Illustration — no photo of this home on file yet

Grand Oak Manor Suite II

Mid-size home·Licensed for 14·Hayward, California

LicensedLicence #19201493
  • Care approvals on fileWheelchair · DementiaState licensing record · September 13, 2026
  • Estimated starting rate$4,800 a monthCovelight estimate · likely $3,750–$6,300
  • Home sizeLicensed for 14Mid-size care home · a licensed care home (RCFE)
  • Room at the last state visit12 of 14 beds occupiedMarch 17, 2026 · not a current opening
  • Ways to payAsk the homeMedi-Cal ALW participation not on file
  • Last state visitAugust 11, 2026CDSS inspection record

Grand Oak Manor Suite II is a mid-size care home in Hayward — a licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE), the licence category behind “assisted living” and “board and care.” It is licensed for 14 residents. Hospice care and bedridden care are not on file.

Built from CDSS public records · September 13, 2026. Every fact below names its source and date.

Quick answers and the state record

A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.

Quick answers about Grand Oak Manor Suite II

Is Grand Oak Manor Suite II licensed?

The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.

How many residents is Grand Oak Manor Suite II licensed for?

14 residents — a mid-size home, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.

Has Grand Oak Manor Suite II been cited?

0 Type A and 3 Type B citations, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.

Is Grand Oak Manor Suite II still open?

This license was on the CDSS roster as of September 28, 2026.

What does Grand Oak Manor Suite II cost?

$4,800 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $3,750–$6,300. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 9 homes with 7 to 49 beds and similar homes within 5 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

Among 5 other homes of a similar licensed size in Hayward that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $2,875 to $4,250 a month, and the middle figure is $3,000 (n = 5 other homes publishing a starting rate).

Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date in September 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 Grand Oak Manor Suite II take Medi-Cal?

On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated September 23, 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 Grand Oak Manor Suite II LLC, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.

Is there a hospital nearby?

St Rose Hospital is 1.8 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.

Can Grand Oak Manor Suite II keep a resident on hospice?

Not on file — the state’s record does not list hospice care on this license. Ask: “Can a resident stay here on hospice, and under what conditions?”

Grand Oak Manor Suite II license and inspection record

  • Name on the license: “GRAND OAK MANOR SUITE II LLC”, per the CDSS roster as of June 12, 2026.
  • License #19201493. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.
  • Licensed for 14 residents — a mid-size home, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.
  • Licensed to Grand Oak Manor Suite II LLC, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.
  • First licensed: the year is not on file — the roster carries no first-license date for it. Ask: “When did this license start?”
  • 14 state inspection visits on file, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.
  • 0 Type A and 3 Type B citations on file, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.
  • 4 complaints and 3 substantiated allegations on file, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
  • The most recent state visit on file is August 11, 2026, per CDSS records as of September 13, 2026.
Type A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

California writes these definitions for every licensed home, not for this one. CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗

See the state’s own record

Can they support the care needed?

California licenses a home for specific kinds of care. The state’s record lists what this home is approved for; the home’s own answers fill in what changes as needs change.

  • Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryApproved · covers up to 11 residents
  • Dementia / memory careApproved by the state
  • Hospice careNot on file · ask the home
  • BedriddenNot on file · ask the home

State licensing record · September 13, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.

Read the state’s own wording
APPROVED FOR: AGE RANGE 60 AND OVER. FOURTEEN (14) RESIDENTS OF WHICH ELEVEN (11) MAY BE NON-AMBULATORY.

983 - RCFE / DEMENTIA

CDSS record, verbatim · September 13, 2026

As needs change

  • If memory loss develops

    Dementia-care designation on file

    Ask: “Can we read the dementia care disclosure and discuss how daily support works?”

    State licensing record · September 13, 2026

4 more questions to ask the home
  • Two-person transfers or a lift

    Not on file

    Ask: “If two people or a lift are needed to transfer, can the person stay?”

  • Someone awake overnight

    Not on file

    Ask: “Who is awake overnight, and how do residents ask for help?”

  • Medicines

    Not on file

    Ask: “Who manages the medicines, and what happens when a dose is missed?”

