Large community · Licensed for 150 · San Jose
Belmont Village San Jose
500 S Winchester Blvd, San Jose, CA 95128Licensed since 2013
Overview
No openings reported
- Approved by the state: Wheelchair · Hospice · BedriddenState licensing record · October 26, 2026
- Languages spoken: Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Arabic, Spanish, Croatian, Farsi and American Sign LanguageReported on A Place for Mom · September 9, 2026
- Licensed for 150: 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
- Wheelchairup to 105 residents
- Hospiceup to 7 residents
- Bedriddenup to 1 resident
Not on file: dementia approval.
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
FIRE CLEARANCE APPROVED FOR A TOTAL OF 45 BEDRIDDEN AND 105 NON-AMB 1ST FLOOR 12 BEDRIDDEN,2ND FLOOR 14 BEDRIDDEN 3RD FLOOR 15 BEDRIDDEN 4TH, 5TH, 6TH AND 7TH APPROVED FOR ONE BEDRIDDEN ON EACH FLOOR DELAYED EG RESS APPROVED. HOSPICE WAIVER GRANTED FOR SEVENTEEN.
935 - ELDERLY
CDSS record, verbatim · October 26, 2026
Care services
These are the home’s own statements about its day-to-day practice — they are not part of the state licensing record, and the state has not approved or reviewed them.
Assisted living
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Help with bathing or showering
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Assistance with transfers
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Therapies availablePhysical therapy
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Diabetic / carbohydrate-controlled diet
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Incontinence care
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Respite / short-term stays
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Help with dressing and grooming
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Building is wheelchair accessible
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Medication management
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Works with residents’ own health care providers
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Diabetes care
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Works with hospice
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
24-hour supervision claimed
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Secured building entry
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Emergency call system
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
As needs change
Medicines
Level of medication service: reminders only
Caring.com · September 9, 2026
Staying through hospice
Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 7 — care may continue at the end of life
State licensing record · October 26, 2026
We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Belmont Village San Jose: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight and care if memory loss develops. When we check availability, we ask about these too.
Check availabilityWhat it costs here
This home’s starting rate
$6,250a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026
Costs & moving in
Term of the admission agreementMonth to month
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Monthly cost breakdownWith a studio and basic help · room, care and fees$6,250likely 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$6,250this home
The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly, seen September 9, 2026.
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 $6,250–$6,850
- $6,250
- First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $6,250–$10,400
- $8,750
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 homes8 nearby homes publish starting rates of $4,200 to $6,495
8 homes like this within 3 miles publish starting rates mostly between $4,450–$6,200.
- Oakmont of San JoseSan Jose · 0.8 mi · Large community$6,495Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- The Watermark at San JoseSan Jose · 1.2 mi · Large community$4,995Listed on Seniorly · assisted living studio · seen September 9, 2026
- Ivy Park at San TomasSan Jose · 1.3 mi · Large community$5,095Listed on its own website · studio apartments · seen October 27, 2026
- Sonnet HillSan Jose · 2.0 mi · Large community$5,250Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Merrill Gardens at Willow GlenSan Jose · 2.1 mi · Large community$4,500Listed on its own website · starting price for senior living · seen October 27, 2026
- Merrill Gardens at CampbellCampbell · 2.2 mi · Large community$4,900Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Campbell VillageCampbell · 2.4 mi · Large community$4,200Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Atria Willow GlenSan Jose · 2.9 mi · Large community$4,495Listed on its own website · seen October 27, 2026
How this estimate worksWhere this price comes from
The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly, seen September 9, 2026.
- 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
Rooms, meals, activities and house rules, in the home’s own words. Open any detail to see where it came from.
Rooms & the spaces they will use (20)Private rooms · Outdoor space · Wifi
Private rooms
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Outdoor spaceOutdoor common space · Patio · Garden · Walking paths
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Wifi
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Shared / companion rooms
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Common areasBistro · Grill · Dining room · Spa / sauna / wellness room · Fitness room · Business room · and 8 more
Bistro · Grill · Dining room · Spa / sauna / wellness room · Fitness room · Business room · Library · Arts room · Activity room · Movie theater · Game room · On-site market / Store · Swimming pool / jacuzzi · Cognitive learning center — reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Private bathroom
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
LaundryDone by staff
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Room typesStudio
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Visitor parking
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Rooms come furnished
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
AmenitiesPiano · Fireplace · Concierge · Move-in coordination · Library · Fitness Room/Gym
Piano · Fireplace · Concierge · Move-in coordination — reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Library · Fitness Room/Gym — reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Roll-in / accessible shower
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Housekeeping
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Wifi in resident rooms
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Salon or barber
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Air conditioning in the room
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Cable or satellite TV
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Kitchenette in the unit
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Telephone in the room
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Ground-floor units
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Meals, preferences & familiar food (12)Dining style · Special diets supported · Meals are cooked in the home's own kitchen
Dining styleRestaurant style
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Special diets supportedLow / No Sodium
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Meals are cooked in the home's own kitchen
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Vegetarian or vegan optionsVegetarian · Vegan
Vegetarian — reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Vegan — reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
All-day or flexible dining
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Cultural cuisine regularly servedInternational
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Residents choose between options at each meal
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Food allergy management
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Meals served in the room
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Family may eat with the resident
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Meals provided
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Professional chef
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Activities & the rhythm of a day (8)The shape of an ordinary day, as the home describes it · Activity types offered · Exercise or fitness program
The shape of an ordinary day, as the home describes itComputer class
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Activity types offeredVolunteer program · Music programs · Scheduled daily activities · Movie nights · Outdoor programs · Resident band or musicians · and 27 more
Volunteer program · Music programs · Scheduled daily activities · Movie nights · Outdoor programs · Resident band or musicians · Bridge club · Book club · Choir / singing club · Bible study group · Cards / pinochle club · Happy hour · Cooking classes · Live dance or theater performances · Holiday parties · Dances · Art classes · Has karaoke · Trivia games · Live well programs · Has birthday parties · Wine tasting · Walking club · Has wii bowling · Has garden club — reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Activities On-site · Men's Club · Community Service Programs · Birthday Parties · Brain fitness / Dakim · Live Musical Performances · Educational Speakers / Life Long Learning · BBQs or Picnics — reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Exercise or fitness programTai chi · Yoga/stretching
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Trips outside the home
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Resident-run activities
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Religious services at the home
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Religious services off site
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Intergenerational programs
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Faith, culture & language (2)Clergy or chaplain visits · Languages spoken by caregivers
Clergy or chaplain visits
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Languages spoken by caregiversEnglish · Japanese · Chinese · Filipino · Arabic · Spanish · and 3 more
English — reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Japanese · Chinese · Filipino · Arabic · Spanish · Croatian · Farsi · American Sign Language — reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Pets, routines & independence (4)Residents may bring a pet · Overnight guests · Pet types allowed
Residents may bring a pet
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Overnight guests
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Pet types allowedMedium dogs · Dogs · Cats
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Pet weight limit
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Visiting & staying involved (6)Support services for families · Transport for shopping and errands · Public transit access claimed
Support services for families
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Transport for shopping and errands
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Public transit access claimed
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Transportation costs extraReported no
Reported on A Place for Mom · seen September 9, 2026.
