Illustration — no photo of this home on file yet

Senior Care Villa of Loomis

Mid-size home·Licensed for 35·Loomis, California

Licensed since 2023Licence #315003016
  • Care approvals on fileWheelchair · Dementia · HospiceState licensing record · September 27, 2026
  • Estimated starting rate$4,900 a monthCovelight estimate · likely $3,900–$6,450
  • Home sizeLicensed for 35Mid-size care home · a licensed care home (RCFE)
  • Room at the last state visit21 of 35 beds occupiedMay 5, 2026 · not a current opening
  • Ways to payAsk the homeMedi-Cal ALW participation not on file
  • Last state visitAugust 27, 2026CDSS inspection record

Senior Care Villa of Loomis is a mid-size care home in Loomis — a licensed residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE), the licence category behind “assisted living” and “board and care.” It is licensed for 35 residents since 2023. Bedridden care is not on file.

Built from CDSS public records · September 27, 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 Senior Care Villa of Loomis

Is Senior Care Villa of Loomis licensed?

The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

How many residents is Senior Care Villa of Loomis licensed for?

35 residents — a mid-size home, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Has Senior Care Villa of Loomis been cited?

3 Type A and 5 Type B citations since 2023, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. Those records count 26 state visits over the same years.

Is Senior Care Villa of Loomis still open?

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

What does Senior Care Villa of Loomis cost?

$4,900 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $3,900–$6,450. 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 23 homes with 7 to 49 beds and similar homes within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

Among 17 other homes of a similar licensed size across Placer County that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $3,900 to $6,000 a month, and the middle figure is $5,000 (n = 17 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 Senior Care Villa of Loomis 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 Bpg Loomis LLC, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Can Senior Care Villa of Loomis keep a resident on hospice?

Hospice care is approved on this license, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.

Senior Care Villa of Loomis license and inspection record

  • Name on the license: “SENIOR CARE VILLA OF LOOMIS”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
  • License #315003016. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed for 35 residents — a mid-size home, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • Licensed to Bpg Loomis LLC, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • First licensed in 2023, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 26 state inspection visits since 2023, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026.
  • 3 Type A and 5 Type B citations on file since 2023, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. The same records count 26 state visits in that period.
  • 11 complaints and 9 substantiated allegations on file since 2023, per CDSS records as of September 27, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
  • The most recent state visit on file is August 27, 2026, per CDSS records as of September 27, 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 3 residents
  • Dementia / memory careApproved by the state
  • Hospice careApproved by the state
  • BedriddenNot on file · ask the home

State licensing record · September 27, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.

Read the state’s own wording
AGE RANGE SIXTY(60) AND OVER; APPROVED FOR CAPACITY OF THIRTY FIVE(35) OF WHICH THIRTY TWO(32) ARE NON-AMBULATORY AND THREE(3) NON-AMBULATORY; HOSPICE WAIVER APPROVED FOR TEN(10) CLIENTS. SECURED PERIMETER APPROVED.NEW MGT NORTHSTAR SNR LVG MGT LLC EFFECTIVE 4/22/26

935 - ELDERLY

CDSS record, verbatim · September 27, 2026

As needs change

  • Staying through hospice

    Hospice waiver on file — care may continue at the end of life

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

    State licensing record · September 27, 2026

  • 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 27, 2026

3 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?”

What it costs here

Covelight estimate

$4,900a month to start

Likely $3,900–$6,450

From 23 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file

Likely monthly total

$4,900a month

Likely $3,900–$6,600

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$4,900likely $3,900–$6,450

    Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 23 homes with 7 to 49 beds and similar homes within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

  • Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600

    Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (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 $3,900–$6,600
$4,900
First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $4,650–$9,550
$6,900
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 23 homes with 7 to 49 beds and similar homes within 10 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.

23 homes like this within 10 miles publish starting rates mostly between $3,500–$6,350.

  • 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 23 nearby homes behind this estimate

Where it is

  • 3400 Chisom Trail, Loomis, CA 95650Address from the public record · September 27, 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 2023, the state has filed 22 documents for this home, and its records count 26 visits since 2023. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated August 27, 2026.

