How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Atherton Park Post-Acute
1275 Crane Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (opens Google Maps) · San Mateo County · (650) 325-8600· 160 certified beds · avg 158 residents/day · certified since Jun 2, 2005 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: KALESTA HEALTHCARE GROUP (19 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 14, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.73
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 49 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint F-0880
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint F-0692
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
View all 49 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Aug 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| May 23, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| May 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Feb 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Feb 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Feb 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Feb 14, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Feb 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Feb 14, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. · F-0847 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · from a complaint · F-0554 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Feb 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings. · from a complaint · F-0606 |
| Jan 10, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Dec 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Oct 11, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Aug 14, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · from a complaint · F-0554 |
| Aug 14, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Aug 14, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Aug 14, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility has more than 120 beds but did not hire a qualified full-time social worker as required. · F-0850 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · F-0742 |
| Jun 8, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 21
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 13 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 21 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.73
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.43
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.31
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.73 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 22% in California; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.43 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 40% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.31 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 17% in California; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.35 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 45% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 40% in California; top 20% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 11.8 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 8% in California; top 5% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.90, RN 0.45, weekend 3.46.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.90 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Atherton Park Post-Acute. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 44% | 08/01/2019 |
| Kalesta Healthcare Group, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 08/01/2019 |
| Porter, Micah | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Williams, Ryan | Individual | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Williams, Ryan | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 44% | 08/01/2019 |
| Au, Ka Yu | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/15/2023 |
| Chen, Kai Shin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/04/2021 |
| Chen, Kai Shin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/04/2021 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Evangelista, Karen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/10/2021 |
| Evangelista, Karen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/10/2021 |
| Fields, Domonique | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Fields, Domonique | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2019 |
| Flake, Ethan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/07/2024 |
| Greystone Cre Notes 2024-HC3, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/14/2025 |
| Hinkle, Cortney | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2024 |
| Hinkle, Cortney | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2024 |
Showing 20 of 50 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 30 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Kalesta Healthcare Group — 19 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- California Park Post Acute — Chico, CA · overall 5/5
- City Creek Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 5/5
- Harvest Crossing Post Acute — Manteca, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Los Banos Post Acute — Los Banos, CA · overall 2/5
- River View Post Acute — Modesto, CA · overall 2/5
- The Villas at Saratoga Skilled Nsg & Assisted LVG — Saratoga, CA · overall 1/5
- Valley Skilled Nursing Center — Modesto, CA · overall 4/5
- Saint Helens Post Acute — Saint Helens, OR · overall 2/5abuseSFF
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 18 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Is signing an arbitration agreement required for admission, and can we refuse it without affecting my family member's care?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 33% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 50 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 87 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VI at Palo Alto | 1.0 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Webster House | 1.6 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Palo Alto Post-Acute | 1.8 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Devonshire Oaks Nursing Center | 3.4 mi | Redwood City, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Sequoias | 5.6 mi | Portola Valley, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| The Terraces at Los Altos Health Facility | 5.7 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Belmont Healthcare Center | 6.8 mi | Belmont, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa Siena | 7.8 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| San Mateo Medical Center D/P SNF | 8.1 mi | San Mateo, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Camino Ridge Post-Acute | 8.1 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Mountain View Healthcare Center | 8.4 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Los Altos Post-Acute | 8.6 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Mateo, CA — 14 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Brookside Skilled Nursing Hospital — San Mateo, CA · overall 5/5
- Golden Heights Healthcare — Daly City, CA · overall 5/5
- Golden Pavilion Healthcare — Daly City, CA · overall 3/5
- Linda Mar Care Center — Pacifica, CA · overall 5/5
- Millbrae Care Center — Millbrae, CA · overall 2/5
- Pacifica Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Pacifica, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555827.