Sandhill Assisted Living Llc is a residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Menlo Park, San Mateo County, California — state license #415601137, licensed for 6 residents, listed as licensed in the CDSS record we retrieved August 2, 2026. It does not appear on the DHCS Assisted Living Waiver participant list checked August 9, 2026 — that list covers the state waiver only, not a home's own payment arrangements. California has 23 dated inspection and complaint documents on file for this home going back to 2022, the most recent dated July 1, 2026 — published below in full, verbatim and unscored.

See an error in this summary? Report it — free →

2 homes in view

Sandhill Assisted Living Llc

No photo on file yet

No photo of this home is on file — we show real, attributed images only, never a stock photo of someone else’s building.

Residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) · Small home, 6 residents · Menlo Park, CA · San Mateo County
LicensedWheelchairMemory careHospiceBedridden
No openings reportedBeds change hands in days ·
License #415601137, held since 2022 · read from the California state record on August 2, 2026 ·See on State Site →
735 Monte Rosa Drive · Menlo Park, San Mateo County
Phone
(650) 492-9429
from the state licensing roster · August 2, 2026
No Google listing is on file for this home.
Website
None on file
Many small homes have no website — that says nothing about the care inside.
Contact facts come from the state roster, a county Area Agency on Aging roster, the home’s Google listing, or the operator — each labelled, never blended. Operators: add or correct yours, free →
Print tour sheet →

Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryApproved for 4 residents
Dementia / memory careVerified in record
Hospice careApproved for 6 residents
Bedridden careApproved for 2 residents

“Not on file” is not a no — approvals can be bed- or room-specific, so confirm current scope with the home on a tour. Where a number is shown it is the state’s own wording for how many residents the approval covers, not how many places are open today; where none is shown, the record simply does not state one.

Specific medical needs — insulin, oxygen, a catheter, an ostomy — aren’t in the state license record; ask the home directly. A feeding tube, tracheostomy, or advanced wound care usually needs skilled nursing →

See an error in these clearances? Report it — free →

What the state record says, word for word
AGE RANGE 60 AND OVER. APPROVED FOR 4 NONAMBULATORY AND 2 BEDRIDDEN RESIDENTS. BEDRIDDEN RESIDENTS SHALL BE IN BEDROOM 1 OR 2. APPROVED FOR 6 HOSPICE RESIDENTS.State service designation983 - RCFE / DEMENTIAthe CDSS license record, verbatim · checked August 2, 2026

“RCFE / Dementia” is the state’s designation for a home with an approved Dementia Care Plan of Operation — it’s recorded separately from the comments above, which is why the memory-care approval may not appear in that text.

Since 2022, the state has visited this home 26 times and filed 23 documents. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated July 1, 2026.

Most recent state visit
July 1, 2026
Occupancy at the February 19, 2025 visit
5 of 6 beds

The state's published file for this home includes 4 documents with transcribed findings, dated February 22, 2024 to February 19, 2025. 4 of the 4 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Substantiated” (2), “Unfounded” (1), “Unsubstantiated” (1). 4 include the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word.

Summary composed by computer from the 4 documents below — every count derives from them, and the documents themselves are the state's records, verbatim. We never grade, score, or color a record.

What the state’s words mean
Substantiatedthe state found the allegation more likely true than notUnsubstantiatedinvestigated, but couldn’t be confirmed either way — not a finding of wrongdoingUnfoundedthe state concluded it was false or couldn’t have happenedType A citationthe most serious: an immediate health-or-safety risk, usually fixed on the spot or on a short deadlineType B citationless serious, with a deadline to fix
The last 36 months — 20 of 23 documentsFull record on the state’s site →
20261 state visit · 1 document
Jul 1, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20253 state visits · 4 documents
Jul 10, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Apr 10, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Apr 10, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Feb 19, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Licensee is not ensuring that the facility has sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents in care.

On 2/19/2025 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit at the facility. LPA met with Administrator Susan Tilma and explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding Licensee is not ensuring that the facility has sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents in care, according to the reporting party, there are 5 residents at the facility and either 1 or 2 staff members present at to provide care and supervision throughout the day. During the complaint visit on 1/31/25, LPA observed 5 residents in their beds and one staff member (S1) cooking breakfast. LPA reviewed all 5 resident files and observed 4/5 residents to have a diagnosis of dementia and one resident that is on hospice. According to the administrator and S1, from 8-9am, S1 is providing care and supervision to the 5 residents. When S1 goes on his/her break from 11am-1pm, there is another staff member (S2) who is providing care and supervision to 5 residents alone. Thereforethe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 19, 2025 · control 14-AS-20250129110008
20247 state visits · 11 documents
Aug 22, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Aug 22, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Aug 1, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Aug 1, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Jul 25, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