Transport for group outings
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Transportation
Reported on Seniorly · source dated August 24, 2026.
Where it is
500 S Winchester Blvd, San Jose, CA 95128Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.
Opening the neighborhood map…
- Santa Clara Valley Medical CenterHospital · General acute care, on the state’s list0.9 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 #435202350 · See the state’s own record
The last 36 months — 14 of 25 documents
Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 1 “Substantiated” and 4 “Unsubstantiated”.
20262 state visits · 2 documents
Aug 31, 2026Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Marcella Tarin conducted an unannounced case management visit. LPA met with Director of Resident Care Services/Administrator Gilda Deocares. The purpose of today's visit is follow up on a recent facility fire clearance inspection. On August 8th, 2026, the Department requested a new fire clearance inspection for the facility for the conversion of three rooms on the 3rd floor in Memory Care, with each room accommodating two residents. On August 26th, 2026 the Department received the approved fire clearance dated 8/19/2026, to include the approval of three rooms on the 3rd floor in Memory Care to accommodate two residents. During today's visit, LPA toured the three converted resident rooms. There is no change to the facility approved capacity or ambulatory/non-ambulatory/bedridden status. No deficiencies cited during today's visit per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Resident Care Services/Administrator Gilda Deocares. A copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 31, 2026
Jun 22, 2026Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Steve Chang conducted an unannounced annual inspection visit and met with Executive Director (ED) Rachel Brown. The facility is a 7 stories building. LPA toured with ED at the 7th floor. 7th floor is assisted living unit. LPA toured the 2 terrace garden, activity room, mailbox room, laundry room. Chemical room was observed locked. Evacuation chairs were observed a 2 stairs. 2 elevators were observed functional. 6th floor is assisted living unit. LPA toured the activity room, art studio, common restrooms and resident rooms. 5th floor is assisted living unit. LPA toured the screen room, salon room and resident rooms. 4th floor is assisted living unit. LPA toured the AL Med room, fitness room and resident rooms. 3rd floor is the memory care unit. LPA toured the laundry room, dining room, and resident rooms. LPA tested 2 delayed opening exit doors and they were functional. Med Carts were observed locked. 2nd floor is assisted living unit. LPA toured the activity rooms, common restroom and resident rooms. LPA toured the 1st floor memory care unit. LPA toured the resident rooms. LPA tested the 4 delayed opening exit doors and they were functional. LPA tested the 2 delayed opening exit gates of the court yard and they were functional. Continue on *09-C. page 1 of 2. LPA toured the lobby and reception area. Facility license, personal right posters and ADM certificate were observed in the facility. Room temperature was observed at 75 degree F. LPA toured the kitchen. Hot water was measured at 112 degree F in resident room. The facility was equipped with fire alarm system, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Carbon monoxide detectors were tested and they were working. The temperature of the freezer was measured at 0 degree F, and the temperature of the refrigerator was measured at 37 degree F. 2 days perishable food supplies and 7 days nonperishable food supplies were observed sufficient. Fire extinguisher was serviced on 2/18/2026. The last time the facility conducted the emergency drill was on 5/26/2026. ED provided the fire alarm system inspection report dated 1/22/2026. LPA review 5 resident files and 5 staff files. No citation noted today. Exit interview was conducted with ED. The report was provided to ED for review and for signature.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 22, 2026
20256 state visits · 8 documents
Dec 4, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff hit resident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Monter conducted an unannounced complaint inspection to deliver the findings on the above allegation. LPA met with Administrator Rachel Brown. On September 3, 2025 the Department received a complaint alleging Staff hit resident. It has been alleged staff S1 hit resident R1. On September 9, 2025, LPA Monter conducted the initial complaint investigation visit. LPA attempted to interview resident R1. R1 stated he/she declined to be interviewed. Page 1 Out of 4. Unsubstantiated LPA interviewed staff S2-S4. S2 stated on September 1, 2025, he/she was preparing breakfast in the kitchen area of the dining room. S2 stated he/she noticed that they needed another meal made because one was missing and he/she asked S1 to contact the kitchen. S2 stated R1 was sitting on a wheel chair close to the telephone, S1 moved R1. S2 stated he/she observed R1 elbow staff S1 and saw R1 roll his/her wheel chair back hitting against S1. S2 stated as he/she saw this, he/she saw S1 then hit R1's right forearm with his/her right hand. S2 stated it was kind of like a reaction. S2 stated he/she asked S1 why he/she did that and S1 apologized. LPA requested S2 re-enact the hit on LPA's arm. S2's re-enactment was a slap, open handed, swinging the forearm downwards. S2 stated it made a slapping sound. S2 stated it wasn't a full swing. Staff S3 stated the day of the event, he/she was in his/her office. S3 stated S1 arrived to his/her office. S3 stated staff S1 said, he/she did hit R1. S1 said he/she tried to make a call and R1 hit S1. S1 stated he/she tried to get R1 to stop, and he/she reacted. Staff S4 stated he/she did work on September 1, 2025, but doesn’t remember where he/she was when the incident occurred. S4 stated he/she didn’t see the incident take place. On September 1, 2025, local law enforcement (LLE) interviewed resident R1, who did not recall the incident and had no complaint of pain. LLE did not observe any visible injury on R1. LLE interviewed staff S3. S3 stated at approximately 12:30pm, S1 was using the phone in the dinning hall when R1 came up to S1 and hit S1 repeatedly. S1 hit R1 back with an open hand one time causing R1 to stop. S1 reported the incident to S3. Page 2 Out of 4. On October 31, 2025, LPA Manuel Monter interviewed Staff S1. S1 stated the day in question, he/she was working in the memory care unit. S1 stated it was around lunch time. S1 stated there was a meal missing for a resident. S1 stated he/she needed to make a call to the kitchen to get that additional meal. S1 stated the phone is dining room next to dinning room table, directly across from the entrance doorway. S1 stated as he/she was reaching for the phone, R1 tried to hit him/her. S1 stated as he/she was being stuck, he/she redirected R1’s hand. S1 stated he/she had not been hit by R1 before and was shocked. S1 stated he/she didn’t hit R1, and he/she only put R1’s hand down. S1 stated he/she thinks, he/she may have accidentally scared R1 when he/she reached for the phone. S1 stated he/she doesn’t remember which hand he/she put down. S1 stated after putting R1’s hand down, staff S2 told him/her not to hit R1. S1 stated he/she then walked away. S1 stated he/she told the staff S3, that he/she had hit R1. S1 stated he/she had used the wrong term when she told S3 that he/she hit R1. S1 reiterated that he/she didn’t hit R1 and only placed R1’s hand down. On November 20, 2025, LPA Manuel Monter interviewed staff S2-S9. 8 Out of 8 Staff (S2-S9) interviewed stated prior to the event that occurred between R1 and S1 on September 1, 2025, S1 was a kind person who has not had any issues with families, other staff or residents. Staff S3-S5 & S7-S9 stated they were working at the facility on September 1, 2025, but did not witness the incident between R1 and S1. Staff S6 stated he/she was not in the facility when the alleged incident occurred and did not witness the event. LPA Manuel Monter interviewed ADM. ADM stated that Staff S1 is a mild mannered person. ADM stated S1 prior to the event in question, S1 has not had any issues with families, other staff or residents. On December 1, 2025, LPA Manuel Monter interviewed Staff S10-S12. Staff S10-S12 stated they were working at the facility when the alleged incident occurred on September 1, 2025. Staff S10 and S11 stated they were not in the dinning area and did not observe the event. 