Most inspections found no deficiencies, with the facility generally clean, well-maintained, and compliant with regulations. Several complaint investigations were unsubstantiated, including concerns about medication administration, resident care, and refunds. However, the facility was cited for failing to provide adequate supervision to a resident with dementia who eloped, as noted in the most recent complaint investigation on October 8, 2025. There was also a substantiated complaint in December 2024 regarding a delayed refund to a resident beyond the agreed timeframe. The facility’s record shows mostly compliance with isolated issues, with the latest annual inspection on August 22, 2025, reporting no deficiencies.
Deficiencies (last 3 years)
Deficiencies (over 3 years)0.7 deficiencies/year
Deficiencies are regulatory violations found during state inspections.
83% better than California average
California average: 4 deficiencies/year
Deficiencies per year
43210
2023
2024
2025
Census
Latest occupancy rate71% occupied
Based on a October 2025 inspection.
This facility has shown a steady increase in demand based on occupancy rates.
An unannounced case management visit was conducted to follow up on an incident report submitted on 2025-10-03 regarding a resident who eloped from the facility without supervision.
Findings
The facility failed to provide adequate care and supervision to a resident diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia, who was able to leave the facility unassisted. This deficiency was cited under California Code of Regulations, Title 22.
Complaint Details
The visit was triggered by a complaint incident report regarding Resident R1 eloping from the facility without assistance. The complaint was substantiated as the facility failed to provide adequate supervision.
Severity Breakdown
Type A: 1
Deficiencies (1)
Description
Severity
Failure to provide care and supervision to resident R1 diagnosed with Dementia, who eloped from the facility without supervision.
Type A
Report Facts
Deficiencies cited: 1Plan of Correction Due Date: Oct 9, 2025
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Yi Sam Jian
Licensing Program Analyst
Conducted the unannounced case management visit
Daisy Dizon
Memory Care Director
Met with Licensing Program Analyst during the visit
Caroline Frangieh
Regional Operations Specialist
Met with Licensing Program Analyst during the visit
The inspection was an unannounced complaint investigation visit conducted in response to a complaint received on 2025-03-14 alleging that a client's care needs were not being met by staff.
Findings
The investigation found that the client's wounds were pre-existing and being appropriately treated by the facility along with outside medical care. Interviews and record reviews indicated the facility was providing appropriate care and meeting resident needs. The complaint allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated with no deficiencies cited.
Complaint Details
Complaint alleged that client R1's care needs were not met by staff, with observations of poor condition. The allegation was unsubstantiated after investigation, meaning there was insufficient evidence to prove the alleged violation occurred.
Report Facts
Facility capacity: 168
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Dominic Tobola
Licensing Program Analyst
Conducted the complaint investigation and delivered findings
Alan Fox
Regional Operations Specialist
Met with Licensing Program Analyst during the investigation
Katherine Raukman
Administrator
Facility administrator mentioned in the report
April Cowan
Licensing Program Manager
Named as Licensing Program Manager overseeing the investigation
The visit was an unannounced complaint investigation triggered by allegations received on 2025-02-12 regarding medication distribution, resident record maintenance, and communication with a resident's responsible party.
Findings
The investigation found no evidence to substantiate the allegations. Medication administration records and resident records were maintained properly, and documented communication with the responsible party was confirmed. The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated due to lack of preponderance of evidence.
Complaint Details
The complaint alleged that staff did not distribute resident's medication as prescribed, did not maintain current resident records, and failed to communicate with the responsible party regarding resident's care service. These allegations were found unsubstantiated.
Report Facts
Complaint Control Number: 14-AS-20250212155932Capacity: 168Census: 126
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Dominic Tobola
Licensing Program Analyst
Conducted the complaint investigation and authored the report
Katherine Raukhman
Executive Director
Facility representative interviewed during investigation
The inspection was an unannounced complaint investigation visit triggered by allegations received on 2025-02-21 regarding medication administration and timely prescription refills at the facility.
Findings
The investigation found no corroborating evidence to support the allegations that staff did not ensure medication was dispensed as prescribed or that prescriptions were not refilled timely. Staff interviews and record reviews indicated medication was administered appropriately, and delays in physician orders were documented. The allegations were determined to be unsubstantiated.
Complaint Details
The complaint alleged staff failed to dispense medication as prescribed and did not refill prescriptions timely. The investigation included interviews with staff and review of resident medication and hospice records. The findings were unsubstantiated due to lack of sufficient evidence.
Report Facts
Facility capacity: 168Census: 126
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Dominic Tobola
Licensing Program Analyst
Conducted the complaint investigation and authored the report
Katherine Raukhman
Executive Director
Facility representative interviewed during investigation
The inspection was an unannounced complaint investigation visit conducted to address allegations that the facility did not issue a refund to residents R1 and R2.
