California ›Santa Rosa

Spring Lake Village

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

5555 Montgomery Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95409 (opens Google Maps) · Sonoma County · (707) 538-8400· 70 certified beds · avg 42 residents/day · certified since Dec 4, 1986 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified

Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →

Part of chain: FRONT PORCH (9 facilities, chain avg rating 4.8★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 22, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
6.36
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. F-0604

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. F-0677

View all 26 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jan 22, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 22, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Jan 22, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677
Jan 22, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 15, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 13, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Feb 13, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not include required infection control training — with written standards, policies, and procedures — as part of its infection prevention program. · F-0945
Feb 13, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813
Feb 13, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Apr 7, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Apr 7, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Apr 7, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0657
Apr 7, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Apr 7, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 7, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 4).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202360F
2025160F
202640E

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 6.36
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.27
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 5.57
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)6.364.313.95top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.270.610.69top 6% in California; top 8% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing5.573.903.50top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.810.510.48top 11% in California; top 11% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)22.136.745.8top 11% in California; top 4% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)20.038.142.9top 19% in California; top 13% 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 5.54, RN 1.10, weekend 4.85.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.54 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Spring Lake Village. 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 →

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Front Porch Communities and ServicesOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%04/01/2022
Akopyan, GevorkIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/12/2022
Bout, FerdinandIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/29/2025
Duranteau, NancyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2021
Forte, VincentIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2021
Front Porch Communities and ServicesOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2022
Handy, JoanneIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2021
Ichien, ChristopherIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/04/2018
Jacobs, LauraIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2019
Jumawan, KristylIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/20/2026
Kelly, SeanIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/06/2023
Kelly, SeanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/06/2023
Kroeker, KevinIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2018
Macango, SusanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/04/2026
McGovern, MarionIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2017
McMullin, MaryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
Olson, KariIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2021
Salvador, EduardoIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/03/2017
Salvador, EduardoIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2021
Skillman, DanielIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/05/2021

Showing 20 of 28 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 8 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 Front Porch — 9 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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?"
  • "What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
  • "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "How are staff trained on infection control, and how often is that training refreshed?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
  • "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 22% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 28 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)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Summerfield Health Care Center1.4 miSanta Rosa, CA★★★★★5/5
Park View Post Acute1.6 miSanta Rosa, CA★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Santa Rosa Post Acute2.0 miSanta Rosa, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Blue Oak Post-Acute4.0 miSanta Rosa, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Northvine Postacute Care5.0 miSanta Rosa, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Arbol Healthcare Center of Santa Rosa5.0 miSanta Rosa, CA★★★★★4/5
Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab10.8 miSebastopol, CA★★★★★4/5
Vineyard Post Acute13.9 miPetaluma, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Valley of the Moon Post Acute14.9 miSonoma, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Sonoma Post Acute15.2 miSonoma, CA★★★★☆3/5
Broadway Villa Post Acute15.7 miSonoma, CA★★★★★3/5
Veterans Home of California - Yountville - SNF15.8 miYountville, CA★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Sonoma, CA — 18 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Santa Rosa →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555268.

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details