How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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★)
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.
Showing the latest 3 of 26 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. F-0880
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. F-0604
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 22, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 22, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 22, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 15, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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, 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 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 13, 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. · F-0656 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 13, 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 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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, 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 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Apr 7, 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 |
| Apr 7, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Apr 7, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Apr 7, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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, 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 |
| Apr 7, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 16 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 4 | 0 | E |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 6.36 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.27 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 6% in California; top 8% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.57 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.81 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 11% in California; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 22.1 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 11% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 20.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 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.
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
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.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front Porch Communities and Services | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 04/01/2022 |
| Akopyan, Gevork | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/12/2022 |
| Bout, Ferdinand | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/29/2025 |
| Duranteau, Nancy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Forte, Vincent | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Front Porch Communities and Services | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Handy, Joanne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Ichien, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2018 |
| Jacobs, Laura | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Jumawan, Kristyl | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/20/2026 |
| Kelly, Sean | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/06/2023 |
| Kelly, Sean | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/06/2023 |
| Kroeker, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Macango, Susan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/04/2026 |
| McGovern, Marion | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| McMullin, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Olson, Kari | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Salvador, Eduardo | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/03/2017 |
| Salvador, Eduardo | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Skillman, Daniel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2021 |
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.
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.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summerfield Health Care Center | 1.4 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Park View Post Acute | 1.6 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Santa Rosa Post Acute | 2.0 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Blue Oak Post-Acute | 4.0 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Northvine Postacute Care | 5.0 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Arbol Healthcare Center of Santa Rosa | 5.0 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab | 10.8 mi | Sebastopol, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Vineyard Post Acute | 13.9 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Valley of the Moon Post Acute | 14.9 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Sonoma Post Acute | 15.2 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Broadway Villa Post Acute | 15.7 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Veterans Home of California - Yountville - SNF | 15.8 mi | Yountville, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555268.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details