  • Staying through hospice

    Hospice waiver not on file

    Ask: “If hospice is needed, can care continue here until the end?”

What it costs here

Covelight estimate

$4,800a month to start

Likely $3,750–$6,300

From 9 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file

Likely monthly total

$4,800a month

Likely $3,750–$6,450

With a shared room and basic help.

An estimate for planning, not a quote. The price is made in the phone call.

See the full cost breakdownRoom, care and fees · how people pay · how this estimate works
Room
Daily care
Sharing the room
  • Starting monthly rate$4,800likely $3,750–$6,300

    Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 9 homes with 7 to 49 beds and similar homes within 5 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

  • Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600

    Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (45 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).

  • One-time move-in fee$2,000one time · likely $0–$4,000

    Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,000 (134 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.

Likely monthly totalLikely $3,750–$6,450
$4,800
First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $4,500–$9,400
$6,800
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
  • 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 September 23, 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.
  • MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
If the money runs out, what Medi-Cal covers
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 community 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.

  • What is the full monthly cost for the room and care we need, and what does it include?
  • What would the next care level cost, and who decides when it changes?
  • What is billed separately, and is there a one-time fee or deposit at move-in?
  • Is any private-pay period required before another payment program can begin?
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing

Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 9 homes with 7 to 49 beds and similar homes within 5 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

9 homes like this within 5 miles publish starting rates mostly between $2,850–$7,450.

  • 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.
Show the 9 nearby homes behind this estimate

Where it is

  • 999 Torrano Ave, Hayward, CA 94542Address from the public record · September 13, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.

Opening the neighborhood map…

The state record

California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. Here are the dated documents and the state’s own words, beside what is typical for homes this size.

Since 2025, the state has filed 14 documents for this home, and its records count 14 visits. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated August 11, 2026.

On file since
2025
State visits
14
Most recent visit
August 11, 2026
Occupied · March 17, 2026 visit
12 of 14 bedsa count on that day, not an opening

We hold 4 complaint reports the state published for this home, dated December 4, 2025 to March 17, 2026. 4 of the 4 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Substantiated” (2), “Unsubstantiated” (2). 4 include the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word. Summary composed by computer from the 4 complaint reports below — every count derives from them, and the documents themselves are the state's records, verbatim. We never grade, score, or color a record.

Beside homes the same size

  • Type A citations0typical 0
  • Type B citations3typical 0
  • Substantiated allegations3typical 0
  • Total complaints4typical 1

“Typical” is the statewide median across the 327 licensed mid-size homes (7–15 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.

Year by year
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated20265712025471

The last 36 months — 14 of 14 documents

20265 state visits · 7 documents
Aug 11, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

On 8/11/26, LPA K. Nguyen received an email from S1 regarding a facility administrator change because the current Administrator resigned unexpectedly. LPA conducted an unannounced case management visit to gather information. LPA spoke with the licensee, confirming that there will be a temporary Administrator in place while waiting for S1's administrator certification to be active. Currently, the facility is still under operation by the licensee and care staff. LPA requested the following documents to be submitted by POC date 8/14/26 for review, including but not limited to: RCFE Administrator Certification -LIC 200 Application (listing new administrator name and email address) -LIC 308 Designation of Facility Recipient Responsibility form - Management Company, LLC: Appointment of administrator -LIC 501 Personnel Record -LIC 503 Health Screening Report -LIC 508D Out-of-State Disclosure and Criminal Record Statement -Copy of California Driver's License -Copy of First Aid Certification - Personal Resume No deficiency issues today, date. Exit interviews are conducted, and a copy of this report is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 11, 2026
Jul 8, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

