATORY. FACILITY HAS A HOSPICE WAIVER FOR FIVE.
985 - RCFE / HOSPICE
CDSS record, verbatim · October 26, 2026
As needs change
Staying through hospice
Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 5 — care may continue at the end of life
State licensing record · October 26, 2026
We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Veterans Home Chula Vista: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight, help with medicines and care if memory loss develops. When we check availability, we ask about these too.
Check availabilityWhat it costs here
Covelight estimate
$4,550a month to start
Likely $3,550–$5,800
From 12 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file
Monthly cost breakdownWith a studio and basic help · room, care and fees$4,550likely a month
Memory care is not priced here: a dementia-care designation is not on file for this home. Ask the home.
Starting monthly rate$4,550likely $3,550–$5,800
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 communities with 50 or more beds within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600
Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (44 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).
One-time move-in fee$2,500one time · likely $0–$4,000
Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,500 (133 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.
- Likely monthly totalLikely $3,550–$5,950
- $4,550
- First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $4,350–$9,100
- $7,050
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
- MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
- Private payMost residents pay from savings, a home sale or family help. Ask for the rate and what it includes in writing.
- Medi-Cal Assisted Living WaiverThis home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
- SSI/SSPCalifornia’s 2026 standard is $1,626.07 a month; $1,444.07 of it goes to the home and $182 stays with the resident. Whether this home accepts it is not on file — ask.
- VeteransVA Aid & Attendance can add to a veteran’s or surviving spouse’s pension. Ask whether residents here have used it.
- Long-term care insuranceMost policies pay for licensed care homes. Ask what paperwork the home provides for claims.
Rates at nearby homes12 nearby homes publish starting rates of $2,400 to $7,800
12 homes like this within 10 miles publish starting rates mostly between $2,950–$5,650.
- The PaseaChula Vista · 1.7 mi · Large community$3,625Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
- Bonita Villa Senior LivingChula Vista · 2.5 mi · Large community$2,995Listed on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026
- Ivy Park at BonitaChula Vista · 2.6 mi · Large community$4,695Listed on its own website · private studio & companion suites available floor plans · seen October 27, 2026
- Ivy Park at Otay RanchChula Vista · 2.6 mi · Large community$3,895Listed on its own website · studio apartments · seen October 27, 2026
- Fredericka ManorChula Vista · 3.8 mi · Large community$3,910Listed on Seniorly · assisted living studio · seen September 9, 2026
- Westmont at San Miguel RanchChula Vista · 4.2 mi · Large community$3,295Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Activcare at Rolling Hills RanchChula Vista · 4.9 mi · Large community$5,650Listed on Seniorly · memory care shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026. We don’t have this home’s dementia-care disclosure. California requires a home that advertises dementia care to describe that care in writing when you ask.
- Parkview Memory Care at Paradise VillageNational City · 5.4 mi · Large community$7,800Listed on Seniorly · memory care shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026. We don’t have this home’s dementia-care disclosure. California requires a home that advertises dementia care to describe that care in writing when you ask.
- Cedars @ Paradise VillageNational City · 5.6 mi · Large community$3,000Listed on its own website · one-bedroom apartment · seen October 27, 2026
- Sungarden TerraceLemon Grove · 7.4 mi · Large community$5,500Listed on its own website · assisted living starting price · seen October 5, 2026
- Monte Vista Village Senior LivingLemon Grove · 7.6 mi · Large community$2,400Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Coronado Retirement VillageCoronado · 9.8 mi · Large community$4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 communities with 50 or more beds within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
- Only prices a home put out itself count: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price Seniorly says the home confirmed. Prices a listing site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
- Nearby homes are the nearest of the same size that publish a rate, widening from 3 to 40 miles until at least 8 do. The estimate starts from what they charge, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices.
- Room, care-level, second-person and move-in lines come from what California homes publish on listing sites. Memory care uses Covelight’s researched premium over assisted living.
- Totals add each line’s figure and combine the lines’ ranges as separate charges, because a home is rarely at the top, or the bottom, of every line at once.