May 24, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Mar 22, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnfounded

Allegation investigated: Only one staff was scheduled and unable to communicate due to language barrier

On 3/22/2024, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit. LPA met with Caregiver Dinnah Ortega and explained the purpose of today's visit. Regarding the allegation of only one staff was scheduled and unable to communicate due to language barrier, the Reporting Party (RP) stated that RP arrived at the facility to visit a relative. RP attempted to communicate with the only caregiver on the premises but was unable to do so due to a language barrier. Based on interviews, LPA was able to interview one family member (F1). They stated that they don’t remember a situation where they were not able to communicate with staff. Two staff members were interviewed, and both confirmed that the staff (S1) working that day can understand and speak English. Based on interviews, the department has determined that that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis, therefore the allegations are UNFOUNDED. Nothe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 22, 2024 · control 14-AS-20240312113322
Feb 22, 2024Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff have not received required training Staff interfered with administration of medications prescribed by MD Staffing is inadequate to meet residents' care needs Meals are not prepared on site Resident's weight loss was not documented nor reported to MD and responsible party accurately

On 2/22/24, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegations. LPA met with Caregivers Aljolyn Maquiddang & Susie Herrera then Administrator Rick Aban followed after. LPA explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding the allegation Staff have not received required training, the reporting party (RP) states that staff are asked to sign a document for training that was taken; however, training was never done. During the investigation, LPA Jeung interviewed two staff members one (S1) mentioned that they did get trained on dementia, emergency preparedness, lifting, as well as other topics. And this was done online and in person. However, two out of four family members that were interviewed said that there are staff that are not qualified and not trained. The first witness (F1) mentioned an instance where a staff (S2) was not able to care for a resident (R2); they would have to wait for senior staff to come to change thethe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 22, 2024 · control 14-AS-20220927160827
Feb 22, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff do not ensure that the facility has a working telephone at all times Staff are preventing resident from receiving hospice services because they do not answer the facility door

On 2/22/24, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegations. LPA met with Caregivers Aljolyn Maquiddang & Susie Herrera then Administrator Rick Aban followed after. LPA explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding the allegations of staff does not ensure that the facility has a working telephone at all times and staff are preventing resident from receiving hospice services because they do not answer the facility door, reporting party (RP) stated that the hospice agency attempted to call the facility, but staff did not answer the telephone. Hospice staff attempted to visit the resident, but staff did not answer the door. Hospice staff continued to call and attempt to visit but were unable to gain access to the resident (R1) until 11/29/2022. LPA Jeung was able to interview three staff members, S1 stated that staff do not want to answer the phone because they don't know what to say and they're shy. Instead of answthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 22, 2024 · control 14-AS-20221129135944
Feb 22, 2024Complaint investigation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Jan 16, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20234 state visits · 4 documents
Dec 21, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Nov 6, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Oct 4, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Aug 16, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Beside homes the same size
Type A citations8typical 0
Type B citations0typical 0
Substantiated complaints8typical 0
Total complaints4typical 0
State visits on file26typical 6
“Typical” is the statewide median across the 5,773 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record — larger, longer-licensed homes accumulate more visits and reports, so compare like with like. One complaint can contain several allegations. Counts cover this license since 2022.
Year-by-year trend
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated202611020253412024711120235502022220
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.Operate this home? Respond to or correct any document here, free. Respond or correct →

See an error in these counts? Report it — free →

$6,000$9,000 /mo
our estimate — San Mateo County band, market research June 2026; not this home’s quoted price
$3,500 · statewide low$9,000 · statewide high
California’s public record holds no per-home price, so we never invent one. Ask the home for its rate sheet, or
Ways families pay here
Private pay — ask what the base rate includes and what’s billed separately.SSI/SSP — California’s board-and-care payment standard is $1,626.07/mo (2026): $1,444.07 to the home, $182 stays with the resident.Medi-Cal ALW — this home isn’t on the DHCS waiver list (checked August 9, 2026). Details →

Free for families · We never sell your information · Homes never pay to appear, and rankings are never affected by fees.

Cost range look wrong? Report it — free →

What dementia training does staff have, and is the area secured?
Non-ambulatory approval — whole home or specific rooms, and is a spot open?
How is medication handled and logged day to day?
What’s in the base monthly rate, and what’s billed separately?
Staff-to-resident ratio on day and night shifts?
How are medical emergencies handled after hours?

