501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 (opens Google Maps) · San Mateo County · (650) 851-1501· 43 certified beds · avg 31 residents/day · certified since Jan 18, 1967 · 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 →
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.
Showing the latest 3 of 20 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 7, 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 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | 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. · F-0657 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| May 24, 2024 | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| May 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726 |
| Dec 30, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0655 |
| Dec 30, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 30, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Dec 30, 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 |
| Dec 30, 2021 | 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. · F-0692 |
| Dec 30, 2021 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 5).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 5 | 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 →
1 fine totaling $12,703.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 30, 2023 | Fine | $12,703 |
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) | 5.00 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 14% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.71 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 22% in California; top 35% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.50 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 31% in California; top 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.35 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 45% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 6.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 1% in California; top 1% 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 4.28, RN 0.61, weekend 3.00.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.28 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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 The Sequoias. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McVey, Sarah | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 09/24/2019 |
| Sequoia Living INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/18/1967 |
| Agostino, Valerie | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/07/2020 |
| Atwood, Martha | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/03/1994 |
| Chen, Can | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2017 |
| Chen, Can | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2017 |
| Corriea, Richard | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/19/2021 |
| Herman, Steven | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| Howie, Carl | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2011 |
| Ito, Holly | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/25/2022 |
| Jamison, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2014 |
| Lim, Marianne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/21/2020 |
| Lynn, Patricia | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/29/2020 |
| Mayeda, Nancy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2016 |
| McVey, Sarah | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/24/2019 |
| McVey, Sarah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/24/2019 |
| McVey, Sarah | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/24/2019 |
| Sanderson, Cory | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/29/2024 |
| Sequoia Living INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/14/2025 |
| Shoemake, Charles | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/14/2020 |
Showing 20 of 25 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 5 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VI at Palo Alto | 5.0 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Atherton Park Post-Acute | 5.6 mi | Menlo Park, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Terraces at Los Altos Health Facility | 5.6 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Palo Alto Post-Acute | 5.7 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Webster House | 6.1 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Devonshire Oaks Nursing Center | 6.4 mi | Redwood City, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Villa Siena | 7.1 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Los Altos Post-Acute | 7.3 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Health Care Ctr at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio | 7.6 mi | Cupertino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| Camino Ridge Post-Acute | 7.7 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Mountain View Healthcare Center | 7.7 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sunnyvale Post-Acute Center | 8.9 mi | Sunnyvale, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 055466.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details