Findings
The investigation found that residents R1 and R2 had signed an admissions agreement effective 7/31/2024 and had voluntarily refused to move their belongings into the facility. The facility provided the appropriate pro-rated community fees refund. The complaint was determined to be unfounded with no deficiencies cited.
Complaint Details
Complaint alleged the facility did not issue a refund to residents R1 and R2. The allegation was found to be unfounded after review of admissions agreements, interviews, and documentation.
Report Facts
Facility capacity: 168Census: 125
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Dominic Tobola
Licensing Program Analyst
Conducted the complaint investigation visit and authored the report
Andrea Medlin
Licensing Program Manager
Named in the report as Licensing Program Manager
Katherine Raukhman
Executive Director
Facility representative met during the investigation
The inspection was an unannounced complaint investigation visit triggered by a complaint alleging that the facility did not issue a refund to a resident.
Findings
The complaint was substantiated as the facility had delayed refunding the monthly fees to the resident beyond the agreed 21-day period after the resident vacated and removed personal property. The level of care fees were refunded timely, but the monthly fees were not fully refunded until over two months later, violating the admissions agreement.
Complaint Details
The complaint alleged that the facility did not issue a refund to resident R1. The allegation was substantiated based on evidence that the refund of monthly fees was delayed beyond the agreed timeframe, violating the admissions agreement and state regulations.
Severity Breakdown
Type B: 1
Deficiencies (1)
Description
Severity
Failure to refund any fees paid in advance covering the time after the resident’s personal property has been removed from the facility within 15 days as required by H&S 1569.625(c).
The inspection visit was conducted as an unannounced complaint investigation following a complaint received on 2024-01-29 regarding multiple allegations about facility care and services.
Findings
The investigation found no preponderance of evidence to substantiate the allegations, including issues related to accommodations, meal service during isolation, medication administration, staff conduct, and COVID-19 room cleaning. The allegations were therefore unsubstantiated.
Complaint Details
The complaint included allegations that facility staff failed to provide safe, healthful, and comfortable accommodations; failed to provide tray service when a resident was ill; failed to provide medication according to physician's directions; failed to accord dignity in personal relationships; and did not clean and disinfect a COVID-positive resident's room. The investigation concluded these allegations were unsubstantiated.
Report Facts
Capacity: 168Census: 126
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
John Calandra
Licensing Program Analyst
Conducted the complaint investigation and delivered findings
Katherine Raukhman
Executive Director
Facility representative met during the investigation and exit interview
An unannounced Annual Required – 1 year inspection was conducted to evaluate the facility's compliance with regulatory standards.
Findings
The facility was found to be clean, well-maintained, and compliant with safety and care regulations. No deficiencies were cited during the visit, and all reviewed resident and staff files, as well as medication records, were in order.
Report Facts
Residents receiving hospice services: 6Sample file review: 10Staff file spot check: 5Fire extinguisher last charged date: Nov 8, 2023Water temperature range: 105.3-114.4
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Katherine Raukhman
Executive Director
Met with Licensing Program Analyst during inspection and named in report
An unannounced visit was conducted by Licensing Program Analyst John Calandra to deliver an immediate exclusion letter to exclude a private companion who previously worked in the facility and is not allowed to work there.
Findings
The immediate exclusion letter was delivered and reviewed with the Executive Director, Katherine Raukhman, who was advised that the excluded private companion is not allowed to work in the facility. The report was reviewed, discussed, and a copy was provided.
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
John Calandra
Licensing Program Analyst
Conducted the unannounced visit and delivered the immediate exclusion letter.
Katherine Raukhman
Executive Director
Met with Licensing Program Analyst and received the immediate exclusion letter.
Inspection Report Original LicensingCensus: 105Capacity: 168Deficiencies: 0Aug 2, 2023
Visit Reason
An unannounced Pre-Licensing visit was conducted to evaluate the facility for licensing approval.
Findings
The facility was found to be clean, in good repair, and in compliance with Title 22 regulations. No safety hazards were observed, and required records and postings were maintained.
Report Facts
Water temperature: 112Water temperature: 113Facility capacity: 168Census: 105
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Katherine Raukhman
Executive Director
Met with Licensing Program Analyst during the inspection
The visit was an office type evaluation involving a telephone interview with the administrator as part of a Change of Ownership (CHOW) application process.
Findings
The applicant/administrator demonstrated understanding of community care facility licensing laws, including facility operation, admission policies, staffing requirements, restrictive health conditions, and general provisions. Identification was verified and required documentation was obtained.
Employees Mentioned
Name
Title
Context
Katherine Raukman
Administrator
Participated in COMP II telephone interview and confirmed understanding of licensing laws.
Loading inspection reports...
Need Help?
Let us help you or a loved one find the perfect senior home.