- We tested this estimate on 1,546 California homes that publish their own starting rate. It was within 10% of the real rate for 3 in 10 homes and within 25% for 7 in 10; the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 (September 12, 2026).
- It cannot see this home’s specials, how it assesses care, or which rooms are open.
Avoid surprises on the billWhat changes the price, and what to ask
- The care level
Some homes charge one all-inclusive rate. Others add levels or points as needs grow. Ask how the level is set, who decides, and what the next level costs.
- What is billed separately
Medication management, incontinence supplies, transportation and a second person in the room are often extra. Ask for the list in writing.
- Move-in costs
A one-time move-in fee or deposit is common. Ask what it covers and whether any of it comes back if the stay is short.
- Increases
California requires at least 90 days’ written notice, with reasons, before a rate rises (Health & Safety Code §1569.655). A change in the resident’s care level is the section’s own exception and can be billed sooner.
An estimate for planning, not a quote. A home sets the price after hearing about the care needed.
Daily life
Daily life here is not on file yet, and that says nothing about the home.
The best way to see it is a visit.
Request a tourWhere it is
700 East Naples Court, Chula Vista, CA 91911Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.
Opening the neighborhood map…
- Sharp Chula Vista Medical CenterHospital · General acute care, on the state’s list0.2 mi
Straight-line distances; check the drive or the walk. Hospital: the nearest general acute care hospital on the state’s list (CDPH, September 16, 2026).
Open directionsThe state record
California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
CDSS public record, read October 26, 2026 · License #374601005 · See the state’s own record
The last 36 months — 9 of 13 documents
Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 2 “Unsubstantiated” and 2 “Unfounded”.
20262 state visits · 2 documents
Aug 23, 2026Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to conduct a Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified herself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with CNA Marlone Temple and CNA Vicky Magno. LPA met with Administrator, Kathy Gabriel. All staff present had current criminal record clearances. According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity for fifty-five (55) residents, of whom all may be ambulatory or non-ambulatory, but none may be bedridden. During today’s inspection, there were a total of twenty-two (22) residents in care, and all were ambulatory. The facility’s license does not include endorsements for delayed-egress doors or secured perimeter doors, and neither of these were present. LPA, accompanied by Licensee’s staff, toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected all common areas and multiple resident bedrooms. LPA interviewed multiple residents and multiple staff. LPA reviewed care records for multiple residents and personnel records for multiple active staff. 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 and screens, toilets, and showers were working. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was complaint at 72 F. Where tested, hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents were also compliant. Appliances to preserve perishable food and medications were also compliant in temperature. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] (continue from LIC809) There was at least two (2) days of perishable food, and at least seven (7) days non-perishable food present, all safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were available. There were no sharp objects, toxic chemicals/poisons, or open-faced heaters accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in their original pharmacy packaging, and in locked areas. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, night lights, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. The facility’s fire extinguishers had been serviced within the last twelve (12) months. No fireplaces or pools/bodies of water were observed on the premises. Per the Licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Fire/disaster drills were performed at required intervals. There were reserve supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The seven (7) resident files which were randomly selected and reviewed contained required documents. The seven (7) employee files which were randomly selected and reviewed contained required documents. Licensee also had proof that the staff met other initial and ongoing training requirements, to include training on the facility's written LIC610E Emergency Disaster Plan (July 10, 2026) and PPE within the last twelve (12) months. No deficiencies were cited during today's annual inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Kathryn Gabriel, to whom a copy of this report, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during today’s visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 23, 2026
Apr 16, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff hit resident