3 Out of 3 staff (S10-S12) stated S1 has not had any issues with staff, residents or families. Page 3 Out of 4. Staff S12 stated he/she was in the dinning room, located close to the entrance, when the alleged incident occurred. S12 stated he/she was serving food, he/she heard R1 was hitting S1. S12 stated he/she heard staff S1 say, “don’t hit me, don’t hit me.” S12 stated when he/she heard this, he/she turned around to see what was happening. S12 stated as he/she turned, he/she saw S1 moving R1’s wheel chair back. S12 stated he/she didn’t’ see anything else. S12 stated S2 went and asked what had happened. S12 stated S1, had said, R1 was hitting him/her. S12 stated, S2 responded that he/she would need to report it. S12 stated he/she did not observe staff S1 hit or touch R1. Based on investigation, records reviewed, and interviews conducted, the Department found that the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegation did or did not occur. Page 4 Out of 4. END OF REPORT.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 4, 2025 · control 26-AS-20250903112859
Jul 22, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff had inappropriate behavior with a resident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Kabariti arrived unannounced to deliver the finding for the above allegation. LPA met with Executive Director, Rachel Brown. On 03/11/2025, the Department received the complaint. On 03/12/2025, the initial complaint investigation was conducted. Documents were obtained to include 5 residents physician's report, service plan, progress notes from February - March 2025, resident roster, staff schedule, and police report. It was alleged that a staff had inappropriate behavior with a resident (R1). Another resident (R2) was the first person to have reported the information to the staff. R2 reported that a staff was having inappropriate behavior with R1. R2 could not provide a name of the staff who had inappropriate behavior with R1 but provided a description of the staff. R2 states that the inappropriate behavior was consensual per R1. Page 1 of 2. Unsubstantiated Based on review of the police report, the report was written for information purposes. It’s indicated that R1 stated to have been kissing a staff member, but the kissing was consensual. R1 did not remember the staff member’s name. The facility’s Executive Director advised that R1 suffers from a neurocognitive disorder but can still make decisions for him/herself. Based on the description that was provided of the staff member, it did not match any of the facility staff members on site. R1 was interviewed. Based on interview, R1 made inconsistent statements to the Department, local police officers and facility staff regarding the alleged incident that was reported by R2. The review of records shows that R1 has a diagnosis of a neurocognitive disorder and history of forgetfulness. Facility staff were interviewed. Based on interview, there were no facility staff who fit the description that was provided by R2. 7 out of 7 staff members interviewed denied the observation of any staff conducting inappropriate behavior with any resident, including R1. The Department has investigated the above allegation. Based on interview, record review and observation the above allegation is unsubstantiated. An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegation may have happened and/or is valid there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation did or did not occur. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Rachel Brown and a copy of the report was provided. Page 2 of 2.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 22, 2025 · control 26-AS-20250311090818
Jul 22, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff inappropriately restrained a resident while in care
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Kabariti arrived unannounced to deliver the finding for the above allegation. LPA met with Executive Director, Rachel Brown. On 03/24/2025, the Department received the complaint. On 04/03/2025, the initial complaint investigation was conducted. The following documents were obtained to include a resident’s physician’s report, service plan, progress notes, resident roster and police report. It was alleged that on 10/27/2024 a staff member (S1) held the wrist down of a resident (R1) for about 15 seconds in order to “check his/her strength”. It was reported that R1 attempted to get his/her wrist away from S1 but was unable to do so. The incident was observed by a staff (S2) who stopped the incident. R1 did not sustain any injuries and did not recall the event due to his/her diagnosis of a neurological condition. Page 1 of 3. Substantiated On 11/06/2024, the Department conducted a case management visit to follow-up on this incident after receiving a self-reported SOC-341 from the facility. See case management on 11/06/2024. During this visit, R1 was interviewed and was unable to recall the incident occurring. R1’s family member was informed of the incident. The Executive Director (ED) stated that based on their internal investigation, S1 stated that he/she does this with R1 in a joking way where sometimes S1 would test R1’s strength. At the time of the interaction, R1 was not participating in the joke and seemed startled. S1 was terminated following the incident for inappropriate behavior with the resident. The local police department was notified and responded to the incident on 10/27/2024. Based on record review, R1 did not sustain any injuries and did not recall the event. The police obtained information of S1 and was identified and outstanding at time of the event. On 03/24/2025, the Department received a cross-report of the same incident and generated a complaint investigation. On 04/03/2025, 4 additional staff members were interviewed for the complaint investigation. Based on staff interview, it was stated that R1 was restrained by S1 and verbally challenged to attempt to raise his/her arm as an exhibition of strength. When the Executive Director (ED) interviewed S1 following the incident, S1 stated the incident was only a playful interaction with R1. The incident was witnessed by a staff (S2) who immediately stopped the interaction. Based on interview with S2, it was stated that S1 approached R1 from behind and held R1’s wrist on the side of his/her chair restricting R1’s movement. S2 stated that R1 had a distress look on his/her face during the interaction. S2 stated to have immediately called out S1’s name who immediately released R1’s wrist and reported to S2. S2 reminded S1 to not interact with the residents in that manner and to be careful of his/her action. The observation was then reported to management. The Department has investigated the above allegation. Based on interview and record review the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore, the above allegation is substantiated. A deficiency was cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Rachel Brown and a copy of the report and appeal rights were provided. Page 2 of 2.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 22, 2025 · control 26-AS-20250324143221
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Jul 23, 2025
(a) Residents in all residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: (1) To be accorded dignity in their personal relationships with staff, residents, and other persons. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based interview and record review, the licensee did not ensure that resident (R1) was accorded dignity in his/her relationship with S1, as S1 was observed to restrain R1’s wrist down which poses an immediate health, safety, and personal rights risk to person in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 22, 2025
Plan of correction: Licensee immediately conducted an internal investigation after being notified of the incident and terminated S1. Licensee completes annual and in-service training on personal rights. Copies of the training records was provided to LPA Kabariti. Deficiency was cleared during visit.
