Small home · Licensed for 6 · Rancho Palos Verdes
Angel's Haven II
28022 Acana Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Licensed since 2006
Overview
No openings reported
- Approved by the state: Wheelchair · HospiceState licensing record · October 25, 2026
- Licensed for 6: a small care homeThe state license record
Ask this home
Free for families. A home gets your number only if you say yes.
Care and support
- Wheelchairup to 6 residents
- Hospiceup to 6 residents
Not on file: dementia and bedridden approvals.
Approved by the state · State licensing record · October 25, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.
Read the state’s own wording
LICENSED TO SERVE RESIDENTS AGE 60 AND OVER. FACILITY HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR SIX (06) NONAMBULATORY RESIDENTS. APPROVED TO RETAIN SIX (6)HOSPICE RESIDENTS.
935 - ELDERLY
CDSS record, verbatim · October 25, 2026
As needs change
Staying through hospice
Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 6 — care may continue at the end of life
State licensing record · October 25, 2026
We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Angel's Haven II: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight, help with medicines and care if memory loss develops. When we check availability, we ask about these too.
Check availabilityWhat it costs here
This home’s starting rate
$4,000a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026
Monthly cost breakdownWith a shared room and basic help · room, care and fees$4,000likely a month
Memory care is not priced here: a dementia-care designation is not on file for this home. Ask the home.
Starting monthly rate$4,000this home
The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly for assisted living shared bedroom, seen September 9, 2026.
Basic help with daily careUsually includedup to $600
Basic help is usually part of the starting rate. Homes that price care by level start around $600 a month (44 California homes publish a care-level range, seen in September 2026).
One-time move-in fee$2,500one time · likely $0–$4,000
Homes that list a one-time entry or community fee charge a median of $2,500 (133 California listings; middle half $1,000–$4,000). Many homes list none — ask.
- Likely monthly totalLikely $4,000–$4,600
- $4,000
- First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $4,000–$8,150
- $6,500
How people payPrivate pay, Medi-Cal waiver, SSI/SSP, veterans, insurance
- MedicareDoes not pay for room and board in a care home. It can still cover hospice or home-health visits inside one.
- Private payMost residents pay from savings, a home sale or family help. Ask for the rate and what it includes in writing.
- Medi-Cal Assisted Living WaiverThis home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
- SSI/SSPCalifornia’s 2026 standard is $1,626.07 a month; $1,444.07 of it goes to the home and $182 stays with the resident. Whether this home accepts it is not on file — ask.
- VeteransVA Aid & Attendance can add to a veteran’s or surviving spouse’s pension. Ask whether residents here have used it.
- Long-term care insuranceMost policies pay for licensed care homes. Ask what paperwork the home provides for claims.
Rates at nearby homes24 nearby homes publish starting rates of $3,500 to $10,000
24 homes like this within 5 miles publish starting rates mostly between $4,000–$6,500.