On file since
2023
State visits
26
Most recent visit
August 27, 2026
Occupied · May 5, 2026 visit
21 of 35 bedsa count on that day, not an opening

We hold 11 complaint reports the state published for this home, dated July 11, 2024 to May 5, 2026. 11 of the 11 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Substantiated” (6), “Unfounded” (3), “Unsubstantiated” (2). 11 include the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word. Summary composed by computer from the 11 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 citations3typical 0
  • Type B citations5typical 1
  • Substantiated allegations9typical 2
  • Total complaints11typical 6

“Typical” is the statewide median across the 1,354 licensed larger communities (16+ beds) in the state record — larger, longer-licensed homes accumulate more visits and reports, so compare like with like. One complaint can contain several allegations. Counts cover this licence since 2023.

Year by year
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated2026673202567220244412023440

The last 36 months — 21 of 22 documents

20266 state visits · 7 documents
Aug 27, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived on Thursday August 27, 2026, to conduct an unannounced case management visit. LPA met with Administrator Roxana. LPA and Roxana discussed recent improvements at the facility. LPA toured the facility. No deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was provided to the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 27, 2026
Aug 5, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Other

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived on Wednesday August 5, 2026, to conduct an unannounced case management visit. LPA met with Administrator Roxana. LPA and Roxana discussed recent improvements at the facility. LPA toured the facility. LPA requested the following documents from Roxana by the end of the week: LIC501, LIC503 and TB, administrator certificate, LIC200, first aid/cpr, and LIC500. No deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was provided to the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 5, 2026
Jun 29, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Office

On Monday June 29, 2029, at 2:30 PM, a Non-Compliance Conference was held at the Sacramento North Regional Office located at 9835 Goethe Road Suite 100, Sacramento CA 95827. The purpose of this Non-Compliance Conference meeting was to discuss the citations that have been issued in since licensure on December 27, 2023. Present in the meeting was Regional Manager (RM) Harpreet Humpal, Licensing Program Manager (LPM) Laura Munoz, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks, Owner Aaron Whitfield, Regional Vice President of Sales and Operations Julie Myers, Administrator Shay Ewing, and Roxana Bucurenciu. The Non-Compliance Conference process was explained during this meeting to include the Administrative Process. In the last three years, Senior Care Villa of Loomis has been issued three type A and six type B deficiencies. The facility was cited for the following issues cleanliness, personal rights, lack of supervision, insufficient staffing, medication management, infection control practices, and care and supervision. Issues discussed during the meeting were: · Substantiated complaint: neglect/lack of supervision · Medication management · staffing · Infection control procedures The facility has stated they will do the following to achieve continued and substantial compliance: Facility will provide the following: training topics and dates for med tech staff medication plan for compliance Infection control procedures for staff Reporting requirement procedures The Department requests licensee to submit the following by: updated LIC500 submitted every 30 days for the upcoming 90 days CCLD will do the following: · Increase Monitoring refer the facility to the technical support program Completing the Non-Compliance Conference does not deprive the Department of its authority to take appropriate formal legal action under the Health and Safety Code if such action is deemed necessary by the Regional Manager. Per California Code of Regulations (CCRs) - Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 6, no deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator Shay. A copy of this report was provided to the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 29, 2026
May 5, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff did not follow infection control practices

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived on Tuesday May 5, 2026 unannounced to conclude a complaint which was received by the Department on 4/24/2026. LPA met with acting Executive Director Heidi and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA interviewed the acting Administrator, staff, and home health regarding the allegation. LPA learned the following: North Star Senior Living, the management company for this facility, has an infection control policy and procedure for staff to follow. Per staff, this was not being followed. Specifically, staff did not immediately contact primary physicians regarding scabies exposure, bagging and sealing clothes for 14 days, and cleaning/disinfecting furniture. Based on the information detailed above, LPA finds the allegation to be substantiated. A finding that the allegation is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Deficiency cited on 9099-D. Exit interview. Copy of report and appeal rights provided. Substantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2026 · control 59-AS-20260424101341

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87470(a)(2) · Plan of correction due date: May 19, 2026

87470 Infection Control Requirements (a) A licensee shall ensure that infection control practices are maintained as follows:(2) Environmental cleaning and disinfection activities shall be performed . . .This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff interviews. This poses a direct threat to the health and safety of residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2026

Plan of correction: Facility to submit a plan regarding the facility following infection control plan.