On April 16, 2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marisela Garcia-Centeno conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver findings related to the allegation in this complaint. LPA was greeted by Administrator Kathy Gabriel and informed her of the purpose of the visit. On February 18, 2026, Community Care Licensing (CCL) received a complaint alleging that staff struck Resident 1 (R1). Per the abuse report SOC 341 dated 02/18/2026, staff reported to the supervising registered nurse that R1 stated that on the night of 02/12/2026, a female staff member prevented R1 from watching television in the resident lounge, took the remote control, and “smacked” R1 in the face. The supervising registered nurse spoke with R1 at that time; however, R1 declined to provide details. The nurse documented no visible redness or bruising. On 02/17/2026, R1 was reassessed by a registered nurse and Administrator Kathy Gabriel, and no injuries or signs of distress were observed. (continue at LIC9099C) Unsubstantiated (continue from LIC9099) The Department’s investigation included a facility tour, interviews with R1, staff, eight (8) resident witnesses, and outside sources, as well as a review of records including the SOC 341 report, internal incident report, LIC 624, progress notes, and nursing assessments. On 02/19/2026, LPA interviewed R1 at the facility. R1 was observed to be alert and able to engage in conversation. R1 reported that several days prior, after 10:00 p.m., while watching television in the lounge, a female staff member became upset, took the remote control from R1, and struck R1 in the face. R1 stated that several staff members were talking loudly, making it difficult to hear the television, and R1 increased the volume. R1 reported that the staff member yelled at R1 to be quiet and go to sleep, refused to return the remote, and then slapped R1. R1 stated R1 left the lounge feeling upset and reported the incident the following morning. R1 reported R1 did not tell other residents due to embarrassment and did not inform family to avoid causing problems with staff. R1 stated this was the only time a staff member had hit R1 and reported no additional concerns. R1 was unable to identify the staff member involved, provide a specific date, or identify any witnesses present. R1 stated R1 currently feels safe in the facility. Staff interviews were conducted with supervisory staff and staff working during the relevant shifts. Staff reported that R1 initially stated that a female staff member took the remote control and slapped R1; however, during follow-up, R1 declined or was unable to provide additional details. Staff reported that R1 was assessed following the allegation, and no visible injuries, including redness, bruising, or swelling, were observed. R1 was noted to be at baseline and not in distress. Staff reported that an internal investigation was conducted, including interviews with staff on duty, and all staff denied the allegation and reported they did not witness any incident or inappropriate interaction between staff and residents. Staff reported that R1 was unable to identify any staff on duty at the time of the alleged incident. Staff further reported that there have been no prior similar incidents or concerns regarding staff performance. (Continue on LIC9099C) (continue from LIC9099C) Eight (8) residents were interviewed regarding the alleged incident. None reported being present during the alleged incident, observing any staff strike or mistreat R1, hearing any argument or disturbance, or receiving any disclosure from R1 regarding being struck. None of the residents reported observing injuries or distress in R1. No resident provided information to corroborate the allegation. A review of records, including the SOC 341 abuse report, LIC 624 incident report, progress notes dated 02/13/2026 through 02/17/2026, and nursing assessments, indicated no visible injuries such as redness, bruising, or swelling, and no documented distress or behavioral changes. Documentation reflected that the facility reported the incident in a timely manner and completed required follow-up assessments as required per Title 22 regulations. Although R1 provided a consistent statement that R1 was struck by a staff member and appeared credible during the interview, R1 was unable to identify the staff member involved, provide a specific date, or identify any witnesses. No staff or residents reported witnessing or hearing the alleged incident, and no physical evidence or documentation supported the occurrence of injury. Based on the investigation, including interviews, observations, and record review, there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation. Therefore, the allegation that staff struck R1 is deemed unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Kathy Gabriel. A copy of this report and the Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058 03/22) were provided at the time of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 16, 2026 · control 08-AS-20260218102350
20253 state visits · 3 documents