- Pacific Sunrise Home IRancho Palos Verdes · 0.2 mi · Small home$5,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Utmost Living CareRancho Palos Verdes · 0.7 mi · Small home$3,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Terra Verde LivingRancho Palos Verdes · 1.3 mi · Small home$5,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Villa Socorro RPVRancho Palos Verdes · 2.4 mi · Small home$7,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living · seen September 9, 2026
- Amalfi LivingTorrance · 3.0 mi · Small home$5,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Angel Assisted Living ServicesTorrance · 3.0 mi · Small home$6,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
- Adorable Redbeam HomeTorrance · 3.3 mi · Small home$5,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Americare Senior Living of South TorranceTorrance · 3.6 mi · Small home$6,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
- Americare Assisted Living of WalteriaTorrance · 3.6 mi · Small home$6,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
- Magnificent ManorTorrance · 3.9 mi · Small home$5,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Welcome Home IITorrance · 4.0 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Family Connected Memory Care BoutiqueTorrance · 4.1 mi · Small home$10,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Pepper Tree Assisted Living IILomita · 4.2 mi · Small home$6,000Listed on its own website · seen October 5, 2026
- Cogir of South BayTorrance · 4.3 mi · Mid-size home$6,000Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Sweet Care ManorTorrance · 4.5 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Ocean Breeze Care Home IILomita · 4.5 mi · Small home$6,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
- Cerise Guest HomeTorrance · 4.5 mi · Small home$5,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- TLC Guest Home IIRancho Palos Verdes · 4.6 mi · Small home$5,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Golden City Home CareTorrance · 4.6 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Meridian Home CareTorrance · 4.6 mi · Small home$6,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living private room · seen September 9, 2026
- Velez Care HomeRancho Palos Verdes · 4.6 mi · Small home$7,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Avenida VillaRancho Palos Verdes · 4.7 mi · Small home$4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Global Elderly Care FacilityLomita · 4.7 mi · Small home$4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Brightwater ManorTorrance · 4.8 mi · Small home$4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
How this estimate worksWhere this price comes from
The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly for assisted living shared bedroom, seen September 9, 2026.
- Only prices a home put out itself count: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price Seniorly says the home confirmed. Prices a listing site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
- Nearby homes are the nearest of the same size that publish a rate, widening from 3 to 40 miles until at least 8 do. The estimate starts from what they charge, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices.
- Room, care-level, second-person and move-in lines come from what California homes publish on listing sites. Memory care uses Covelight’s researched premium over assisted living.
- Totals add each line’s figure and combine the lines’ ranges as separate charges, because a home is rarely at the top, or the bottom, of every line at once.
- We tested this estimate on 1,546 California homes that publish their own starting rate. It was within 10% of the real rate for 3 in 10 homes and within 25% for 7 in 10; the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 (September 12, 2026).
- It cannot see this home’s specials, how it assesses care, or which rooms are open.
Avoid surprises on the billWhat changes the price, and what to ask
- The care level
Some homes charge one all-inclusive rate. Others add levels or points as needs grow. Ask how the level is set, who decides, and what the next level costs.
- What is billed separately
Medication management, incontinence supplies, transportation and a second person in the room are often extra. Ask for the list in writing.
- Move-in costs
A one-time move-in fee or deposit is common. Ask what it covers and whether any of it comes back if the stay is short.
- Increases
California requires at least 90 days’ written notice, with reasons, before a rate rises (Health & Safety Code §1569.655). A change in the resident’s care level is the section’s own exception and can be billed sooner.
An estimate for planning, not a quote. A home sets the price after hearing about the care needed.
Daily life
Rooms, meals, activities and house rules, in the home’s own words. Open any detail to see where it came from.
Rooms & the spaces they will use (2)Shared / companion rooms · Room types
Shared / companion rooms
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Room typesPrivate · Shared Rooms
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Pets, routines & independence (1)Residents may bring a pet
Residents may bring a petReported no
Reported on Caring.com · seen September 9, 2026.
Where it is
28022 Acana Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275Address from the public record · October 25, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.
Opening the neighborhood map…
- Torrance Memorial Medical CenterHospital · General acute care, on the state’s list3.6 mi
Straight-line distances; check the drive or the walk. Hospital: the nearest general acute care hospital on the state’s list (CDPH, September 16, 2026).
Open directionsThe state record
California inspects every licensed home and publishes what it found. A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
CDSS public record, read October 25, 2026 · License #198205039 · See the state’s own record
The last 36 months — 6 of 9 documents
Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 2 “Unsubstantiated”.