Jun 25, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 6/25/2025, LPA Grace Donato made an unannounced annual visit to the facility. LPA met with Administrator, Rachel Brown. LPA explained the purpose of the visit. LPA toured the facility including a random sample of resident rooms, common areas, activity rooms and kitchen area. LPA observed some residents were at different activity rooms. While touring the facility it was observed that the temperature was at 74 deg F. Hot water was also tested in the resident rooms and the temperature was at 110 deg F. All personal belongings are intact inside residents rooms. Facility has sprinkler system. All fire extinguishers have been checked and current. Resident bedrooms and bathrooms were observed to be in good repair equipped with grab bars and non-skid floors. Resident call buttons were checked and functioning. There is adequate amount of food, 2 days for perishables and & 7 days non-perishable. Emergency drills are done every month. Five resident records and five staff records were reviewed. Resident records are updated, complete and signed. Staff records are complete, with training logs. Medication review was done, and all medications are accounted for, and centrally stored medication records are updated. LPA received the following documents, LIC610D and copy of Administrator Certificate. No deficiencies are cited at this time. Report is reviewed and a copy is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 25, 2025
Apr 16, 2025Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
On April 16, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst Manuel Monter conducted a case Management Incident visit regarding an incident report the Department received, stating there was a water leak at the facility. On April 15, 2025, the Department received an incident report that stated, " On 04/13/25 around 10:59 AM, a leak was observed in the elevators. Staff alerted ... Executive Director, Rachel Brown. Elevators stopped on the nearest floor and opened, and were shut down. A plumber, elevator technician, and two water removal/remediation crews were brought on site. The source of the leak was found to be a water holding tank for the boiler, located on the roof. Water flooded into laundry rooms on floors 2-7 and traveled from laundry rooms into elevator doors and 11 resident apartments total, across floors 2-7. Water also impacted the 1st Floor lobby.... Executive Director, who called vendors for urgent assistance. LVN on Duty turned off main water. Vendors stopped flooding, removed water, and worked on drying wet surfaces. Elevator tech assessed elevator operations. Executive Director informed all responsible parties via email and called responsible parties of impacted apartments. Staff transported residents who were in programs back to their apartments via stairs, as directed by LVN on Duty. After removing water, remedial on crews placed fans & dehumidifiers in affected common areas and apartments on 4/13125,Remediation crews will check progress daily until areas are dry" Page 1 Out of 2. On April 16, 2025, Licensing Program Analyst Manuel Monter toured the facility 1-7 floors. LPA observed the areas that were affected by the water leak, which was areas directly next to the laundry rooms on floors 2-7. This water that leaked, traveled from laundry rooms into elevator doors and 11 resident apartments total, across floors 2-7. During the tour, LPA observed fans and dehumidifiers in each floor, and noted there was no smell or current sign of wetness during the tour. LPA interviewed facility Administrator. ADM stated 3 residents who were residing near the area, where the water leaked, moved to different apartments. ADM stated she has been talking to the residents to ensure they are doing well. ADM stated no resident was physically impacted by the water leak. ADM stated the Fans and dehumidifiers will continue to run until the moisture is gone, but stated vendors estimate the completion date by Friday. ADM also stated the water leak effected the elevators control panels. ADM stated the elevators still work, but need to operate manually. ADM stated the control panels for the elevator have been ordered and should arrive at the facility by Saturday, and installed by this Sunday. ADM stated the facility is assisting residents go down the to first floor by; the facility will manually operate the elevator, via the key and will escort residents down. ADM stated because the panels on the elevator are not functioning, they need to use a key to manually operate it. ADM stated her plan of action to address the leak and wet areas is the facility will be evaluating the tank. ADM stated they will assess the tank to see if they can reinforce the tank, as a temporary measure to ensure a leak does not re occur in the short term. ADM stated the facility is planing on replacing both hot water tanks. ADM stated her plan of action to ensure the health and safety of residents in care, is to continue to deliver meals. ADM stated once the elevator panel is fixed sometime this weekend, dinning can open for residents in the weekend. ADM stated she is staying in contact with the residents, asking how they are doing and family's to keep them updated on the ongoing process. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Rachel Brown and a copy of the report was provided. Page 2 Out of 2.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Apr 16, 2025
Mar 12, 2025Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Kabariti arrived unannounced to conduct a case management – incident visit. LPA met with Executive Director, Rachel Brown. The purpose of the visit is to follow-up on an incident report the Department received regarding a resident (R1) who exited the memory care unit through a delayed egress door and was found at the facility’s driveway. Based on the incident report, it was stated that a visitor observed the resident on the driveway and informed the concierge through the driveway intercom a minute after the resident had exited. The visitor immediately escorted the resident back to memory care. No injuries were noted, and resident’s condition was at baseline. Based on interview with the ED, it was stated that because R1 was attempting to exit seek throughout the day, the staff was turning the delayed egress door alarm on/off throughout the day. After R1's previous attempt to exit seek, the staff mistakenly did not reset the delayed egress door alarm resulting in R1 being able to exit seek without staff's knowledge. LPA observed that R1's bedroom is located near the exit door. ED states that R1 was not able to get past the gate alone as R1 was found by a visitor who was entering into the community, who then escorted R1 back to memory care. After the incident, resident was placed on monitoring for 72 hours, facility staff reached out to R1's doctor regarding possible medication changes, informed R1's authorized representative, and updated R1's care plan. All staff was retrained on elopement prevention, including management of wandering behavior and delayed egress doors. The facility also has on-going elopement drills. Page 1 of 2. The facility plans to change their delayed egress door alarm from a key to a number pad to help prevent the same incident going forward. During visit, LPA obtained R1's physician's report, service plans, progress notes, and staff training records. Based on record review, the facility completed an updated service plan dated 03/07/25 which includes interventions in place for R1's exit seeking to include accompanying R1 to activities and meals, and notifying the nurse when R1 exit seeks. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Rachel Brown and a copy of the report was provided. Page 2 of 2.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 12, 2025
Feb 5, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: - Facility is not kept clean - Dishes to serve residents food are dirty
On 02/05/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jaime Vado conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit in order to deliver the findings regarding the received allegations. LPA met with executive director Rachel Brown and explained the purpose of today's visit. During the course of the investigation interviews were conducted, observations were made, and documents were received. Based on the information provided there are dishwashers present at the facility and substantial food supply observed. Per interviews any dishes that do not meet standards are usually replaced with new or cleaner dishes. Some cutlery and mugs were observed to have staining but this was not apparent on all mugs, cups, dishes, and cutlery. These allegations are unsubstantiated based on the totality of observations made and investigation conducted. Based on these observations, the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the above allegations are unsubstantiated at this time. Report is reviewed with Rachel Brown and a copy is provided on this day. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 5, 2025 · control 26-AS-20230313164543
Feb 5, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: - Facility does not respond to emergency pull cord signals in a timely manner. - Facility not providing medications to resident when requested - Facility is not providing contracted services - Facility is not changing resident's urine bag