Aug 29, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced visit to conduct a Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Kathryn Gabriel. According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity for fifty-five (55) residents, of whom all may be ambulatory or non-ambulatory, but none may be bedridden. Per LPA observation, LIC602 Physician’s Reports, and staff interviews: During today’s inspection, there were a total of twenty-two (22) residents in care, and all were ambulatory. The facility’s license does not include endorsements for delayed-egress doors or secured perimeter doors, and neither of these were present. LPA, accompanied by Licensee’s staff, toured the interior and exterior of the facility and inspected all common areas and multiple resident bedrooms. LPA interviewed multiple residents and multiple staff. LPA reviewed care records for multiple residents and personnel records for multiple active staff. 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 and screens, toilets, and showers were working. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] The facility’s ambient internal temperature was complaint at 72 F. Where tested, hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents were also compliant: Public Restroom #1 Sink was 112.1 F, Public Restroom #2 Sink was 108 F, Laundry Room Sink was 108.9 F, Room C207 Sink was 113.4 F, Room C305 Sink was 107.4 F. and Room C408 Sink was 113.5 F. Appliances to preserve perishable food and medications were also compliant in temperature. There was at least two (2) days of perishable food, and at least seven (7) days non-perishable food present, all safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were available. There were no sharp objects, toxic chemicals/poisons, or open-faced heaters accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in their original pharmacy packaging, and in locked areas. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. Carbon monoxide detectors, smoke detectors, night lights, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. The facility’s fire extinguishers had been serviced within the last twelve (12) months. No fireplaces or pools/bodies of water were observed on the premises. Per the Licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Fire/disaster drills were performed at required intervals. There were reserve supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The five (5) resident files which were randomly selected and reviewed contained required documents. The five (5) employee files which were randomly selected and reviewed contained required documents. Licensee also had proof that the staff met other initial and ongoing training requirements, to include training on the facility's written LIC610E Emergency Disaster Plan and PPE within the last twelve (12) months. No deficiencies were cited during today's annual inspection. However, LPA issued one (1) Technical Violation (TV) regarding updating clients’ Facesheets/Emergency Contact Sheets to include contact information for their respective dentists and any other health providers (the latter as applicable) (refer to the LIC9102-TV page). LPA also issued Technical Assistance (TA) regarding documenting the participation of responsible persons (RPs) at care conferences (refer to the LIC9102-TA page). An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Kathryn Gabriel, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC9102-TV page, the LIC9102-TA page, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during today’s visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 29, 2025
Feb 6, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnfounded
Allegation investigated: -Licensee neglect, contributing to resident’s skin breakdown. -Licensee did not meet resident’s incontinence care need. -Licensee did not provide responsible person with requested records.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced complaint visit to investigate the above allegations. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Kathy Gabriel. The Complainant alleged that Licensee’s neglect contributed to Person #1 (P1’s) skin breakdown, that Licensee did not meet P1’s incontinence care need, and the Licensee did not provide requested records to P1’s responsible person. [See LIC811 Confidential Names List for a description of R1.] CCLD’s investigation involved an un unannounced facility tour/welfare check and a collateral visit. The Department also interviewed pertinent administrative records and interviewed relevant facility staff and outside sources. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C] Unfounded [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] Records, interviews, and LPA observation unanimously showed: P1 was not a resident of the CCLD-licensed facility, either at present or during the timeframe of the complaint allegations. Based on records and interviews, these three (3) allegations are Unfounded, meaning they are false, could not have happened, and/or are without a reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the allegations, and no deficiencies were cited. An exit interview was conducted with the Gabriel, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 6, 2025 · control 08-AS-20250127091151
Jan 17, 2025Facility evaluation reportCase Management - Health ChecksReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Health Checks