May 5, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Facility did not report scabies outbreak to health department Medication error Insufficient staffing

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived on Tuesday May 5, 2026 unannounced to deliver findings for a complaint received on 2/26/2026. LPA met with acting Executive Director Heidi and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA interviewed home health providers, staff, and administration regarding the allegations. The result of the investigation is as follows: Although the first case of diagnosed occurred in September 2025, Placer County Public Health was not notified March 3, 2026. Once notified, the facility was provided with scabies management and prevention guidance. LPA reviewed R1’s medication administration record. R1 was diagnosed with scabies and prescribed treatment. Per R1’s MAR, hydroxyzine HCL 25 mg tablet was prescribed on February 10, 2026, and to be given at 4am, 10am, 4pm and 10pm. Per February 2026’s MAR, only one 4am tablet was given Substantiated between February 11th and February 28th. Additionally, between February 10th and February 28th, 7 doses were not given at 10pm. Additionally, there was no follow-up documentation as to why the medication was not given. LPA learned that there has not been a med tech on NOC shift since October 2025. Therefore, if a resident needed a PRN medication on NOC shift, there was no one on site to give it. Additionally, R1 was prescribed routine medications (Hydroxyzine and Lorazepam) to be given on NOC shift and per the February MAR most doses were not given. Based on the information detailed above, LPA finds the allegations to be substantiated. A finding that the allegation is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Deficiency cited on 9099-D. Exit interview. Copy of report and appeal rights provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2026 · control 59-AS-20260226151044

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87465(a)(4) · Plan of correction due date: May 6, 2026

87465 Incidental Medical and Dental Care (a) A plan for incidental medical and dental care shall be developed by each facility . . .(4) The licensee shall assist residents with self-administered medications as needed. This requirement was not met as evidenced by R1 missing routine prescribed medications on NOC shift. This poses a direct threat to the health and safety of residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2026

Plan of correction: Facility will submit a plan regarding covering NOC shift medications.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87411(a) · Plan of correction due date: May 19, 2026

87411 Personnel Requirements - General (a) Facility personnel shall at all times be sufficient in numbers, and competent to provide the services necessary to meet resident needs. This requirement was not met as evidenced by not staffing a med tech on NOC shift. This poses an indirect threat to the health and safety of residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2026

Plan of correction: Facility to submit staffing plan by POC due date.

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87470(b)(1)(a) · Plan of correction due date: May 19, 2026

87470 Infection Control Requirements (b) In addition to subsection (a), when one or more residents in the facility are diagnosed with a contagious disease, the following shall apply:. . . (A) The licensee shall consult with a medical professional, local health official, health department, or other research- . This requirement was not met as evidenced by public health not being contacted when the first case of scabies was diagnosed. This poses an indirect threat to the health and safety of residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 5, 2026

Plan of correction: Facility is currently in contact with public health. Citation is cleared during visit.

Mar 17, 2026Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Neglect/Lack of Care and Supervision

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived unannounced on Tuesday March 17, 2026, to deliver findings for a complaint received on 10/6/2025. LPA met with Administrator Shreetika and explained the purpose of the visit. During the course of the investigation, the Department conducted interviews and obtained documentation pertinent to the investigation. The following timeline of events is as follows: on 10/3/2025 at approximately 3:00 am, R1 entered the apartment of R2. R2 attempted to escort R1 out of their apartment when an unwitnessed altercation occurred. R1 was transported to the hospital and diagnosed with an acute chronic left front subdural hematoma, right lateral clavicle fracture, and multiple right-sided rib fractures. R2 was also transported to the hospital and diagnosed with a laceration to their hand and leg. Continued on 9099-C Substantiated Staff interviews revealed that on the night of the incident, there were only two staff working. According to staff and Administrator interviews, there should have been three staff on NOC shift. According to the October staffing schedule, the NOC shift schedule was not consistently staffed with 3 employees. Per the Administrator, a full-time NOC shift employee had recently reduced their hours due to personal reasons. Interviews described R1 as having a tendency of wandering exit seeking behavior, and aggression towards staff and other residents. Although there was no previous incident of physical attacks from R1 to other residents, staff noted it was only a matter of time that R1 attacked a resident due to their aggression. According to R1’s needs and services plan, they required total assistance with interventions due to agitation and aggressiveness to ensure the safety of other residents. Additionally, R1 was identified as frequently exit seeking. R1’s physicians report lists R1’s primary diagnosis as Dementia with agitation and aggressive behaviors. Due to the facility’s inadequate staffing, staff on site could not properly supervise the residents which resulted in an altercation between two residents. Based on interviews conducted and documentation obtained, the preponderance of evidence standards have been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, deficiency is being cited on the attached 9099-D page. As a result of the resident's serious bodily injury, an immediate civil penalty per Health and Safety Code § 1548 in the amount of $500 is being assessed for a violation that the Department determines resulted in the injury or illness of a person in care. An additional civil penalty assessment is under review and determination is pending. LPA will return on a future date to assess an additional civil penalty if warranted. See 9099-D for citation Exit interview conducted. A copy of the report and appeal rights provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026 · control 59-AS-20251006123021