The first two come straight from this home’s record — a brochure won’t answer them.

Operate this home? This page is generated from CDSS public records — respond or correct it, free.
Claim your home → · See something wrong? → · How we source every fact →
Call (650) 492-9429

Is Sandhill Assisted Living Llc licensed?

Yes — Sandhill Assisted Living Llc is a licensed residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Menlo Park (San Mateo County): California license #415601137, shown as licensed in the CDSS state record checked August 2, 2026, licensed for 6 residents. State records list 23 inspection and complaint documents since 2022; the most recent, a facility evaluation report dated July 1, 2026, appears in the inspection record on this page.

Can Sandhill Assisted Living Llc care for dementia, hospice, bedridden, or non-ambulatory residents?

From the CDSS license record, checked August 2, 2026.

The CDSS license record checked August 2, 2026 lists Sandhill Assisted Living Llc with clearances for wheelchair / non-ambulatory, dementia / memory care, hospice care, and bedridden. Clearances describe what the license permits, not day-to-day staffing — confirm current scope and availability with the home directly on a tour.

Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryDementia / memory careHospice careBedridden

From the California state record. Some approvals are bed- or room-specific — always confirm current scope with the facility.

What the state record says, word for word
Verbatim, from the CDSS license recordAGE RANGE 60 AND OVER. APPROVED FOR 4 NONAMBULATORY AND 2 BEDRIDDEN RESIDENTS. BEDRIDDEN RESIDENTS SHALL BE IN BEDROOM 1 OR 2. APPROVED FOR 6 HOSPICE RESIDENTS.

How much does Sandhill Assisted Living Llc cost?

California's public licensing record does not include Sandhill Assisted Living Llc's monthly price, so we never show or estimate one for a specific home. As county-level context only, assisted living in San Mateo County typically runs $6,000–$9,000/mo and small board-and-care homes $5,000–$8,000/mo (market research compiled June 2026 — ranges, not quotes; California's 2026 SSI/SSP board-and-care payment standard is $1,626.07/month, of which $1,444.07 is the room-and-board portion paid to the home). Ask the home for its own rate sheet and what the base rate includes — or use the cost section at the top of this page.

Does Sandhill Assisted Living Llc accept Medi-Cal or the Assisted Living Waiver?

Sandhill Assisted Living Llc is not in the DHCS Assisted Living Waiver participant record we checked August 9, 2026 — that list covers only the state's ALW program, not a home's own payment policies, so ask the home directly about private Medi-Cal arrangements. The waiver pays for assisted-living care services (not room and board) at participating homes; every DHCS-listed home appears on our statewide Medi-Cal page.

Assisted living on Medi-Cal in California →See the DHCS list →

How full it was at the last state visit

5 of 6 beds occupied (83%) when the state visited on February 19, 2025. Availability changes constantly — confirm a current opening with the home.

What do state inspections show for Sandhill Assisted Living Llc?

Verbatim from CDSS complaint-investigation reports — the state's own words, never summarized by us. Record checked August 2, 2026.

The CDSS state record checked August 2, 2026 lists 26 state visits and 23 dated documents since 2022 for Sandhill Assisted Living Llc; 4 complaint-investigation narratives are transcribed verbatim below. The most recent, dated February 19, 2025, records an allegation the state marked “Substantiated. Open any entry to read the state's full finding, word for word.

Most licensed homes receive some findings over 36 months; what matters is what was found and whether it was corrected. Counts here are shown compared with homes of similar size, and the state's own words appear in full below.

4 transcribed reports on file

2025

Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Substantiated
Allegation the state reviewedLicensee is not ensuring that the facility has sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents in care.
State's findingSubstantiatedThe state investigated and found this allegation more likely than not true.
On 2/19/2025 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit at the facility. LPA met with Administrator Susan Tilma and explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding Licensee is not ensuring that the facility has sufficient staff to meet the needs of residents in care, according to the reporting party, there are 5 residents at the facility and either 1 or 2 staff members present at to provide care and supervision throughout the day. During the complaint visit on 1/31/25, LPA observed 5 residents in their beds and one staff member (S1) cooking breakfast. LPA reviewed all 5 resident files and observed 4/5 residents to have a diagnosis of dementia and one resident that is on hospice. According to the administrator and S1, from 8-9am, S1 is providing care and supervision to the 5 residents. When S1 goes on his/her break from 11am-1pm, there is another staff member (S2) who is providing care and supervision to 5 residents alone. ThereforeCDSS inspection report, February 19, 2025 · control 14-AS-20250129110008