20262 state visits · 2 documents
Aug 26, 2026Facility evaluation reportCase Management - OtherReport on file
Type of visit: Case Management - Other
On 08/26/2026, at 2:45PM, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Bernadette Allen conducted an unannounced visit to correct the LIC809-D for clarification(Annual). The amendment was signed by Oscar and a copy was left at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Aug 26, 2026
Jul 20, 2026Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 07/20/2026, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Bernadette Allen conducted an unannounced visit to conduct the annual inspection. Upon arrival LPA met with support staff Floridalma Lechuga and Vicenta Mendoza who were explained the purpose of the visit. The facility is licensed to serve six (6) residents ages 60 and over. Facility has been approved for six (6) Non-Ambulatory residents. The facility has been approved to retain (6) hospice residents. The fee’s are current. The facility is a single-story home located in a residential neighborhood. It consists of (3) bedrooms, (2) full bathrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, shaded back yard, front yard, laundry room and garage. At 2:15 PM, LPA reviewed two (2) staff files for First Aid/CPR certification, criminal record clearance, training, and health screenings which all appeared to be current. LPA reviewed four (4) residents files for admission agreements, updated physician reports, and needs and services plans which all appeared to be current. However, R4 is bedridden based on their physicians’ report dated 3/19/2026 and LPA observations. The facility is not licensed to care for bedridden residents nor is there an approved fire clearance. At 3:30 PM, LPA observed that the facility appeared to be clean, sanitary, and appropriately furnished. Storage areas for personal hygiene items were in place. Cleaning supplies, toxins, and sharp objects were stored in a way that made them inaccessible to residents in care. The bathrooms appeared to be clean with required handrails and non-slip mat, toilets and wash basin appeared to also be in good condition and operable. The water temperature ranged from 105°F to 120. °F, The kitchen was inspected, and there was a 5-day supply of perishable and a 7day supply of non-perishable food items which were adequately maintained/stored. The fire extinguishers were fully charged; carbon monoxide detectors and smoke detectors were fully charged and operable. The last Fire/Disaster drills were conducted on June 3,2026. Based on the observations and records reviewed made during today’s visit a deficiency was cited for caring for a bedridden resident without proper fire clearance. An exit interview was conducted, and this report LIC809, 809-C and 809-D was discussed and provided to Oscar Lechuga- Administrator at the conclusion of the visit.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 20, 2026
20251 state visit · 1 document
Jun 19, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 06/19/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Yolanda Rosser arrived at facility to conduct an unannounced annual required using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA Rosser met with Administrator, Oscar Lechuga . LPA Rosser explained the purpose of today’s visit. The facility is licensed to serve six (6) residents ages 60 and over. Facility has been approved for six (6) Non-Ambulatory residents. Approved to retain one (01) Hospice Resident. Facility has an approved hospice waiver for (6). Fees are current. The facility is a single-story structure located in a residential neighborhood. It consists of (3) bedrooms, (2) full bathrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, shaded back yard, front yard, laundry room and attached 2 car garage. LPA Rosser toured the physical plant with Administrator, Oscar Lechuga. There were no bodies of water or obstructions on the premises. A total of (3) rooms were inspected. Beds and bedding supplies were in good condition, adequate lighting was provided, and storage for the residents’ personal belongings was observed. Bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulations and were operational. LPA inspected (2) bathrooms. Smoke and carbon monoxide are all operable conditions. The water temperature ranged from 113.5F° – 115.3F°. The room temperature ranged from 74°F - 75.0. LPA observed several games and activities, puzzles, card games, board games for the residents. CONTINUED ON LIC 809 C PAGE LPA Rosser observed the facility to be clean and sanitary and appropriately furnished at the time of the visit. Storage areas for personal hygiene were observed. Cleaning supplies, toxins, and sharps objects were stored and not accessible to residents in care. The kitchen was inspected and there is an abundance of perishable and non-perishable food available and maintained properly. All fire extinguishers were charged and were operable. The facility has regular fire drills annually. LPA reviewed the disaster plan which is update. The home is well maintained and organized. The bedrooms are clean and sanitary and lots of natural lighting and drapes. A review of (4) residents' files and (4) staff personnel files were reviewed and found to be in order. LPA reviewed (4) Medication Administration Records (MAR) no discrepancies were found. LPA observed the facility's infection control practices. All mandated inspection control posters were posted throughout the facility. LPA observed no deficiencies on todays inspection. Exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report was provided to Administrator, Oscar Lechuga.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 19, 2025
20243 state visits · 3 documents
Jul 13, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff neglect led to resident sustaining pressure injury. Resident sustained unexplained injuries. Staff inappropriately restrained resident. Staff did not treat resident with dignity and respect. Staff did not provide resident with privacy. Staff did not provide a comfortable temperature for residents.