On 07/08/2026 at 11:45 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct a pre-license inspection. LPA met with lead staff; Jason Salvador explained the purpose of the visit. ADM Digna Ramos arrived at a later time. The facility currently has 10 residents. Fire clearance was approved for 3 ambulatory and 11 non-ambulatory. LPAs toured the facility, including but not limited to 7 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, a kitchen, common areas, and a backyard. Bedrooms and living rooms were equipped with the proper furniture. Bathrooms were equipped with grab bars and non-skid mats. Lines and hygiene supplies were observed inside cabinets. There is sufficient lighting throughout the facility. The room temperature was maintained at 71 degrees F. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were operational. The fire extinguisher was last serviced on 5/27/2026. A fire drill was conducted on 5/15/26. Report continues on LIC 809c... Report continues LIC 809c... Dinner and silverware were observed to be sufficient for residents' use. Food supplies were checked and found to be sufficient for 7 days of non-perishable items. The facility was observed equipped with a refrigerator, microwave, dishwasher, washer, and dryer. The cabinet for knives, cleaning supplies, and central medication storage was observed to have locks. The outdoor activity space was observed to be furnished with tables, chairs, and shade. LPA reviewed six (6) residents' files and five (5) staff files; all staff are associated with the facility. LPA samples resident medications. The following deficiency was observed during the visit: Storage rooms are being used as a resting area for staff. The Facility was cited, and citations can be found on the LIC 809-D. Exit interview conducted. Appeal Rights and a copy of this report are provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 8, 2026
Mar 24, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

On 3/24/2026 at 12:45 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen conducted an unannounced case management visit due to an unusual incident report (UIR) received on 3/21/2026. R1 had a fall due to R1 refusing assistance when in the private bathroom for R1's privacy. LPA met with care staff, Jason Salvador, and explained the purpose of the visit to Administrator Digna Ramos via phone. Digna Ramos later arrived at 1:49 PM. LPA observed 2 residents in the living room watching TV and eating. The other residents are observed to be walking in and out of their rooms. LPA reviewed R1 after the visit summary dated 3/21/26 shows that the doctor saw R1 for the fall. No fracture is indicated, and indicated there are no follow-up appointments. LPA conducted a file review, which shows that the R1 physician report is incomplete, with missing pages, including but not limited to pages 5 and 6. Deficiency observed on today's visit: R1 physician report is incomplete. Deficiency is cited from Title 22 California Code of Regulations (see 809D). Failure to submit proof of corrections by the plan of correction due dates, and any repeat violations within 12 months, may result in civil penalties. Deficiency, plan, and proof of corrections were discussed. Exit interview conducted, and appeal rights copy of this report provided via email.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 24, 2026

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87506(a) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 31, 2026

87506 Resident Records (a) The licensee shall ensure that a separate, complete, and current record is maintained for each resident in the facility or in a central administrative location readily available to facility staff and to licensing agency staff. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by not having a completed R1 physician report avalible at the facility during files review.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 24, 2026

Plan of correction: The Administrator should ensure that all resident records, including physician reports, are complete, current, and maintained in full. A standardized file review process should be implemented to verify that all required pages are present upon admission and during periodic audits. Missing or incomplete documents should be promptly obtained from the appropriate healthcare provider. The Administrator agrees to obtain the missing pages (including pages 5 and 6) of R1’s physician report and ensure the document is complete and up to date. The Administrator agrees to review the cited regulation in its entirety and complete a self-certification attesting to their understanding of the requirements. Documentation of the completed self-certification will be submitted to CCLD by the specified POC due date.

Mar 17, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not provide adequate care and supervision to a resident Staff verbally abused a resident

On 3/17/2026 at 1:00 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct a 10-day initial complaint and deliver for the above allegations and met with care staff, Jason Salvador. Administrator (ADM) Dina Ramos was informed via phone regarding the purpose of the visit. ADM arrived around 3 PM. Allegation: Staff did not provide adequate care and supervision to a resident. Substantiated LPA conducted interviews with the Administrator, staff, and 12 residents. Based on information obtained through interviews, it was determined that the staff did not provide adequate care and supervision for a resident. Witness statements from W1 and W9 indicated that they observed and heard that staff member S6 did not respond when R1 called for assistance. Additionally, S1 and S3 reported that they witnessed and/or heard that S6 did not assist R1 at the time help was requested. Report Continue on LIC 9099c... Substantiated Report continues... The evidence supports that staff failed to adequately monitor and respond to the residents’ needs, resulting in a lapse in supervision. This deficiency poses a potential health and safety risk to residents in care. Therefore, the allegation is substantiated. Allegation: Staff verbally abused a resident- Substantiated LPA conducted interviews with the Administrator, staff, and 12 residents. Information obtained through these interviews determined that staff engaged in verbal abuse toward a resident. Witness statements from W1 and W9 indicated that they observed and heard staff member S6 speak in an inappropriate and verbally aggressive manner toward R1. Additionally, S1 and S3 reported that they also witnessed and/or overheard the interaction, corroborating concerns regarding S6’s conduct. The preponderance of evidence supports that staff behavior was inconsistent with providing respectful and appropriate care and constitutes verbal abuse. This violation poses a potential risk to the resident’s emotional well-being and personal rights. Therefore, the allegation is substantiated. An exit interview is conducted, and a copy of the appeal rights and report is provided via email.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026 · control 15-AS-20260313101254