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87464(f)(1) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 18, 2026

87464 Basic Services (f) Basic services shall at a minimum include: (1) Care and supervision... This requirement is not met as evidenced by based on documentation reviewed and interviews conducted, the facility did not ensure staff were sufficient in number to provide care and supervision to residents, which poses an immediate health, safety, and personal rights risk to residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 17, 2026

Plan of correction: The facility agrees to: submit a plan for the facility to maintain adequate staffing in the event of staff quitting, call offs, no shows, etc.

Feb 11, 2026Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff are serving undercooked food to residents in care. Staff did not keep facility free of vermin. Staff did not treat residents scabies infection.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived unannounced on Wednesday February 11, 2026, to deliver findings for a complaint received on 1/26/2026. LPA met with Administrator Shreetika and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA interviewed the Administrator, cook, and staff regarding meals which were served to the residents. No interviews stated that food was undercooked. Additionally, no interviews acknowledged residents becoming sick after eating meals. LPA interviewed the Administrator and staff who stated that there was no current diagnosis of scabies. Per staff, R1-R4 had/were experiencing skin irritation. Staff followed up with care for those residents and received the following diagnosis: R1 had dermatitis, R2 had hyperglycemia , R3 had an allergic reaction and shingles, and R4 had dermatitis. LPA did not review any documentation where scabies was tested for and confirmed. Unsubstantiated While no staff acknowledged that they witnessed vermin in the facility, the Administrator stated that it was reported to her that a staff member observed a rodent near the kitchen. The administrator then contacted the contracted pest control company to immediately provide interior pest management services. Previously, pest control services were only provided to the outside of the facility. LPA toured the kitchen and did not find any evidence of rodents. Based on information obtained during the investigation, LPA finds the allegations to be UNSUBSTANTIATED- a finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred, Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was provided to the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 11, 2026 · control 59-AS-20260126154603
20256 state visits · 7 documents
Dec 23, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Case Management - Deficiencies

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived on Tuesday December 23, 2025 to conduct a case management regarding a citation given during the annual inspection on 12/4/2025. The facility's plan of correction (POC) was due on 12/18/2025. LPA issued civil penalties for failure to correct. LPA obtained the plan of correction during todays visit, however, temperatures are still outside of the required range of 105 - 120 degrees therefore the POC is not accepted. A new POC due date is being issued as 1/2/2026. If the POC is not provided to LPA by 1/2/2026, civil penalties will be issued. Exit interview conducted. Appeal rights given. A copy of this report was given to the Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 23, 2025
Dec 4, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived on Thursday December 4, 2025, to conduct the unannounced annual inspection. During today's annual inspection, the Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement Tool was used. LPA reviewed resident (8) and staff (6) files. LPA and Administrator Shreetika toured the facility together to ensure the health and safety of residents in care. The areas toured included the following areas in resident apartments, resident bathrooms, common areas, kitchen, laundry room, and medication room. Facility had current inspection tags on fire extinguishers. Water temperatures in resident rooms were measured above 120 degrees. Facility had a fully stocked first aid kit. All required postings were observed. LPA obtained a copy of the facility's 610E and current liability insurance. LPA obtained the required documents to associate Shreetika as the facility's Administrator. See 809D for deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights were emailed to the Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 4, 2025
Nov 13, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff pushed resident in care