On 07/13/24, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ernand Dabuet made a subsequent unannounced visit to this facility and was greeted by the staff Vicenta Mendoza (S1). LPA explained the purpose for today’s visit is to gather information for the allegations mentioned above and deliver findings. The investigation consisted of the following: An initial 10-Day visit was conducted on 07/03/24 a subsequent visit on 07/13/24 by LPA DAbuet. (LPA) requested copies of client and staff roster. (R1's) Admission Agreement (dated: 01/05/24), Physicians Report (dated: 10/25/23), Preplacement Appraisal LIC 603 (dated: 01/05/24), Resident Appraisal LIC 603A (dated: 01/26/24) Appraisal/Needs Services Plan LIC625 (dated: 01/26/24), Client Weight Record (dated: 01/01/24 - 06/01/24) and other pertinent documents associated with this complaint. Interview conducted with residents #1-#4 (R1-R11), and Administrator #1 (A1) staff #1-#2 (S1-S3). An iinspection of the facility was conducted. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) Unsubstantiated INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: ALLEGATION #1: Staff neglect led to resident sustaining pressure injury. ALLEGATION #2: Resident sustained unexplained injuries. The details of the complaint alleged due to staff neglect resident #1 (R1) sustained pressure injuries. The complainant observed on 06/23/24 a bruise on the chest and right arm (R1). Several weeks back the complainant also observed a bed sore on (R1’s) buttock area. The complainant reported the staff were unable to explain the reason for the bruises and bed sore when inquired. The complainant was not available to provide further details on this allegation. Investigation revealed (R1) was admitted to Angel’s Haven II on 01/05/24 in accordance with the Admissions Agreement (dated: 01/05/24). (R1) received hospice care from Divine Hospice Services, Inc., effective 01/07/24. On 07/03/24, between 09:00 am – 10:15 am, the Department interviewed (4) out of (4) residents #1-#4 who denied having sustained any bruises or pressure injuries while in care. (R1) claimed to have no bruises on the chest and arms nor a bed sore on (R1’s) buttocks area. (R1-R4) are complimentary of staff and the care and assistance they all receive from each of the staff. On 07/03/24, between 09:30 am – 10:45 am, the Department interviewed (3) out of (3) administrator #1(A1) and staff #1-#2 (S1-S2) claimed this allegation was false. (A1 and S1-S2) stated no residents in care have sustained any bruising or pressure injuries while in care. (A1 and S1-S2) claimed that (R1) is under hospice care with Divine Hospice Services, Inc., and it is under medical professionals with a registered nurse (RN) and licensed vocational nurse (LVN) twice a week. (A1-S1) claimed the facility staff was only responsible for (R1)’s non-medical care since the facility is a non-medical care facility. (A1 and S1-S2) pointed out that although they are not trained medical professionals, the facility staff is capable of caring for and supervising residents. (R1) is not bedridden and can reposition in bed, according to (A1-S1). On 07/03/24, between 02:28 pm – 02:45 pm, the Department interviewed (5) out of (5) witnesses #1 - #5 (W1-W5) denied residents ever sustained bruises or pressure injuries while in care. (W1) a registered nurse (RN) from Divine Hospices Services confirmed that (R1) has been under hospice care since 01/07/24 and that this accusation is false. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) (W1) stated if had any type of pressure injuries or bruising (R1). (W1) claimed a wound care specialist would have been required, and a wound care plan would have been established. (W1) commented that (R1) is under-prescribed medications that have side effects that can cause unusual bleeding or bruising. On 07/03/24, the Department examined (R1) and did not observe any bruises or bed sores. A review of the hospice medication list (dated: 01/05/24) revealed (R1) is prescribed nine (9) medications. Seven (7) out of (9) prescribed medications have side effects that can cause unusual bleeding or bruising in accordance to the National Institute of Health (ref: NIH). Based on the information gathered, there is no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. ALLEGATION #3: Staff inappropriately restrained resident. The complainant alleged resident #1 (R1) was improperly restrained while in care. The complainant reported the facility staff is improperly restraining (R1) in a wheelchair or chair, attaching an alarm cord to (R1’s) clothes so that whenever (R1) moves, the alarm goes off. According to the complainant, the staff has informed (R1) that (R1) is not allowed to leave the chair. The complainant did not provide further details on this matter. On 07/03/24, between 09:00 am – 10:15 am, the Department interviewed (4) out of (4) residents #1-#4 (R1-R4) indicated they were not restrained by any devices that would prevent their mobility. (R1) claimed not to feel limited in mobility even having a magnet alarm attached to (R1’s) clothing. On 07/03/24, between 09:30 am – 10:45 am, the Department interviewed (3) out of (3) administrator #1(A1) and staff #1-#2 (S1-S2) claimed this allegation was incorrect. (A1 and S1) communicated the residents are not restrained from mobility. (R1) is a fall risk. The fall plan approved by hospice included a magnet alarm with a cord attached to (R1’s) clothing that will sound off when (R1) is seated and attempts to rise off only while in a recliner and it is not used while in a wheelchair. (A1-S1) reported that there are no vests, ties, or belts attached to this system to restrain (R1’s) mobility. Furthermore, when the monitor system is activated, (R1) is not limited from mobility as it is only used to summon a staff when (R1) stands pulls away to trigger the alarm and is redirected. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) On 07/03/24, between 02:28 pm – 02:45 pm, the Department interviewed (5) out of (5) witnesses #1 - #5 (W1-W5) and claimed no residents are restrained while in care. (W1) a registered nurse (RN) from Divine Hospices Services confirmed that (R1) is a fall risk and part of the fall management is to have a magnet alarm on (R1) as an added assistance for monitoring (R1) to prevent further life-threatening falls. A review of (R1’s) Physician Report LIC 602A (dated: 10/23/23) and Appraisal/Need Services Plan (dated: 01/20/24) indicated (R1) is an ambulatory, fall risk and requires assistance and supervision. Divine Hospice Services records (dated: 01/05/24) outlined (R1) is a fall risk and a plan is included. Based on the information gathered, there is no evidence to corroborate the allegation mentioned above. ALLEGATION #4: Staff did not treat resident with dignity and respect. ALLEGATION #5: Staff did not provide resident with privacy. It is alleged the facility staff did not treat resident # 1 (R1) with dignity and respect nor provide privacy during visits. The complainant reported the staff are preventing (R1) from receiving phone calls and privacy during visitations. The complainant did not offer further details on these allegations. On 07/03/24, between 09:00 am – 10:15 am, the Department interviewed (4) out of (4) residents #1-#4 (R1-R4) communicated that the facility treated them with dignity and respect. (R1-R4) expressed the facility staff treated them with care and compassion and had no issues or concerns with privacy during appointment visits. On 07/03/24, between 09:30 am – 10:45 am, the Department interviewed (3) out of (3) administrator #1(A1) and staff #1-#2 (S1-S2) stated this is untrue. (A1 and S1-S2) reported that all residents are given privacy during appointment visits from family members or health agencies. (A1) stated the residents can have their private visits indoors or outdoors, and incoming calls are not being monitored or refused. On 07/03/24, between 02:28 pm – 02:45 pm, the Department interviewed (5) out of (5) witnesses #1 - #5 (W1-W5) and claimed to have no issue with how the residents were treated. (W2) power of attorney for (R1) is complimentary of the staff and stated that (R1’s) health has improved since assisted with care and supervision at this facility. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) (W2) expressed that staff were respectful of their privacy during visits and observed staff communicate with residents with empathy and kindness. (W1-W5) claimed they have not been denied access to residents with phone calls or visits. Based on the information gathered, there is no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. ALLEGATION: #6: Staff did not provide a comfortable temperature for residents. It is alleged by the complainant that on 06/23/2024, there was no air conditioning in the facility, and the doors and windows were closed. The complainant did not offer additional detailed information on this matter. The Department conducted a health and safety inspection on 07/03/24 at 9:00 am – 12:30 pm and found the temperature in the facility to be within Title 22 regulations. The facility thermostat read 76.0 degrees F. Portable free-standing fans were available in all the resident’s rooms and a Vagkri portable air conditioner unit was in the living room and dining room area. The room temperature in bedroom #1 is 78.0 degrees F; bedroom #2 is 78.0 degrees F; bedroom #3 is 77.0 degrees F. The kitchen, dining, and living rooms had temperatures of 77.0 - 78.0 degrees F. The Department observed windows and sliding doors, the front door was not closed, and an outdoor breeze was filtered through the rooms. On 07/03/24, between 09:00 am – 10:15 am, the Department interviewed (4) out of (4) residents #1-#4 (R1-R4) claimed that the facility provided a comfortable temperature for residents in care. (R2 and R4) long-term residents since 2021 have never felt uncomfortable with the temperature in the facility as there are heating and cooling systems equipped in all the rooms. On 07/03/24, between 09:30 am – 10:45 am, the Department interviewed (3) out of (3) administrator #1(A1) and staff #1-#2 (S1-S2) stated this accusation was false. (A1) described that the home is not equipped with built-in air conditioning and only equipped with heating. (A1 and S1-S2) reported during summer months when the temperature rises, they ensure the fans are operating and there is enough circulation throughout the facility. Moreover, the staff monitors the residents for liquids and body temperature. On 07/03/24, between 02:28 pm – 02:45 pm, the Department interviewed (5) out of (5) witnesses #1 - #5 (W1-W5) claimed to have no issues with the temperature in the facility. (W1-W5) reported that temperature has always been comfortable during visits at the facility and did not observe any residents neglected in care due to uncomfortable temperature. (Evaluation Report continues LIC 9099-C) According to public records, this facility is a single-family home built in 1962 with (3) bedrooms and (2) baths and 1,334 square feet of space. It has heating and no cooling which verified the statement remarked by (A1). Based on the information gathered, there is no evidence to corroborate the allegation mentioned above. Based on information gathered, an inspection of the facility, observation, and interviews conducted, an analysis of records reviewed, the Department found no evidence to support the allegations mentioned above. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations, did or did not occur, therefore the allegations are Unsubstantiated. An exit interview was conducted with Vicenta Mendoza, and copies of the reports were provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 13, 2024 · control 11-AS-20240624132504
Jul 10, 2024Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff not permitting resident to have visitors without prior notice Facility staff not providing adequate meal service to resident Facility staff not assisting resident with ambulating as needed
On 07/10/2024 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Jose Calderon conducted an unannounced visit to Angel’s Haven 2 and was greeted by Administrator Oscar Lechuga A1. LPA Calderon explained the purpose of this visit is to deliver the findings pertaining to the above-mentioned allegations. The investigation consisted of the following: LPA Calderon interviewed Administrator (A1), Staff (S1-S2), interview resident (R1-R4) and interviewed Witness (W1). On 07/10/2024 LPA Calderon obtained and reviewed the following: Admission agreement (date 01/05/2024), preplacement appraisal (date 01/05/2024), Needs and service plan (date 01/05/2024), Physician report (date 10/25/2023), Client weight record (date 01/06/2024 to 06/01/2024), Divine Hospice Services (date 01/08/2024), facility meal plan for R1. The investigation revealed the following: Unsubstantiated