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Arian Golbakhsh conducted an unannounced health and safety visit to Veterans Home Chula Vista for thirteen (13) residents temporary relocated from Veterans Home of California West LA, address: 11500 Nimitz Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, 90049. The residents' home facility in Los Angeles was temporarily closed due to the widespread wild fires disaster in the area. LPA was welcomed by, identified themselves to, and discussed the purpose of the visit to facility Administrator Kathryn Gabriel. LPA was informed by Administrator Gabriel that 12 of the temporary residents had just left earlier this morning back to their home facility at 9:00 am. One (1) had stayed with nearby family and drove themselves back to their home facility. The residents stayed at Veterans Home Chula Vista from 1/11/25-1/17/25. No records were collected during the visit. LPA did not observe any health or safety concerns. No deficiencies were cited during the inspection. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Gabriel, to whom a copy of this report was provided. Their signature below confirms receipt of this document.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 17, 2025
20244 state visits · 4 documents
Aug 9, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced visit to conduct a Required Annual Inspection. The facility file was reviewed prior to the visit. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Kathryn Gabriel. According to the facility’s license, the facility has a maximum capacity of fifty-five (55) residents, of which all may be ambulatory or non-ambulatory but none may be bedridden. Per LPA observation, LIC602 Physician’s Reports, and staff interviews: During today’s inspection, there were a total of five twenty (22) residents in care, of whom twenty (20) were ambulatory and two (2) were non-ambulatory and none were bedridden. The facility’s license does not include endorsements for delayed-egress doors or secured perimeter, and none of these were present. LPA reviewed records for multiple residents and multiple staff. LPA interviewed multiple residents and multiple staff. LPA, accompanied by Licensee’s staff, also toured the interior and exterior of the facility, and inspected all common areas and multiple 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 and screens, toilets, and showers were working. Extra linens and hygiene supplies were present. The facility had sufficient space and equipment to facilitate dining, laundry, visitation, meetings, and resident activities. The facility’s ambient internal temperature was complaint at 74 F. [CONTINUED ON LIC 809-C] [CONTINUED FROM LIC 809] Where tested, hot water temperature at taps accessible to residents were all compliant: Public Restroom #1 Sink was 116.6 F, Public Restroom #2 Sink was 116.1 F, Kitchenette Room Sink was 115.3 F, Laundry Room Sink was 116.2 F, Room C205 Sink was 116.2 F, Room C306 Sink was 115.3 F, Room C404 Sink was 117.3 F, and Room C408 Sink was 114.4 F. Appliances to preserve perishable food were also all compliant in temperature: Main Walk-In Refrigerators were 32 F and 37 F, respectively. Main Walk-In Freezer was -3 F. Kitchenette Refrigerator was 35 F, and Kitchenette Freezers were -3 F and 0 F, respectively. The Medication Room Refrigerator was 40 F. There was at least two (2) days of perishable food, and at least seven (7) days non-perishable food present, all safely stored. Cooking/dining equipment and utensils were present. There were no sharp objects, toxic chemicals/poisons, active fireplaces, or open-faced heaters accessible to residents. Medications were labeled, as required, and stored in locked areas. Confidential records were stored in locked areas. No pools or bodies of water were observed on the premises. Per the Licensee, no firearms or ammunition are kept at the facility. Fire detection system, carbon monoxide detectors, night lights, emergency lighting, and facility telephone were all working. The facility’s fire extinguishers were serviced within the last twelve (12) months. Required licensing postings were observed in visible areas of the facility. Fire/disaster drills were performed at required intervals. There were reserve supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and staff had been trained on PPE within the last twelve (12) months. No deficiencies were observed or cited during today's annual inspection. LPA issued Technical Assistance (TA) regarding medical assessments/physician’s reports and physical organization of personnel records (refer to the attached LIC 9102-TA pages). An exit interview was conducted with Gabriel, to whom a copy of this report, the LIC 809-D pages, the LIC9102-TA pages, and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided during today’s visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 9, 2024
May 23, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff are not following physician’s orders Staff are not properly trained Staff did not safeguard resident’s property
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alyssa Ramirez conducted an unannounced complaint visit to deliver findings on the above allegations. LPA met with Administrator Kathryn Gabriel and discussed the purpose of the visit and elements of the complaint. Community Care Licensing (CCL) has investigated the above allegations. The investigation consisted of records review, interviews with facility staff, clients and outside agency. It was reported to CCL that staff are not following physician’s orders, staff are not properly trained, and staff do not safeguard resident’s property. [Continued on LIC 9099-C] Unsubstantiated [Continued from LIC 9099] Regarding the allegation, staff are not following physician’s orders, it was reported that C1 perceived neglect due to lack of communication from medical providers regarding medication and lab results. Interviews with residents revealed no concern for staff not following doctors