On 02/05/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jaime Vado conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit in order to deliver the findings regarding the recieved allegations. LPA met with executive director Rachel Brown and explained the purpose of today's visit. During the course of the investigation interviews were conducted, observations were made, and documents were received. Call logs show a pattern of responsiveness that were best met by time and staff on hand to be resonable depending on the service needed. Medication records observed and interviews show that all prescribed medications were given as prescribed and directed, this would include the changing of the resident's urine bag. When alerted staff would respond based on the demand of staffing and business of the facility. Staff are not informed of the type of service needed when called upon but do respond based on the records reviewed. The resident did not have one on one caregiving. All services were met by the facility to the best of their abilities at the time. These allegations are unsubstantiated based on the totality of observations made and investigation conducted. Based on these observations, the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the above allegations are unsubstantiated at this time. Report is reviewed with Rachel Brown and a copy is provided on this day. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 5, 2025 · control 26-AS-20240304153845
20244 state visits · 4 documents
Nov 6, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Christine Dolores and Santino Fortes arrived unannounced to conduct a case management – incident visit. LPA met with Executive Director, Rachel Brown. The purpose of the visit is to follow-up with a SOC341 the Department received on 10/28/2024, based on an incident that occurred with resident (R1) and 10/27/2024. On 10/27/2024, it was reported that during breakfast a staff (S2) exited the dining room area and observation an interaction with S1 and R1. It was observed that S1 approached R1 from behind and grabbed R1's arms by the wrist for approximately 15 seconds. R1 was observed struggling against S1. S2 called S1 over and the interaction ended. R1 was assessed and R1 did not show any signs of injury to include bruising around the area. R1 was unable to recall the incident. During visit, LPAs interviewed the ED and R1. Based on interview with the ED, S1 was terminated following the incident. R1's family members were informed of the incident and police was notified the following day. Based on interview with R1, R1 states all the staff treats the resident nicely and denied a staff hurting the resident. Documents were obtained to include the staff schedule for 11/06/2024 and 10/27/2024, R1's physician's report and service plan, S1's job application, annual confirmation statement, training and the police report number. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Rachel Brown and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 6, 2024
Jun 27, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to conduct a case management - other visit. LPA met with Executive Director, Rachel Brown. The purpose of the visit is to deliver an immediate exclusion letter for staff (S1). LPA explained the purpose of the letter. ED confirmed S1 is not an employee of the facility. The immediate exclusion letter was handed to ED. No deficiencies were cited today per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director Rachel Brown and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 27, 2024
Jun 26, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 6/26/2024, LPA Grace Donato made an unannounced annual visit to the facility. LPA met with Administrator, Rachel Brown. LPA explained the purpose of the visit. LPA & LPM toured the facility inside and a random sample of resident rooms, common areas, and kitchen area. LPA observed some residents were at different activity rooms. While touring the facility it was observed that the temperature was at 74 deg F. Hot water was also tested in the resident rooms and the temperature was at 112 deg F. The residents have adequate amount of linens and incontinence care items. All personal belongings are intact. Facility has sprinkler system. All fire extinguishers have been checked and current. Resident bedrooms and bathrooms were observed to be in good repair equipped with grab bars and non-skid floors. Resident call buttons were checked and functioning except for one random room that was checked. It was fixed right away. There is adequate amount of food, 2 days for perishables and & 7 days non-perishable. Emergency drills are done every month. Five resident records and five staff records were reviewed. Resident records are updated, complete and signed. Staff records are complete, with training logs. Facility accepts hospice residents and are in compliance with the required waiver requirements. Medication review was done, and all medications are accounted for, and centrally stored medication records are updated. LPA interviewed four residents and four staff. LPA received the following documents, Certificate of Liability Insurance & LIC500. No deficiencies are cited at this time. Report is reviewed and a copy is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 26, 2024
May 31, 2024Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to conduct a case management - incident visit. LPA met with Executive Director (ED) Rachel Brown. On 05/30/2024, the Department was notified of a serious incident that occurred with resident (R1) and staff (S1). On 05/29/2024 around 9PM, the facility received an alert from their fall detection system from R1's bedroom. The review of the video showed a staff (S1) assisting R1 back to bed in a rough manner. The Executive Director was notified of the incident immediately and S1 was escorted out of the building. Staff was immediately suspended and did not return to work after the incident. After the incident, staff assessed R1 and observed redness on R1's left cheek and scratches on the forehead. Emergency services were not contacted as R1 did not complain of any unusual pain. The facility notified R1's family, Ombudsman, and local law enforcement. On 05/30/2024, in-service training was conducted with staff to include the topics of elder abuse, mandated reporting, and R1's care plan. During visit, LPA interviewed 2 staff members and R1. LPA reviewed the video with ED and recorded part of the video using LPA's state issued cellular device. LPA requested the video footage from the facility's fall detection system to be sent via email. Documents were obtained to include the law enforcement case number, in-service training records, and S1's personnel file. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Executive Director, Rachel Brown and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 31, 2024
Earlier years2022 to 2023 · 11 documents
20236 state visits · 9 documents
Sep 28, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident's hygiene needs not being met. Medications not given to resident according to physician's instructions. Lack of supervision resulting in resident wandering from the facility. Facility is charging for services not provided.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Steve Chang conducted a complaint investigation visit to deliver investigation findings and met with Memory Program Coordinator (MPC) Allyson Fuji. On 08/16/2021, the Department received a complaint of the above allegations. On 8/20/2021, an initial complaint investigation visit was conducted. LPA interviewed ED and two staff (S1, S2). Residents Physician reports, medical records, Appraisal Needs and Services Plan of Residents, Admission Agreement, And the facility Activity Programs documents were obtained. . Continued on LIC9099-C. page 1 of 4 Unsubstantiated Resident's hygiene needs not being met: On 8/19/2021, the Department interviewed R1's family member (FM). FM stated R1 was not incontinent. FM stated he/she wanted R1 to wear fresh/clean undergarments daily, so he/she brought a lot of diapers in R1's bedroom, and he/she changed R1's diaper whenever he/she met R1. FM stated most of time he/she found R1 wore soiled diaper whenever he/she visited R1. FM stated he/she found caregivers did not change R1's diaper often. FM stated the resident bedroom trash bags were changed 2 or 3 times per day, why the facility was unable to change R1's diapers at least 3 times per day. FM admitted R1 did not participate in the facility changing diaper program, because R1 did not need to change diaper every two hours. On 8/20/2021, LPA interviewed Executive Director (ED). ED stated that upon admission, residents were assessed if the residents need the toilet remind or need physical hands-on changing diaper. If there was no need for the service, then the facility will not check or change the residents diapers. ED stated if the assessment shows the resident needs the service, then the resident needs to pay either $400/month fee for toilet remind service or $900/month fee for hands on diaper changing service. ED stated the facility will check resident diaper every two hours for the services. ED stated R1 was not diagnosed as incontinent and was not evaluated as toilet reminding needed or diaper changing needed. ED stated R1 did not have toilet reminding or diaper changing in R1's care plan. ED stated caregivers provide care service according to care plan, so R1 did not receive the service of diaper changing. ED stated caregivers changed R1's soiled diaper when caregivers found R1's diapers needed to be changed. ED stated residents can participate in the toilet reminding or diaper changing programs voluntarily if they pay the fee. ED stated the facility communicated with R1's family member to have R1 participate in the changing diaper program, but R1's family disagreed to pay $900 per month. ED stated housekeepers cannot change residents' diapers. Reviewing R1's medical documents, R1 was not diagnosed incontinent and R1 was not evaluated to have toilet reminding or diaper changing service. FM found the diaper supplies he/she put in R1's bedroom decreased but did not decrease as much as expected that means caregivers changed diapers for R1 but not as often as needed. FM did not pay the monthly fee for the changing diaper program. The facility suggested R1 to participate in the changing diaper program, but FM disagreed. Continue on LIC9099-C. Page 2 of 4 Medications not given to resident according to physician's instructions: On 8/19/2021, the