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.2(a)(4) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 24, 2026

87468.2 Additional Personal Rights of Residents in Privately Operated Facilities (a) In addition to the rights listed in Section 87468.1, Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities, residents in privately operated residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following personal rights: This requirement is not met as evidenced by: (4) To care, supervision, and services that meet their individual needs and are delivered by staff that are sufficient in numbers, qualifications, and competency to meet their needs. Based on information obtained through interviews, it was determined that the staff did not provide adequate care and supervision for a resident. Witness statements from W1 and W9 indicated that they observed and heard that staff member S6 did not respond when R1 called for assistance.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026

Plan of correction: Administrator(ADM) agree that ADM will review and re-train all staff on supervision requirements and resident care needs to ensure compliance with regulations. Submit attance and traning topic to CCLD by POC date.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 24, 2026

87468.1 Personal Rights of Residents in All Facilities (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: Base on information obtained through these interviews determined that staff engaged in verbal abuse toward a resident. Witness statements from W1 and W9 indicated that they observed and heard staff member S6 speak in an inappropriate and verbally aggressive manner toward R1.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026

Plan of correction: Administrator (ADM) agree to provide Proof of training, updated supervision plan, and a statement of understanding will be submitted to CCLD by the POC due date.

Mar 17, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

On 3/17/2026, during a complaint investigation 115-AS-20260313101254, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen discovered that S1, who was working in the facility from the beginning of March 2026 to March 12, 2026, was not fingerprint clear. The administrator confirmed that S1 was not fingerprint clear. A civil penalty was assessed on this date of $400. The deficiency was observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in civil penalties. An exit interview is conducted, and a copy of the appeal rights and report is provided via email.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87355(d)(3) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 25, 2026

87355(d)(3) Criminal Record Clearance (d) All individuals subject to criminal record review shall be fingerprinted and sign a Criminal Record Statement (LIC 508 [Rev. 1/03]) under penalty of perjury (3) The licensee shall submit these fingerprints to the California Department of Justice, along with a second set of fingerprints for the purpose of searching the records of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or comply with Section 87355(c), prior to the individual's employment, residence, or initial presence in the facility. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by having staff working without finger print clearance which poses a potential health and safety risk to persons in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026

Plan of correction: Administrator agreed to have staff printed and cleared before S1 can return to work. Administator will provide CCLD with clearance for S1 by POC date.

Mar 17, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

On 3/17/2026, during a complaint investigation 115-AS-20260313101254, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen observed and interviewed the Administrator that in the facility's common area, there is a camera; these cameras have audio. The deficiency was observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in civil penalties. An exit interview is conducted, and a copy of the LIC 421BG appeal rights and report is provided via email.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: HSC 1569.269(a)(2) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 24, 2026

§1569.269(a)(2)Enumerated rights; severability (a) Residents of residential care facilities for the elderly shall have all of the following rights: (2) To be granted a reasonable level of personal privacy in accommodations, medical treatment, personal care and assistance, visits, communications, telephone conversations, use of the internet, and meetings of resident and family groups. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on observation and interview, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above bythe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026

Plan of correction: Administrator agree to submit confirmation from vivint company confirming that those camera located in the common area do not have audio submitted via email to CCLD by POC date.