orders. Interviews with facility staff revealed no concerns for staff not following doctor’s orders and all reported that they follow all doctor’s order’s. Interview with outside source reported no concerns for the facility. Regarding the allegation, staff are not properly trained, C1 reported that they are being over medicated and staff are under-trained. Interviews with residents revealed no issues surrounding medication and no concerns for staff. Interviews with facility staff revealed that all staff are properly trained. Interview with outside source reported no concerns for the facility. Regarding the allegation, staff do not safeguard resident’s property, C1 reported that personal belongings were being stolen. Interviews with current residents revealed no concerns for missing belongings. Interviews with facility staff also revealed no concerns for resident’s personal belongings not being safeguarded. Interview with outside source reported no concerns for the facility. Based upon the foregoing, the above listed allegations are unsubstantiated. This finding means that the preponderance of the evidence standard has not been met and the allegations are not valid. No deficiencies were cited today. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Kathryn Gabriel. A copy of this report along with licensee rights (LIC 9058, 3/22) was provided to Administrator whose signature below verifies receipt of these rights.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 23, 2024 · control 08-AS-20210105122026
Apr 3, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Iby Strong, conducted an unannounced Case Management Visit. LPA met with Administrator Kathryn Gabriel, and we discussed the purpose of the visit. Today's visit is in response to the self-reported death of Resident 1 (R1 - see LIC811 Confidential Names List). R1 passed away at the hospital, date of death: 3/25/2024 LPA conducted a wellness check at the facility, and no health or safety issues were identified. Residents observed appeared appropriate for the facility. Additional facility records were obtained on this date regarding R1's death. No deficiencies were cited or observed on this date. An exit interview was conducted. Administrator Kathryn Gabriel was provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC9056 03/22), along with a copy of this report.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 3, 2024
Mar 8, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnfounded
Allegation investigated: Licensee did not protect a resident from abuse.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Dang Nguyen conducted an unannounced visit to conduct a complaint investigation regarding the above allegation. LPA was welcomed by, identified himself to, and discussed the purpose of the visit with Administrator Kathy Gabriel. It was alleged that Licensee did not protect Resident #1 (R1) from the abuse of Resident #2 (R2). CCLD’s investigation involved an un unannounced facility tour/welfare check, as well as collateral visits to other locations. The Department also reviewed pertinent administrative records and interviewed relevant facility staff and outside sources. [CONTINUED ON LIC 9099-C] Unfounded [CONTINUED FROM LIC 9099] Records, interviews, and LPA observation unanimously showed: Neither R1 nor R2 were residents of the CDSS-licensed facility, either at present or during the time frame of the complaint allegation. Based on records and interviews, the allegation against Licensee is Unfounded, meaning it was false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. We have therefore dismissed the allegation. An exit interview was conducted with the Gabriel, to whom a copy of this report and the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC9058 03/22) were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 8, 2024 · control 08-AS-20240306153547
Earlier years2021 to 2023 · 4 documents
20231 state visit · 1 document
Apr 5, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnfounded
Allegation investigated: Conduct inimical
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Natasha Persaud conducted an unannounced visit to commence a complaint investigation. LPA identified herself and discussed the allegation mentioned above with Administrator, Bella Zuniga and Standards Compliance Coordinator, Jacquelyn Bond. During today's visit, LPA briefly toured the facility, requested records, and interviewed staff. It was alleged conduct inimical was occurring at the facility due to the facility allowing Staff #1 (S1) to work at the facility with a known elder abuse case. On 02/27/23, the San Diego City Attorney’s Office released a statement indicating S1 pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of elder abuse and operating an unlicensed care facility. Standards Compliance Coordinator explained S1 never worked in their Assisted Living portion of the facility. S1 only worked in their Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). A review of facility records indicated S1 was on the schedule at the SNF. S1's last day worked at the SNF was 12/19/22. Administrator confirmed S1 was never employed at the Residential Care Facility for the Elderly. Based on interviews, this agency has investigated the complaint alleging conduct inimical. We have found that the complaint was unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report along with Licensee Rights (LIC 9058 01/16) were provided to Standards Compliance Coordinator, Jacquelyn Bond whose signature below confirms receipt of these rights. Unfoundedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 5, 2023 · control 08-AS-20230330131740