Department interviewed R1's family member (FM). FM stated R1 had doctor's prescription medications to be administered twice per day, but the facility administered R1's medications to R1 at 8:00AM and 4:00PM. FM stated the medications should be administered between 12 hours if the prescription specified twice per day. On 8/20/2021, LPA interviewed Director of Resident Care Service (DRS). DRS stated caregivers were not allowed to administer medications to residents; only Med Tech or Nurses can administer medications to residents. DRS stated the operation hours of the medication rooms to administer medications to residents were 6:00AM - 8:00AM and 4:00PM - 6:00PM, so the medications will be administered to residents during these time period windows except doctor prescriptions specified the time. DRS stated one of the residents had a doctor prescription specified bedtime 9:00PM, and the facility administered the medications at 9:00PM to resident. DRS stated the facility communicated with R1's family member (FM) to have the doctor to specify the exact time for the medications in the prescription, but the facility did not receive the updated prescription. Based on the interviews conducted, the facility administered the medications according to doctors' prescriptions. The facility did not receive an updated prescription from the doctor, and the facility followed the facility policy to administer medications to residents. Lack of supervision resulting in resident wandering from the facility: On 8/19/2021, the Department interviewed R1's family member (FM). FM stated on 6/13/2021, at 9:00PM, he/she received a phone call from the facility that R1 eloped from the building but was found by staff in facility campus. On 8/20/2021, LPA interviewed ED. ED stated couple months ago, R1 walked out for fresh air without wearing pendant alarm. ED stated facility staff found R1 disappeared and reported to the facility immediately. ED stated facility staff all searched around and found R1 outside the building but still in the facility campus. Staff took R1 back to building immediately and notified FM. ED stated the facility implemented an action plan to prevent the situation to occur again and sent the action plan to FM. ED stated the facility tried to communicate with FM to discuss how the facility should improve to help residents, but the facility did not receive any response from FM. Continue on LIC9099-C. Page 3 of 4. Based on the interviews conducted, R1 eloped from the facility building without wearing Pendant alarm ring that was the reason why the pendant alarm did not sound. Staff found R1 had disappeared and immediately reported to the facility. The facility immediately had facility staff to search for R1 and found R1 outside the building but still in facility campus. The facility implemented an action plan to prevent similar incidents to occur again. Facility is charging for services not provided: On 8/19/2021, the Department interviewed R1's family member (FM). FM stated he/she enrolled R1 into an activity program and paid the monthly fee. FM stated most of the time the facility activities were not provided. FM stated the facility did not refund the fee. On 8/20/2021, LPA interviewed ED. ED stated the facility provided many activity programs to residents, but due to the COVID pandemic, there were many programs that had to change the content of the activities. ED stated the facility follows the CDC and local health department guidelines to change the activity. ED stated the purpose of the changes is to keep the residents and staff healthy and safety. ED stated the facility did not refund the fee for activity because the corporate was discussing how to handle it. On the same day, LPA interviewed Memory Program Coordinator (MPC) for the program activity during pandemic. MPC stated the facility activities made some changes due to COVID pandemic, but none of residents complained about the activity of the programs. MPC stated the activity staff, and the residents all wanted the activity to continue. Based on the interviews conducted, the facility provided the activities to residents, but due to the COVID pandemic, the facility activity programs were changed to follow CDC and local health department guidelines. The Department has investigated the above allegations. Based on documents reviewed, and interviews conducted, the Department found that the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegations did or did not occur. No citations cited under California Code of Regulations Title 22. Exit interview conducted with MPC. The report was provided to MPC for signature. A copy of the report was provided to MPC. Page 4 of 4.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 28, 2023 · control 26-AS-20210816084035
Sep 25, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident sustained an injury from a fall while in care Staff did ensure a resident consumed an appropriate amount of fluids while in care Staff did not follow resident's medical orders
/29/2020 On 09/25/23, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegation. LPA met with Director of Resident Care Services, Gilda Deocares and explained the purpose of today's visit. Regarding the allegation, resident sustained an injury from a fall while in care, it was reported that resident (R1) was sent to hospital after a fall and injuring the head. According to Reporting Party (RP), he/she was made aware by a caregiver that R1 was sent to the hospital. RP noticed that R1 had a bump in the head but days later the face was bruised, but since has faded. Based on record reviews, an incident report on 12/18/2020 was sent to CCLD that R1 was sent to hospital due to an unwitnessed fall. LVN was alerted through an electronic monitoring system in the facility. 911 was called and upon further assessment by paramedics, R1 was brought to hospital for further evaluation. In this report it was also stated that R1 tried to get up from the wheelchair and fell, R1 claimed that his/her head was hit. Unsubstantiated Based on interviews conducted, R1 was in continuous monitoring even if there is an electronic monitoring system in place. There was also a follow up video appointment that staff assisted the resident. Incident was reported to the POA, although POA advised that if another family member asks then facility can provide information regarding R1s health status. Regarding the allegation, staff did ensure a resident consumed an appropriate amount of fluids while in care, it was reported that facility failed to read client's discharge paperwork which provided specific instruction for staff to monitor client's liquid intake and output. Based on records review, R1 was found to be dehydrated as reported in the discharge papers form the said hospital visit. According to staff interviews, they were not aware that R1 was dehydrated. Staff constantly offer different types of hydrations to residents. There are a variety of fluids apart from water that they offer such as juices and cold jello. Since R1 is in memory care, staff offers constant hydration since residents tend to forget to drink if not offered or made aware. Regarding the allegation that staff did not follow resident's medical orders, it was reported that R1 was dehydrated, and facility was not following this order. Facility only has one medical order given to them by the doctor. There were no previous orders that facility needed to follow. Based on record reviews, after discharge from hospitalization, it was ordered that R1 needs to hydrate, and that facility needed to keep track of food and fluid intake. Therefore, based on the interviews conducted, files reviewed, and information collected, the allegations mentioned are UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Report is reviewed and a copy is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 25, 2023 · control 26-AS-20201217135141
Sep 25, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not protect resident from physical abuse.
On 09/25/23, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegation. LPA met with Director of Resident Care Services, Gilda Deocares and explained the purpose of today's visit. Regarding the allegation, staff did not protect resident from physical abuse. It was reported that the resident (R1) sustained bruising that looked like fingers while being under the care of a private caregiver (P1). P1 also locks R1s room which is not allowed. Based on record reviews, an earlier report was sent to CCLD on 12/14/2020 regarding the bruising on R1s forearms found by another private caregiver (P2). R1 is taking medication that makes skin more conducive to bruising. After the report was also received by the responsible party (RP), RP requested the agency to provide a different private caregiver who can be more suited for the R1s care needs. Unsubstantiated According to interviews conducted, once facility was made aware of the bruising, P1 wasn’t allowed to care for R1, and was requested to leave the facility. This was also with request from RP. There was constant monitoring with R1 and this was the only incident reported while resident was under care of P1. It was also stated in interviews that, P1 was made aware of not locking the door of the room. It was a onetime incident and didn’t happen again. Even if the resident room is locked, Med Techs or other caregivers in the facility can still enter due to them having keys to resident rooms. Therefore, based on the interviews conducted, files reviewed, and information collected, the allegation that staff did not protect resident from physical abuse is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Report is reviewed and a copy is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 25, 2023 · control 26-AS-20201229100834
Sep 25, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility not being cleaned adequately. Facility did not communicate with authorized representative about leaving facility. Residents not wearing mask on outing.