Feb 26, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not issue resident a refund Staff did not provide resident with records

On 2/26/2026 at 8:00 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct a 10-day initial complaint and deliver for the above allegations, met with Administrator (ADM) Dina Ramos, and explained the purpose of the visit. During the course of the investigation, LPA conducted an interview with the Administrator, RP, and RPB. Allegation: Staff did not issue the resident a refund This allegation was investigated on 12/04/2025 under control number 15-AS-20251204095734. On 02/18/2026, the LPA conducted interviews with the Reporting Party (RP) and the Responsible Party Brother (RPB). Report continued on LIC 9099c... Unsubstantiated The RP stated they did not file a complaint regarding a refund and reported that their brother was responsible for payment for the stay at the facility. The RPB stated they did not file a complaint regarding a refund and reported that the facility contacted them to explain the situation. The RPB further stated that the Administrator established a payment plan and confirmed the facility had issued the first refund payment. Based on information obtained during the investigation, the allegation is found to be unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff did not provide the resident with records During the course of the investigation, the LPA interviewed the Reporting Party (RP) on 2/18/26 and the Administrator on 2/26/26. The RP reported that the facility did not complete a form requested by State Farm and that the requested information was not received. The RP later acknowledged that, after clarification, they were responsible for directly requesting the document from the facility and providing authorization for the release of information. The RP stated they initially believed the facility was responsible for submitting the information; however, the facility is unable to release personal information without proper consent. Based on information obtained during the investigation, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated. This agency investigated the allegation above. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 26, 2026 · control 15-AS-20260218095146
20254 state visits · 7 documents
Dec 18, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not address a pest infestation

On 12/18/2025 at 9:00AM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Kelly Nguyen and Andrew Christy arrived unannounced to open a 10 Day Complaint Investigation and deliver findings. LPAs met with Cre staff Jason Salvador and explained the nature of the visit. Administrator Digna Ramos was contacted and could not be available in person, and stated that caregivers have permission to sign any forms. During the course of investgation LPAs conducted interviews with care staff and residents. LPAs toured facility, including but not limited to 7 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, kitchen, common areas, living room, and garage. Allegation: Staff did not address a pest infestation- Unsubstainted Report continued on LIC 9099c... Unsubstantiated Per allegation, there is vermin in the residents' rooms eating food in the rooms. During the tour of the facility, LPAs checked all resident rooms and observed that there are droppings in all of the residents room. However, interview conducted with Staff 1 (S1) and documents reviewed the facility is contracted with a pest prevention company (Official Pest Prevention an anticimex) that install three smart meter around the facility and is monitoring the facility with pest concern. This agency investigated the allegation above. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did occur, therefore the allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 18, 2025 · control 15-AS-20251212192124
Dec 18, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

On 12/18/2025 at 10:30 AM, during a complaint investigation 15-AS-202512121 92124, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) K. Nguyen and A. Christy observed that the facility is not clean and sanitary due to rodent droppings in all of the resident room including but not limited to corners, closets, and also in the garage. In additional there was a black cockroach found in a pest glue trap. The deficiency was observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in civil penalties. An exit interview is conducted, and a copy of the appeal rights and report is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 18, 2025

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87303(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Jan 1, 2026

87303 Maintenance and Operation (a) The facility shall be clean, safe, sanitary and in good repair at all times. Maintenance shall include provision of maintenance services and procedures for the safety and well-being of residents, employees and visitors. (1) Floor surfaces in bath, laundry and kitchen areas shall be maintained in a clean, sanitary, and odorless condition. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on observations by the Department, Licensee did not comply with the regulation cited above by the facility is not clean and sanitary due to rodent droppings in all of the resident room including but not limited to corners, closets, and also in the garage. In additional there was a black cockroach found in a pest glue trap.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 18, 2025

Plan of correction: Administrators agree to clean all rodent droppings in all residents' rooms, including but not limited to behind the furniture, closets, and all corners. Send pictures of POC to CCLD by POC dates.