20221 state visit · 1 document
Aug 1, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Elizabeth Hamilton conducted an annual required licensing inspection. This annual inspection was focused on infection control due to the COVID-19 pandemic. LPA gained access to the facility and identified herself to Resident Care Specialist, Bella Zuniga. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit. This facility serves fifty-five (55) elderly residents ages 60 and above; all of whom may be non-ambulatory. Facility has a hospice waiver for five. During today's visit, LPA toured the facility, and verified compliance with infection control practices. LPA and Resident Care Specialist, Bella Zuniga reviewed the facility’s COVID-19 Mitigation Plan. LPA observed one central entry point; routine symptom screening initiated at entry for staff, residents and visitors; a sign-in policy enacted for all visitors; signs throughout the facility to promote hand hygiene, cough/sneeze etiquette and physical distancing; face coverings worn by staff; hand sanitizer/hand washing stations readily available; a designated visitation area; and an adequate supply of PPE and disinfectants. Based on today's visit, no deficiencies were observed in the areas evaluated above. An exit interview was conducted with Resident Care Specialist, Bella Zuniga and a copy of this report along with the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) was provided at the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 1, 2022
20212 state visits · 2 documents
Oct 18, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnfounded
Allegation investigated: Facility staff physically abused residents
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Elizabeth Hamilton conducted an unannounced complaint investigation at the facility for the above allegation. LPA met with Administrator, Carol Branshaw and was granted entry after identifying herself. LPA explained the purpose of the visit. During today's visit, LPA requested and reviewed resident, staff and facility records, conducted interviews with residents and Administrator and briefly toured the facility. It was alleged on or around October 2021, staff physically abused residents in the Residential Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). Interview with Administrator revealed resident 1 (R1 – See LIC 811 – Confidential Names List) had never resided at the RCFE. Continued on next page (LIC 9099C) Unfounded Further investigation revealed the incident was reported incorrectly under the RCFE and the alleged incident occurred at the Skilled Nursing area collocated on the larger campus. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) does not have jurisdiction over Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF), therefore the above allegation is determined to be Unfounded, meaning that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. LPA Hamilton will cross-report to the California Department of Public Health. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator, Carol Branshaw and a copy of this report, LIC 811, Licensee Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) was provided via email. An electronic receipt of confirmation was requested to be sent by the Licensee upon receipt of the documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 18, 2021 · control 08-AS-20211014101722
Jul 12, 2021Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Elizabeth Hamilton conducted an annual required licensing inspection. This annual inspection was focused on infection control due to the COVID-19 pandemic. LPA gained access to the facility and identified herself to Administrator, Carol Branshaw. LPA discussed the purpose of the visit. This facility serves fifty-five (55) elderly residents ages 60 and above; all of whom may be non-ambulatory. Facility has a hospice waiver for five. During today's visit, LPA toured the facility, and verified compliance with infection control practices. LPA and Administrator Branshaw reviewed the facility’s COVID-19 Mitigation Plan. LPA observed one central entry point; routine symptom screening initiated at entry for staff, clients and visitors; a sign-in policy enacted for all visitors; signs throughout the facility to promote hand hygiene, cough/sneeze etiquette and physical distancing; face coverings worn by staff and residents; hand sanitizer/hand washing stations readily available; a designated visitation area; emergency agencies’ contact information posted in a location visible to staff and clients; and an adequate supply of PPE and disinfectants. LPA discussed the Provider Information Notice (PIN) regarding updated guidance on visitation. Based on today's visit, no deficiencies were observed in the areas evaluated above. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Branshaw and a copy of this report along with the Licensee/Appeal Rights (LIC 9058) was provided via email. An electronic receipt of confirmation was requested to be sent by the Licensee upon receipt of the documents.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 12, 2021
23 of 55 beds were occupied at the April 16, 2026 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.