On 09/25/23, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegations. LPA met with Director of Resident Care Services, Gilda Deocares and explained the purpose of today's visit. Regarding the allegation that facility is not being cleaned adequately, Reporting Party (RP) mentioned that the resident's (R1) room was dusty, dirty toilet and mold in sink. Based on interviews, housekeeping are done once a week in residents room. There are occassions where residents or family member request the room to be cleaned due to accidents or incidents and facility addresses these requests promptly. Aside from weekly housekeeping, constant checks are done in rooms and trash is being emptied accordingly. LPA toured the room and it didn's show any molds. Bathroom is clean and all of the residents belongings are intact. Unsubstantiated Regarding the allegation that facility did not communicate with authorized representative about leaving facility, RP stated that there was no advice from facility that there will be an outing for R1. Based on interviews, residents are presented with different activities. They are to decide if they want to join said activities or not. Residents who join these facility activity are able to make decisions for themselves. No prior authorization needed from family members unless stated otherwise. Since residents are able to decide for themselves, if they wanted to attend and a family member doesn't want them too, the facility will follow the residents decision because it is residents their right. Regarding the allegation of residents not wearing mask on outing, RP saw photo of an event showing R1 wearing mask underneath his/her nose. LPA reviewed facility's COVID protocols during this time and it stated there that only fully vaccinated visitors are allowed to attend the event, and that proof of vaccine documentation is required. All residents and visitors must wear surgical masks during any visit. While masking during this time is a must, it is not required. And during an event where residents play or exert some effort, masks might fall. Facility still tries to encourage residents to wear the mask. Based on interview, staff mentioned that everyone in the event has been verified to have been vaccinated and temperature checks were done. There were no reports where any one of the attendees got COVID during this event. Therefore, based on the interviews conducted, files reviewed, and information collected, the allegations mentioned are UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Report is reviewed and a copy is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 25, 2023 · control 26-AS-20210812151804
Sep 19, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident not being provided adequate food service. Facility is in disrepair.
On 09/19/23, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegations. LPA met with Memory Program Coordinator, Allyson Fujii and explained the purpose of today's visit. Regarding the allegation of resident not being provided adequate food service, it was reported that resident (R1) was only provided grilled cheese. Based on interviews and record reviews, R1 likes to eat sandwiches and salads. A caregiver (S1) stated that R1 loves eating salads. As for sandwiches, R1 likes grilled cheese or peanut butter and jelly. While R1 may have specific preference on what to eat, suggestions and options are also given to them. Facility menus have extensive choices for residents. R1 also has an option on what she/he wants to eat. Unsubstantiated Regarding the allegation that facility is in disrepair, it was reported that locks don’t work, and door would not close properly. Based on interview, record review and observations, LPA visited the room of the R1 and observed that the door lock is fixed and closes properly. All belongings of R1 are intact. Therefore, based on the interviews conducted, files reviewed, and information collected, the allegations that resident not being provided adequate food service and facility is in disrepair are UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Report is reviewed and a copy is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 19, 2023 · control 26-AS-20210812151804
Sep 19, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff caused injury to resident.
Amended report On 12/5/23, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Grace Donato conducted an unannounced visit to deliver findings for the above allegation. LPA met with Executive Director Rachel Brown & emory Program Coordinator, Allyson Fujii and explained the purpose of today's visit. Regarding the allegation of staff causing injury to resident, Licensing received a report regarding a resident (R1) being injured due to a caregiver grabbing R1s arm and causing a bruise. R1 is a resident that was diagnosed with mixed dementia and has inappropriate and aggressive behaviors. Assistance on transfers and showering is also assessed for R1. R1 is also 99 years old when the allegation was filed. Based on interviews four out of four staff members mentioned that R1 is always combative and aggressive. When R1 calls for help and as staff approaches to assist, R1 will start kicking. Staff always waits for R1 to calm down due to R1 being agitated or confused before helping again. Unsubstantiated Based on record reviews, former administrator (S1) mentioned in a report that R1 has dementia and can go from being very cognitive to cognitively impaired. When asked about a bruising that was reported, R1 didn’t want to tell S1 who caused the bruising. According to a staff member (S2) when they received report regarding this allegation, a safety plan has been put in place for R1. That plan included welfare checks every 30 minutes. It was also stated by the R1s responsible party (RP) that R1 does not get along with caregivers which is why R1 was moved from a previous facility. R1 was also placed with preferred caregivers after the reported incident. According to R1s medication list, there is nothing prescribed that could have caused resident to easily bruise. Therefore, based on the interviews conducted, files reviewed, and information collected, the allegation that staff caused injury to resident is UNSUBSTANTIATED, meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is no preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. Report is reviewed and a copy is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 19, 2023 · control 26-AS-20210201161703
Jun 22, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to conduct a case management – incident vist. LPA met with Director of Resident Care Services (DRCS), Gilda Deocares. On 06/07/2023, the Department received a SOC-341 regarding an incident reported on 06/05/2023. It was alleged resident (R1) was taken out of meetings and was molested by a suspected abuser (SA). The reporting party was another resident (R2). On 06/05/2023, the facility conducted an internal investigation after being made aware of the incident. The SA is a contracted staff at the facility who provides services in the facility’s fitness center. SA was immediately requested to not perform any services to any residents until the investigation is complete. Facility’s nurse conducted a visual assessment on R1 who seemed to be in good spirits with no emotional distress noted. The Executive Director and Director of Resident Care Services interviewed about 7 residents who did not report any inappropriate and/or suspicious behavior. 5 out of 7 residents interviewed also participate in 1:1 exercises with SA. 2 out of 7 residents interviewed participate in the same program as R1. On 06/06/2023, R1’s family visited R1 and did not report any unusual behaviors. During today's visit, LPA interviewed 7 residents and 1 family member. Based on interviews, there was no signs and report on any inappropriate behavior between any staff members and residents. 7 out of 7 residents stated they are well treated at the facility. Based on interview with the DRCD, SA has returned to the facility and provides services for the residents at the fitness center. On 06/07/2023, facility conducted an in-service training with staff on mandated reporting. Documents were reviewed and obtained to include resident roster, staff roster, staff in-service training, and resident (R2)’s physician’s report and services plan. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Director of Resident Care Services (DRCS), Gilda Deocares and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 22, 2023
Feb 10, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - IncidentReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Incident
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to conduct a case management - incident visit. LPA met with Director of Resident Care Services (DRCS), Gilda Deocares. LPA explained the purpose of the visit was to obtain additional information from an indent report we received for resident (R1). During today's visit, 1 staff member was interviewed. LPA also toured parts of the facility with DRCS to include the front desk, first floor, sixth floor, and exit areas. On 02/06/2023, the Department received an incident report that occurred on 02/05/2023 regarding a resident who eloped from the facility. R1 was found by a police officer and was transported to the hospital for evaluation. No injuries were noted and the resident returned to the community on the same day. The Department received requested documents to include R1's physician's report, assessment and service plans, and training records. Based on record review, R1 is not able to leave the facility unassisted. On 02/06/2023, the facility took proper steps to ensure R1's safety to include contacting the appropriate parties, conducting a re-assessment and evaluation, inspecting the facility grounds, and providing an in-service training to all staff on elopement. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with DRCS, Gilda Deocares and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 10, 2023