Dec 4, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not provide a refund to the resident

On 12/4/2025 at 8:45 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct 10 day initial complaint and deliver for the above allegations and met with care staff, Jason Salvador, Administrator (ADM) Dina Ramos was informed via phone regarding the purpose of the visit. ADM was not available during the time of the visit and gave permission to the care staff to sign the report. On 12/4/2025 at 8:45 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct 10 day initial complaint and deliver for the above allegations and met with care staff, Jason Salvador, Administrator (ADM) Dina Ramos was informed via phone regarding the purpose of the visit. ADM was not available during the time of the visit and gave permission to the care staff to sign the report. Allegation: Staff did not provide a refund to the resident- Substantiated Report continue on LIC 9099c... Substantiated During the course of the investigation, LPA obtained FR files and interviewed with the Administrator. Based on record reviews and interviews, Fromer Resident (FR) was admitted at the facility on 10/10/2025 and moved out on 11/13/25. LPA interviewed with ADM and recorded reviews. ADM stated that ADM took a security deposit in the amount of $6500 and recorded reviews showing that ADM took a security deposit amount of $6500 and a preadmission fee amount of $3250 a refund of the amount $5850 to FR. Security Deposit in the amount of $6500 Preadmission Fee in the amount of 3250 minus 60 percent of FR stayed and minus an excess of $500 Monthly rent in the amount of $6500 Based on LPA’s interviews, which were conducted and record review(s), the preponderance of evidence standard has been met; therefore, the above allegation was found to be SUBSTANTIATED. An exit interview is conducted a copy of appeal right and report is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 4, 2025 · control 15-AS-20251204095734

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: HSC 1569.651(h)(3) · Plan of correction due date: Dec 31, 2025

1569.651(h)(3) Preadmission fee or deposit for elderly at residential care facilities; written statement describing costs and stating whether fee is refundable; conditions for refund; refund rate schedules (h) Unless subdivision (g) applies, preadmission fees in excess of five hundred dollars ($500) shall be refunded according to the following: (3) If the resident leaves the facility for any reason during the second month of residency, the resident shall be entitled to a refund of at least 60 percent of the preadmission fee This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review and interviews by the Department, Licensee did not comply with the regulation cited above, by not refunding to FR. LPA interviewed with ADM and recorded reviews, showing that ADM took a security deposit amount of $6500 and a preadmission fee amount of $3250, minus 60 percent of the FR stated and minus excess cost of 500 a refund of the amount $1650 to FR.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 4, 2025

Plan of correction: ADM agree to refund the amount of $1650 to resposible party. ADM agree to send in confirmation once ADM paid the amount to CCLD by POC date.

Dec 4, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

On 12/4/2025 at 1:30PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct a case management visit. LPA met with care staff, Jason Salvador, Administrator (ADM) Dina Ramos was informed via phone regarding the purpose of the visit. ADM was not available during the time of the visit and gave permission to the care staff to sign the report. While LPA K. Nguyen was at the facility for a complaint investigation (#15-AS-20251204095734), the following deficiency was observed. During the interview, and record was reviewed, showing that on the LIC 604A on page 4, under refund indicated “nonrefundable.” However, FR only resides at the facility from October 10, 2025, to November 13, 2025. ADM stated that ADM collected an additional security deposit of $6500, and first month's rent in the amount of $ 6500, and a preadmission fee in the amount of $ 3250. ADM is responsible for refunding the amount of $5850 to FR. The deficiency was observed (see LIC 809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in civil penalties. An exit interview is conducted a copy of appeal right and report is provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 4, 2025

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: HSC 1569.651(b) · Plan of correction due date: Dec 31, 2025

1569.651(b) Preadmission fee or deposit for elderly at residential care facilities; written statement describing costs and stating whether fee is refundable; conditions for refund; refund rate schedules (b) If a licensee charges a preadmission fee, the licensee shall provide the applicant or his or her representative with a written general statement describing all costs associated with the preadmission fee charges and stating that the preadmission fee is refundable. The statement shall describe the conditions for the refund as specified in subdivision (g). A licensee shall only charge a single preadmission fee as defined in subdivision (e) per resident admission. This requirement is not met as evidenced by: Based on record review and interviews by the Department, Licensee did not comply with the regulation cited above buy collecting a collected an additional security deposit of $6500, and first month's rent in the amount of $ 6500, and a preadmission fee in the amount of $ 3250.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 4, 2025

Plan of correction: ADM agree to refund the amount of $5850 to resposible party. ADM agree to review the LIC 604A and facility admission agreement and submit an adendum to changes chages that is being made. ADM agree to send in confirmation once ADM paid the amount to CCLD by POC date.