License holder
Veterans Home of California - Chula Vista, licensed since 2000.
The state’s totals for this licenseSince 2000, as the state’s facility page counts them
- State visits on file
- 12
- Total complaints
- 6
- Substantiated allegations
- 0
- Type A citations
- 0
- Type B citations
- 0
These are the state’s own totals for this license since 2000, per CDSS records. The state counts them apart from the documents above, and they can differ from what those documents show; the documents say what each visit found. One complaint can contain several allegations.
Compare with homes the same size
| This home | Typical | |
|---|---|---|
| Type A citations | 0 | 0 |
| Type B citations | 0 | 1 |
| Substantiated allegations | 0 | 2 |
| Total complaints | 6 | 6 |
“Typical” is the statewide median for licensed homes this size. It does not adjust for years licensed, and older licenses have had more visits and reports. The median is across the 1,354 licensed larger communities (16+ beds) in the state record. The figures compared are the state’s totals, not the documents.
What the state’s words mean
CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗ · CDSS complaint outcomes ↗
An “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing — it means the state investigated and could not confirm the allegation. Outcome words are the state’s own; we never grade, score, or color a record, and we publish no reviews — the state’s dated documents stand in their place.
Frequently asked questions
A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
Quick answers about Veterans Home Chula Vista
Is Veterans Home Chula Vista licensed?
The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
How many residents is Veterans Home Chula Vista licensed for?
55 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Has Veterans Home Chula Vista been cited?
0 Type A and 0 Type B citations since 2000, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 12 state visits over the same years.
Is Veterans Home Chula Vista still open?
This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 11, 2026.
What does Veterans Home Chula Vista cost?
$4,550 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $3,550–$5,800. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 12 communities with 50 or more beds within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
Among 7 other homes of a similar licensed size in Chula Vista that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $3,378 to $4,499 a month, and the middle figure is $3,895 (n = 7 other homes publishing a starting rate).
Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date between September and October 2026 — not an average of ours, and not a survey. Similar size means small and mid-size homes counted together, and large communities counted on their own, because they are different markets.
A home outside the band is not overcharging or underpricing: a starting rate covers different things in different homes, which is the first thing to ask about.
The price is made in the phone call. Nothing here is a quote, an offer or a discount.
A starting rate is the room and the base care. California homes commonly bill care levels, medication management, supplies, transport and a second person in the room as extras. Many also charge a one-time fee at move-in. Ask for that list in writing before anything is signed.
Only prices a home put out itself count here: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price a listing site says the home confirmed. Prices a site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
Does Veterans Home Chula Vista take Medi-Cal?
On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
Who holds the license?
The license is held by Veterans Home of California - Chula Vista, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Is there a hospital nearby?
Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center is 0.2 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.
Can Veterans Home Chula Vista keep a resident on hospice?
Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 5 residents, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Veterans Home Chula Vista license and inspection record
- Name on the license: “VETERANS HOME CHULA VISTA”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
- License #374601005. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed for 55 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed to Veterans Home of California - Chula Vista, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- First licensed in 2000, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 12 state inspection visits since 2000, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 0 Type A and 0 Type B citations on file since 2000, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 12 state visits in that period.
- 6 complaints and 0 substantiated allegations on file since 2000, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
- The most recent state visit on file is August 23, 2026, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
California writes these definitions for every licensed home, not for this one. CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗
Nearby
Other homes nearby
Licensed homes near this one in San Diego County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.
- Map
Starting rate
$6,000 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,850 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,950–$5,950On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,350 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,350–$6,550On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,400 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,400–$6,650On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,550 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,550–$6,800On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,500 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,500–$6,800On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap
Explore San Diego County