How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Pacific Coast Manor
1935 Wharf Road, Capitola, CA 95010 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Cruz County · (831) 476-0770· 99 certified beds · avg 96 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1969 · 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: COVENANT CARE (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 20, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.52
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: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 27 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. F-0644
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
View all 27 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 2, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Feb 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Feb 20, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 2, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Aug 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · from a complaint · F-0699 |
| May 9, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Dec 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Sep 11, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Jun 16, 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 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Jun 16, 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 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Jun 16, 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 |
| Jun 16, 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. · F-0689 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Jun 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · F-0909 |
| Dec 5, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Dec 5, 2019 | 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 5, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Dec 5, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Dec 5, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 5, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 2).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 3 | 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: 3.52
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.94
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.10
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) | 3.52 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 11% in California; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.94 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 13% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.10 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 7% in California; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.01 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 7% in California; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 49.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 15% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 63.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 12% in California; bottom 17% 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 4.39, RN 1.17, weekend 3.88.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.39 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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pacific Coast Manor. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centre Capital Investors V, LP | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (b), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (q), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (s), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Centre V Secondary Fund, L.P. | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Care California, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/01/2004 |
| Covenant Care, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Holdco, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Subco, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Evans, Mary | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Levin, Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Sims, Christine | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| State Treasurer of Mich Custodian of Public School Empl RTMNT Systems | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Stockwell Fund II LP | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Torok, Andrew | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Ashley, Dava | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/07/2018 |
| Ashley, Dava | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/26/2018 |
| Carney, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2013 |
| Evans, Mary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2013 |
| Evans, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/17/2006 |
Showing 20 of 27 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 7 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 Covenant Care — 12 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.
- Pacific Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Fresno, CA · overall 3/5
- Palo Alto Post-Acute — Palo Alto, CA · overall 4/5
- Shoreline Care Center — Oxnard, CA · overall 2/5
- Silver Hills Health Care Center — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5
- Silver Ridge Healthcare Center — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
- Buena Vista Care Center — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 2/5
- Camino Ridge Post-Acute — Mountain View, CA · overall 1/5
- Gilroy Healthcare Center — Gilroy, CA · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 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.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "If you ever planned to discharge or transfer my family member, how much written notice would we receive and how could we appeal?"
- "How do you learn about each resident's background and history, and how does that shape their care?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "Who provides social services here, and how would they support my family member's emotional and social needs?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
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 50% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 27 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 17 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redwood Grove Post Acute | 1.3 mi | Santa Cruz, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Driftwood Healthcare Center - Santa Cruz | 1.4 mi | Santa Cruz, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Santa Cruz Post Acute | 1.7 mi | Santa Cruz, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Watsonville Nursing Center | 11.2 mi | Watsonville, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Watsonville Post Acute Center | 11.2 mi | Watsonville, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Manresa Healthcare Center | 11.8 mi | Watsonville, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Vasona Creek Healthcare Center | 17.4 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Terraces of Los Gatos | 17.8 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Almaden Health and Rehabilitation Center | 18.4 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation | 18.5 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Woodlands Healthcare Center | 18.9 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Plum Tree Care Center | 19.1 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056048.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).