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived unannounced on Thursday November 13, 2025 to conduct a visit regarding a complaint received on 11/12/2025. LPA met with Administrator Shreetika and explained the purpose of the visit. Throughout the course of the investigation, LPA interviewed the Administrator, Resident Care Director, and staff regarding the allegation. LPA reviewed R1 and S2's facility file. LPA reviewed staff statements from the incident. LPA learned the following: On 11/11/2025, R1 moved into the facility. R1 has a diagnosis of Dementia. R1 was experiencing behaviors such as agitation and wandering. At the beginning of NOC shift, S1 was on the phone with the Resident Care Director, obtaining additional information about R1. S1 witnessed the following: R1 hit S2 on their chest. As R1 began to walk away, S2 slapped R1 on their back, using both hands. RCD heard the interaction and immediately came to the facility. S2 was then suspended. Substantiated Based on the information detailed above, LPA finds the allegation to be substantiated. A finding that the allegation is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Deficiency cited on 9099-D. Appeal rights were given. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was left with the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 13, 2025 · control 59-AS-20251112131435

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87468.1(a)(3) · Plan of correction due date: Nov 14, 2025

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: (3) To be free from punishment, humiliation, intimidation, abuse, or other actions of a punitive nature, . . This requirement was not met as evidenced by staff hitting a resident. This poses a direct threat to the health and safety of residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 13, 2025

Plan of correction: Administrator to schedule training for all staff regarding: elder abuse, personal rights, and mandated reporting.

Aug 6, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnfounded

Allegation investigated: Staff neglect resulted in a resident's death Staff did not ensure a resident was properly fed while in care Staff did not report incidents involving a resident

Licensed Program Analyst (LPA) Cassandra Mikkelson arrived at the facility unannounced and met with Christina Brown to deliver findings for the above complaint allegation. During the investigation, LPA conducted interviews, conducted a tour of the facility, and reviewed documentation pertinent to the investigation. The results of the investigation are as follows: *** Report continued on 9099-C*** Unfounded Staff neglect resulted in a resident's death Records reviewed indicate that Resident R1’s death was not due to facility neglect. Medical records reviewed do not indicate there was staff neglect for R1. The Death certificate does not indicate that R1’s death was questionable in any manner. Therefore, the allegation staff neglect results in a resident’s death is unfounded. Staff did not ensure a resident was properly fed while in care Records reviewed indicated that R1 was eating meals appropriately. Interviews conducted with staff indicated that R1 was eating meals and did not refuse meals while in care. Staff encouraged R1 to eat and drink on a daily basis. Therefore, the allegation that staff did not ensure a resident was properly fed while in care is unfounded. Staff did not report incidents involving a resident Records reviewed indicate that staff were contacting R1’s responsible party (RP) when an incident occurred. Internal incident reports documented contact with R1’s RP indicating that when an incident occurred staff was contacting R1’s RP to report the incident and update on R1’s status. Therefore, the allegation staff did not report incidents involving a resident is unfounded. Based on records reviewed and interviews, LPA finds the above allegations to be UNFOUNDED- meaning that the allegations were false, could not have happened and/or is without reasonable basis. Exit interview conducted with the Administrator. Copy of report was given to facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 6, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250623154126
May 12, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff cut resident’s hair without consent from authorized representative.