Jan 26, 2023Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived at the facility unannounced to conduct a Case Management - Other visit and met with Director of Resident Care Services, Gilda Deocares. The purpose of the visit was to deliver an immediate exclusion letter to exclude an employee (S1) associated to the facility. The immediate exclusion letter was handed to the Director of Resident Care Services during today's visit. LPA advised the facility to go through their facility roster on Guardian and to disassociate individuals who are no longer employed at the facility. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. This report was reviewed with Director of Resident Care Services, Gilda Deocares and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jan 26, 2023
20222 state visits · 2 documents
Aug 11, 2022Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff failed to seek resident timely medical attention resulting in resident's untimely death
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ryker Heberle conducted an unannounced visit to deliver the complaint investigation finding regarding the above allegation. LPA met with Administrator Natalie Barman. The Department review of resident's (R1) medical records on 11/13/2020 noted R1 had been taken to the hospital on 09/01/2020 to be treated for right foot cellulitis. R1's records indicate that R1 was not currently receiving hospice treatment, but the option was being discussed. R1 remained admitted to the hospital on 9/17/2020 until R1’s passing on 09/19/2020. Review of R1's death report indicates that R1 passed away from the same conditions that R1 was admitted for. Continued on 9099-C Unsubstantiated Review of resident's progress notes indicated that R1 was checked 3 times the day R1 was sent to the hospital on 09/17/2020. At 06:00 AM, overnight staff noted scratches below R1's hip that required itch relief, but no other changes in condition were noted. The next entry in progress notes was noted at 02:15pm, in which med tech noted no change of condition, but that R1 had complained of pain. Tylenol was administered as PRN. The final entry in R1's progress notes were recorded at 05:10pm, detailing a change of condition occurring at 03:30pm. It was noted that R1 was measured with an oxygen saturation of 60%, 911 call was made, R1 was brought to the hospital and admitted for clinical impressions of septic shock and gangrenous foot. In interviews with facility staff, 2 out of 10 facility staff stated that R1's condition had begun to deteriorate hours before the facility agreed to have R1 sent to the hospital. 8 out of 10 facility staff interviewed were unaware of or did not receive any report of change in R1's condition prior to staff check in at 3:30pm, 911 call was made shortly thereafter. 3 out of 3 AM shift staff interviewed stated that there was no change of condition observed or reported on 09/17/2020 during the AM shift. In interview with R1's responsible party (RP), RP stated that they have no reason to believe that R1 received neglectful care from the facility. RP stated that R1 was receiving care from both facility staff and home health agency and facility sent R1 to the hospital when they noticed the change. This Department has investigated the above allegation. Based on interviews and records review, the Department found that the above allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. An unsubstantiated finding indicates that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the allegation did or did not occur. This report reviewed and signed by Administrator Natalie Barman and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 11, 2022 · control 26-AS-20201002133323
Jun 28, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Christine Dolores arrived unannounced to conduct the facility's annual inspection focusing on infection control. LPA met with Executive Director (ED), Natalie Barman. During visit, LPA toured the facility with the ED to include floors one through seven. Facility has a designated symptom screening area and temperature check (Accushield) for all visitors and residents. LPA observed the staff symptom screening area and temperature check located on the first floor. Hand sanitizer available upon entry and throughout facility. LPA observed the restrooms contained hygiene products and paper supplies. LPA advised to place a 20 second hand washing sign in all the common area restrooms. Facility has a sufficient amount of PPE carts to include posters of donning and doffing, contact precaution, and droplet precaution. LPA observed facility's PPE supplies and Antigen test kits. Trash cans observed with a lid. Facility staff clean and disinfects multiple times daily and as needed. Staff are trained annually and as needed on infection control. All staff are N95 fit tested. The following poster was observed throughout the facility to encourage hand washing, cover your cough, social distancing, and symptoms of COVID. No deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Advisory note provided. This report was reviewed with the Executive Director and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 28, 2022
The state marks this report as 2 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 1. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.
106 of 150 beds were occupied at the December 4, 2025 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.
License holder
Belmont Village San Jose Tnnt & LP; Belmont Three, licensed since 2013.
The state’s totals for this licenseSince 2013, as the state’s facility page counts them
- State visits on file
- 25
- Total complaints
- 10
- Substantiated allegations
- 1
- Type A citations
- 1
- Type B citations
- 0
These are the state’s own totals for this license since 2013, 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 | 1 | 0 |
| Type B citations | 0 | 1 |
| Substantiated allegations | 1 | 2 |
| Total complaints | 10 | 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 Belmont Village San Jose
Is Belmont Village San Jose licensed?
The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
How many residents is Belmont Village San Jose licensed for?
150 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Has Belmont Village San Jose been cited?
1 Type A and 0 Type B citation since 2013, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 25 state visits over the same years.
Is Belmont Village San Jose still open?
This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 11, 2026.
What does Belmont Village San Jose cost?
$6,250 a month to start — listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026.
The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly, seen September 9, 2026.
Among 17 other homes of a similar licensed size in San Jose that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $4,499 to $5,436 a month, and the middle figure is $4,995 (n = 17 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 Belmont Village San Jose 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 Belmont Village San Jose Tnnt & LP; Belmont Three, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. See the homes licensed to Belmont Three — at least 5 on the state roster.
Is there a hospital nearby?
Santa Clara Valley Medical Center is 0.9 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.
Can Belmont Village San Jose keep a resident on hospice?
Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 7 residents, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Belmont Village San Jose license and inspection record
- Name on the license: “BELMONT VILLAGE SAN JOSE”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
- License #435202350. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed for 150 residents — a large community, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed to Belmont Village San Jose Tnnt & LP; Belmont Three, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- First licensed in 2013, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 25 state inspection visits since 2013, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 1 Type A and 0 Type B citation on file since 2013, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 25 state visits in that period.
- 10 complaints and 1 substantiated allegation on file since 2013, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
- The most recent state visit on file is September 3, 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 Santa Clara County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.
- Map
Starting rate
$5,000 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Starting rate
$5,500 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Starting rate
$6,495 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
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Starting rate
$3,000 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Starting rate
$4,500 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,700 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,500–$7,450On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap
Explore Santa Clara County