2024

Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unfounded
Allegation the state reviewedOnly one staff was scheduled and unable to communicate due to language barrier
State's findingUnfoundedThe state investigated and found the allegation to be false.
On 3/22/2024, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit. LPA met with Caregiver Dinnah Ortega and explained the purpose of today's visit. Regarding the allegation of only one staff was scheduled and unable to communicate due to language barrier, the Reporting Party (RP) stated that RP arrived at the facility to visit a relative. RP attempted to communicate with the only caregiver on the premises but was unable to do so due to a language barrier. Based on interviews, LPA was able to interview one family member (F1). They stated that they don’t remember a situation where they were not able to communicate with staff. Two staff members were interviewed, and both confirmed that the staff (S1) working that day can understand and speak English. Based on interviews, the department has determined that that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis, therefore the allegations are UNFOUNDED. NoCDSS inspection report, March 22, 2024 · control 14-AS-20240312113322
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Substantiated
Allegation the state reviewedStaff have not received required training Staff interfered with administration of medications prescribed by MD Staffing is inadequate to meet residents' care needs Meals are not prepared on site Resident's weight loss was not documented nor reported to MD and responsible party accurately
State's findingSubstantiatedThe state investigated and found this allegation more likely than not true.
On 2/22/24, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegations. LPA met with Caregivers Aljolyn Maquiddang & Susie Herrera then Administrator Rick Aban followed after. LPA explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding the allegation Staff have not received required training, the reporting party (RP) states that staff are asked to sign a document for training that was taken; however, training was never done. During the investigation, LPA Jeung interviewed two staff members one (S1) mentioned that they did get trained on dementia, emergency preparedness, lifting, as well as other topics. And this was done online and in person. However, two out of four family members that were interviewed said that there are staff that are not qualified and not trained. The first witness (F1) mentioned an instance where a staff (S2) was not able to care for a resident (R2); they would have to wait for senior staff to come to change theCDSS inspection report, February 22, 2024 · control 14-AS-20220927160827
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Unsubstantiated
Allegation the state reviewedStaff do not ensure that the facility has a working telephone at all times Staff are preventing resident from receiving hospice services because they do not answer the facility door
State's findingUnsubstantiatedThe state investigated but could not confirm the allegation. This is not a finding of wrongdoing.
On 2/22/24, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegations. LPA met with Caregivers Aljolyn Maquiddang & Susie Herrera then Administrator Rick Aban followed after. LPA explained the purpose of the visit. Regarding the allegations of staff does not ensure that the facility has a working telephone at all times and staff are preventing resident from receiving hospice services because they do not answer the facility door, reporting party (RP) stated that the hospice agency attempted to call the facility, but staff did not answer the telephone. Hospice staff attempted to visit the resident, but staff did not answer the door. Hospice staff continued to call and attempt to visit but were unable to gain access to the resident (R1) until 11/29/2022. LPA Jeung was able to interview three staff members, S1 stated that staff do not want to answer the phone because they don't know what to say and they're shy. Instead of answCDSS inspection report, February 22, 2024 · control 14-AS-20221129135944

Transcribed from CDSS complaint-investigation reports · record checked August 2, 2026.

What the state has logged

California has logged 26 state visits for this home as of August 2, 2026. These are the home's own counts, straight from that record — shown beside the statewide median for small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds), computed across all 5,773 licensed homes of that size, because larger and longer-licensed homes naturally accumulate more visits and reports. They are facts, not a grade — a citation may be minor and since corrected, and an “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Type A citations
8
typical for this size: 0
Type B citations
0
typical for this size: 0
Substantiated complaints
8
typical for this size: 0
Total complaints
4
typical for this size: 0
State visits on file
26
typical for this size: 6
See the full inspection record on the state's site →

Who runs Sandhill Assisted Living Llc?

From the CDSS ownership record, checked August 9, 2026.

Licensed to Sandhill Assisted Living Llc, who operates 2 licensed California homes in total. Running more than one home is common and is neither good nor bad on its own.

Talk to this home directly

You can call them yourself, anytime — you never have to go through us.

(650) 492-9429
What isn't in the state record

Resident reviews, the exact monthly price, and the languages staff speak aren't part of California's public licensing record, so we don't show them here. Ask the home directly — the tour questions above are a good start.

Operate this home? The record above comes from California's public licensing data. You can respond or correct it — free. Claim your home — free →

See something wrong? Report an error — free → · How we source every fact →

This page is generated from CDSS Community Care Licensing public records. How we build these pages →

Do you run Sandhill Assisted Living Llc? Claim this listing — free — add photos, activities, languages, and today’s availability.