Jul 21, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

On 7/21/25 at 9:25 AM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived and announced to conduct pre-licensing inspection (POC visit). LPA met with Administrator, Digna Ramos, and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA toured facility and observed all wheelchairs are cleared, and all objects including but not limited to the back, are removed from the side and in front of the garage. Garage doors are operating during the time of the POC visit. LPA will conduct COMP III to administrator. No issues noted during inspection. LPA observed that the facility is ready to be licensed. This report will be submitted to the Central Applications Unit (CAU) and a final review of the application will be conducted. This facility is not yet licensed, and is subject to final approval by CAU. Additional requirements may still be required. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 21, 2025
Jul 21, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

On 07/21/2025 at 10:50 am, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct a Case Management COMP III visit. LPA met with Administrator, Digna Ramos and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA presented Component III PowerPoint during visit and discussed the regulations embodied in the PowerPoint. LPA observed that the participants gained knowledge about running and maintaining the facility following regulations. A license has not yet been granted to this facility. Licensure is subject to final review and approval by the Centralized Applications Unit. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 21, 2025
Jun 12, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Prelicensing

On 06/12/2025 at 12:10 PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) K. Nguyen arrived unannounced to conduct a pre-license inspection. LPA met with lead staff; Jason Salvador explained the purpose of the visit. The administrator (ADM) was not available at the time of the inspection. LPA received verbal consent from ADM for the lead staff to sign the report. The facility currently has 10 residents. Fire clearance approved for 3 ambulatory and 11 non-ambulatory. LPAs toured facility, including but not limited to 7 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, kitchen, common areas, and backyard. Bedrooms and living rooms were equipped with the proper furniture. Bathrooms were equipped with grab bars and non-skid mats. Linens and hygiene supplies were observed inside cabinets. There is sufficient lighting throughout the facility. The room temperature was maintained at 70 degrees F. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were operational. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 6/3/2025. Prior to licensure, the following shall be corrected and proof sent to CCL by 06/20/2025. - Store/ de-clutter all wheelchairs that are not being used - Remove all objects from including but not limited to the back, the side, and in front of the garage. - Fix the garage door that cannot operate correctly. Issues were noted during inspection. LPA observed that facility is not ready to be licensed. This report will be submitted to the Central Applications Unit (CAU) and a final review of the application will be conducted. This facility is not yet licensed and is subject to final approval by CAU. Additional requirements may still be required. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 12, 2025
What the state’s words mean
Substantiatedthe state found the allegation more likely true than notUnsubstantiatedthere was not enough evidence to prove a violation occurred — not a finding of wrongdoingUnfoundedthe evidence showed the allegation was false, could not have happened, or had no reasonable basisType A citationa violation that poses an immediate risk to health, safety or personal rights if it is not correctedType B citationa violation that could become a risk if not corrected, or one involving records, resources or required services

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 and the questions below stand in their place.

Life here

Rooms, meals, the rhythm of a day, faith and language, pets and house rules — as the home describes them. Tap any detail for its source and date; nothing here is graded.

The home has not described daily life anywhere we have reviewed yet — that is the case for most small homes, and it says nothing about the home. These questions fill in the picture; keep the ones that matter to you.

Before you call

Ask every home the same questions — the state’s record does not answer these. Keep the ones that matter and they travel with your saved homes.

  1. What is included in the monthly rate, and what costs extra?
  2. Who is awake overnight, and how do residents ask for help?
  3. Which rooms does the non-ambulatory approval cover, and what transfer support is provided?
  4. What could change whether someone can stay here?
  5. Can we see a bedroom and share a meal during a visit?

Other homes nearby

The nearest licensed homes in Alameda County, closest first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.

Explore Alameda County