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Graham Gunby arrived unannounced on 05/12/2025 to complete and deliver findings to a complaint received on 10/07/2024. LPAs met with Executive Director, Ilona Corpus and explained the purpose of the visit. Throughout the course of the investigation, the department conducted interviews and record reviews. Please continue to LIC9099C.. Substantiated Staff cut resident’s hair without consent from authorized representative. – Substantiated Staff cut R1’s hair without obtaining prior consent from the authorized representative, which is a violation of the R1’s personal rights. However, there is no evidence that the resident sustained any physical or emotional harm. Based on staff and resident interviews the investigation revealed that the facility provides routine haircuts to male residents every three to five weeks as part of grooming and hygiene care. According to the Executive Director (ED), Resident 1 (R1) typically does not request a haircut, and in this case, a caregiver independently decided to cut R1’s hair, citing hygiene concerns due to the residents at the time. The caregiver did not obtain prior consent from R1’s authorized representative. Although the facility stated that routine haircuts are standard practice, staff failed to obtain consent from R1’s authorized representative prior to the haircut, which is required. There was no indication that R1 experienced emotional distress, physical injury, or any other form of harm as a result of the haircut. As a result of this investigation, LPA finds allegations to be Substantiated - A finding that the complaint is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Staff does not ensure call button is accessible to resident. – Unsubstantiated During staff interviews, staff reported each client has a pull cord at bedside and in each bathroom. Based on investigation, LPA Gunby observed each resident room has a pull cord on the wall by resident bed and one in each resident bathroom. LPA Gunby observed a R1’s room with a pull cord attached to the wall with a longer cord for easier access to pull. LPA Gunby requested call button logs and observed only several residents using the call buttons. Based on the investigation, observations and interviews conducted the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation 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 allegation is unsubstantiated. Staff not keeping an accurate medication log. – Unsubstantiated During the initial visit and walk through, the medications were reviewed, and it was noted that the facility staff were logging all new and current incoming medications and prescriptions. It was also observed in the medications log that the staff were checking off that they are giving the resident their medication. The ED stated that if they were to dispose of medication for a resident, that there would be two staff persons that would witness the disposal and that the two staff persons would sign and log that they did dispose of the medication. Based on the investigation, observations and interviews conducted the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation 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 allegation is unsubstantiated.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 12, 2025 · control 59-AS-20241007123249

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 87468(a)(1) · Plan of correction due date: May 19, 2025

87468.1 (a) (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: Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, facility did not confirm with responsible party to cut the residents hair.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 12, 2025

Plan of correction: Facility agrees to obtain prior consent from authorized representatives before providing grooming services, including haircuts. The facility will include this document in their admission agreement.

May 12, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Resident developed a pressure injury due to staff not repositioning resident Facility staff left resident in soiled clothing for an extended period of time

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Graham Gunby arrived unannounced on 05/12/2025 to complete and deliver findings to a complaint received on 10/07/2024. LPA met with Resident Care Coordinator Christina Brown and explained the purpose of the visit. Throughout the course of the investigation, the department conducted interviews and record reviews. Please continue to LIC9099C.. Unsubstantiated Resident developed a pressure injury due to staff not repositioning resident. – Unsubstantiated The Department received and reviewed R1’s medical records. The medical records indicated there were not pressure injuries present on R1. Throughout interviews with staff and medical record reviews, it was determined R1 had irritation and redness on the coccyx area. The facility provided documentation acknowledging that R1 primary stayed in bed or a wheelchair and would need to be repositioned frequently. With repositioning’s often and application of cream to the area, the facility and hospice were aware of the affected areas. Based on the investigation, observations and interviews conducted the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation 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 allegation is unsubstantiated. Facility staff left resident in soiled clothing for an extended period of time. – Unsubstantiated The complaint alleges facility staff did not address R1 being left in soiled clothing in a timely manner. Based on interviews that were conducted, LPA could not prove or disprove that the allegation occurred. LPA received consistent statements, that residents are checked every 2 hours throughout the day and night. LPA reviewed the Service Plan which indicated that the resident needed assistance with toileting and dressing. LPA could not corroborate the allegation. Based on the investigation, observations and interviews conducted the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegation 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 allegation is unsubstantiated.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 12, 2025 · control 59-AS-20241120142205
Feb 12, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnfounded

Allegation investigated: Staff did not ensure that resident's care needs were met

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Graham Gunby arrived unannounced on 02/12/2025 to complete and deliver findings to a complaint received on 10/14/2024. LPA met with Executive Director Ilona Corpus and explained the purpose of the visit. Throughout the course of the investigation, LPA interviewed the Administrator and staff. LPA reviewed R1’s file including face sheet, physicians report, and care plan. The result of the investigation is as follows: Based on the investigation, it was determined that staff acted within appropriate care protocols. According to care plans for R1, wound care of this nature must be performed by a licensed skilled professional. Evidence collected during the investigation, including staff interviews and documentation review, confirmed that staff were instructed not to replace the patch because doing so falls outside their scope of practice. Further, it was confirmed that the licensed staff responsible for wound care were promptly notified to address the issue when it arose. Unfounded Additionally, the care plan for R1 explicitly notes that wound care must be conducted by qualified personnel. There is no evidence to suggest a delay or neglect in responding to R1’s care needs within the scope of the staff’s responsibilities. Interviews and record reviews indicated that staff were alerting hospice of any problems relating to the dressing, therefore the above allegations are UNFOUNDED. A finding of unfounded means that the allegation is false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was emailed to the Executive Director.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Feb 12, 2025 · control 59-AS-20241014103928
20244 state visits · 4 documents
Nov 20, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Required - 1 Year

Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Graham Gunby and Cheyenne Ratajczak arrived on Wednesday November 20, 2024 to conduct the unannounced annual inspection. LPAs met with Executive Director (ED) Ilona Corpus and explained the purpose of visit. During today's annual inspection, the Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement Tool was used. LPAs reviewed resident (7) and staff (5) files. All resident files contained the required paperwork. All staff files contained the required paperwork and training. LPAs and Executive Director Ilona toured the facility together to ensure the health and safety of residents in care. The areas toured included common areas, bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, laundry room, front yard and back yard. All chemicals, toxins and sharps were kept locked and inaccessible to clients. Facility has updated fire extinguishers. In the areas toured, there were no health or safety violations observed. No deficiencies cited. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was emailed to the ED.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Nov 20, 2024
Aug 1, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnfounded

Allegation investigated: Facility staff failed to seek medical attention in a timely manner Facility staff failed to assist resident in distress. Facility staff interfering with hospice agency agent

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived unannounced on Thursday August 1, 2024 to complete and deliver findings to a complaint received on 7/23/2024. LPA met with Administrator Ilona and explained the purpose of the visit. Throughout the course of the investigation, LPA interviewed the Administrator and staff. LPA reviewed R1’s file including face sheet, physicians report, and care plan. The result of the investigation is as follows: LPA interviewed the Administrator who stated that they worked on NOC shift on Friday July 19th. She performed frequent rounds and had no instances of R1 falling or being on the floor. LPA interviewed all morning staff who worked on Saturday July 20th who stated that when they started their shift, R1 was in bed. Interviews acknowledged that around breakfast time, R1 began to exhibit behaviors and threw their food on the floor. R1 then lowered themselves to the ground. Staff attempted multiple times to assist R1 back into bed, but they refused. R1 was also refusing their morning medications. Continued on 9099-C Unfounded At this point, the Health Services Director called hospice for assistance. Staff interviewed stated that R1 did not state that they were in pain and that they had exhibited this behavior before. Hospice arrived to evaluate and assist resident. Hospice wanted staff to force resident back in bed, even though resident wasn’t wanting staff assistance. 911 was called for a lift assist. Hospice, along with the first responders, assisted R1 back into bed. The hospice nurse then left to attend to another resident at a different facility. A short time later, R1 was given their morning medications. Based on the evidence provided, the preponderance of evidence standards was not met, therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNFOUNDED. An unfounded allegation means that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was left at the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 1, 2024 · control 59-AS-20240722164103
Jul 11, 2024Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff does not ensure facility is free of pests Staff does not ensure kitchen is clean and sanitized

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived unannounced on Thursday July 11, 2024, to complete and deliver findings to a complaint received on 6/18/2024. LPA met with Administrator Ilona and explained the purpose of the visit. Throughout the course of the investigation, LPA interviewed the Administrator and staff regarding the allegations. LPA toured the kitchen and observed the following: evidence of pests in pest glue traps and baby pests on kitchen shelf. Food particles were observed on the floor and kitchen shelves. The kitchen floor was observed to be dirty. Kitchen refrigerator shelves were observed to be dirty. LPA photographed the items detailed above. Based on the information detailed above, LPA finds the allegations to be substantiated. A finding that the allegation is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. Deficiency cited on 9099-D. Appeal rights were given. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was left at the facility. Substantiated LPA learned that R2 requires staff to assist them with all meals. R2 is on a pureed diet. Through staff interviews, LPA learned that R2 is assigned staff who will assist with feeding once the residents in the dining room have their food. LPA learned there is another resident on a modified diet, but they eat their meal in the dining room. No staff interviews acknowledged that R2 eats their meals outside of the facility’s designated mealtimes. Staff interviews also did not reveal that R2 has missed any meals (other than when R2 has refused meals/food). Staff interviews acknowledged that there are always two staff on the NOC (overnight) shift. No interviews revealed that facility has only one employee working at night. LPA reviewed staff training documents for the previous 3 hires: activities assistant, caregiver, and kitchen employee. Staff training documents show that staff complete online (Relias) training, training by the Resident Services Director, and shadowing. Additionally, care staff are trained several times per week and as needed. Based on the evidence provided, the preponderance of evidence standards was not met, therefore, the above allegations are found to be UNFOUNDED. An unfounded allegation means that the allegation was false, could not have happened and/or is without a reasonable basis. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was left at the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 11, 2024 · control 59-AS-20240619163711

From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type B · Section cited: CCR 8755(b)(27) · Plan of correction due date: Jul 25, 2024

87555 General Food Service Requirements (b) The following food service requirements shall apply:(27) All kitchen areas shall be kept clean and free of litter, rodents, vermin and insects. This requirement was not met as evidenced by uncleanliness and pests in kitchen. This poses an indirect threat to the health and safety of residents in care.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 11, 2024

Plan of correction: Administrator to send LPA pictures of deep cleaned kitchen and copy of pest control records.

Mar 12, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Post Licensing

On Tuesday March 12, 2024, Licensing Program Analyst Melissa Parks arrived to conduct an unannounced post licensing inspection. During today's visit, the Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement Tool was used. LPA reviewed 4 resident and 2 staff files. LPA toured the facility with Administrator Ilona. Due to a planned power outage, LPA will return to the facility at a later date to finish the post licensing visit. No deficiencies cited. An exit interview conducted. A copy of this report was emailed.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 12, 2024
20233 state visits · 3 documents
Dec 11, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Prelicensing

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived on Monday December 11, 2023 to complete an unannounced prelicensing visit. LPA toured the facility with Administrator Chad. Previous prelicensing visits were conducted on 10/19/2023 and 10/26/2023. During todays visit, there were no health or safety violations observed. This facility has been approved for a secured perimeter by the South Placer Fire Protection District (inspection date 11/14/2023). The facility appears to be in substantial compliance and ready for licensure. The license will be granted upon completion of a final review and approval from the Licensing Program Manager and the Central Applications Bureau. An exit interview was conducted with Administrator and a copy of this report will be left at the facility.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 11, 2023
Oct 26, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Prelicensing

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived unannounced on Thursday October 26, 2023 to continue the prelicensing inspection. This application is a change in ownership with residents in care. Applicant has fixed the previous issues: non-skid mats not observed in all resident showers, incomplete first aid kit, and no safety measures in resident apartments to address behaviors such as ingestion of toxic materials. LPA observed a complete first aid kit, non-skid mats in shower rooms, and locks on bathroom cabinets to secure personal hygiene and grooming supplies. LPA observed the facility to have a secured perimeter which the recent fire inspection clearance does not show approval. LPA obtained a waiver letter requesting for a secured perimeter from the Administrator. If approved, the Department will request a fire inspection to be conducted. Application is pending and LPA will forward findings to the Centralized Application Bureau (CAB) that facility did not meet all the pre-licensing components yet. A copy of this report was provided to the facility. Exit interview conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 26, 2023
Oct 19, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Type of visit: Prelicensing

Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Melissa Parks arrived unannounced on Thursday October 19, 2023 to conduct a prelicensing inspection. This application is a change in ownership with residents in care. During today's prelicensing inspection, the Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement Tool was used. LPA reviewed 7 resident files. All resident files contained the required paperwork. LPA conducted an inspection of the facility to ensure compliance with Title 22 regulations. Facility inspection was completed in the following areas: resident apartments, resident bathrooms, common area shower rooms, kitchen, staff apartments, garages, and backyard. Applicant has NOT satisfied all requirements in accordance to Title 22, California Code of Regulations due to the following: non-skid mats were not observed in all resident showers, incomplete first aid kit, and no safety measures in resident apartments to address behaviors such as ingestion of toxic materials. The Administrator stated that the facility will be in full compliance by 10/26/2023. LPA will conduct a follow-up visit at a later date. Application is pending and LPA will forward findings to the Centralized Application Bureau (CAB) that facility did not meet all the pre-licensing components yet. A copy of this report was provided to the facility. Exit interview conducted.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 19, 2023
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 Placer County, closest first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.

Explore Placer County