Regarding Allegation #1: Facility staff not permitting resident to have visitors without prior notice. It is being alleged that facility staff did not permit resident to have a visitor without prior notice. The interviews indicate the following: A1 indicates that all resident family are welcome to visit anytime they want between the hours of 1pm to 8pm. A1 indicates that R1 family member was not asked to give notice prior to visiting R1. A1 indicates that staff would not refuse to allow residents from visiting. S1-S2 indicate that R1 family could visit between the hours of 1pm to 8pm weekly. S1-S2 indicate that staff did not prevent R1 family from visiting. 2 out of 4 residents indicate that their family could visit when they wanted, and staff would not prevent any family member from visiting a resident. 2 out of 4 residents were non-verbal due to health issues and could not be interviewed. W1 indicates that R1 family could visit any time they wanted, and staff would not prevent any visit. W1 indicates that facility staff did not advise that R1 family member had to ask for notice to visit prior to arriving at the facility. Reviewed Admission Agreement (date 01/05/2024) for R1. Admission agreement indicates that resident’s family can visit between 1pm and 8pm. There is no mention of resident family members having to call or give prior notice. Regarding Allegation #2: Facility staff not providing adequate meal services to resident. It is being alleged that facility staff did not provide adequate food to resident. The interviews indicate the following: A1 indicates that every resident is given 3 meals and 3 snacks per day. A1 indicates that if a resident is hungry all the residents must do is ask for food and staff would provide extra food to eat. A1 indicates that no resident goes hungry. 2 out of 2 staff indicate that they provide 3 meals and 3 snacks per day and no resident goes hungry. 2 out of 4 residents indicate that staff serves them 3 meals and 3 snacks per day. 2 out of 4 residents indicate that staff serves them enough food and they do not go hungry. 2 out of 4 residents were non-verbal due to health issues and could not be interviewed. W1 indicates that R1 has never advised W1 that staff has not served R1 enough food to eat. W1 indicates that R1 has gained weight and R1 health is doing better. LPA Calderon reviewed the weekly meal plan and noted different meals per day and that 3 meals and 3 snacks are served. LPA Calderon toured the kitchen area and noted enough food to feed 4 residents and 3 staff for more than 7 days. LPA Calderon noted snacks were served to residents and lunch was served. Reviewed R1 client weight record (date 01/06/2024 to 06/01/2024), LPA Calderon noted that R1 gained eight pounds (LBS) in the six months R1 has been living at the facility. Regarding Allegation #3: Facility staff not assisting resident with ambulating as needed. It is being alleged that facility staff did not move resident as needed. The interviews indicate the following: A1 indicates that R1 moved into the facility under hospice care. A1 indicates that R1 was non ambulatory and has cognitive issues. A1 indicates due to health issues R1 could not be moved without help. 2 out of 2 staff indicate that R1 was moved but could not walk. 2 out of 4 staff indicate that R1 was under hospice care and could not move as other residents. 2 out of 4 residents indicate that with help staff takes them for walks weekly. 2 out of 4 residents were non-verbal due to health issues and could not be interviewed. W1 indicates that when R1 moved into the facility R1 was on hospice care due to health issues and could not walk. W1 indicates that R1 cannot walk, and staff helps R1 move from the bed to the chair. W1 indicates that R1 health has improved since living at the facility for 6 months. Reviewed Physician Report (date 10/25/2023) for R1. Physician Report indicates that R1 was ambulatory and needed help with moving. Reviewed Divine Hospice Services (date 01/08/2024) for R1. Hospice services noted health issues for R1. Based on interviews, observations and supporting documents. The preponderance of evidence standard has NOT been met; therefore, the allegation of “Facility staff not permitting resident to have visitors without prior notice” “facility staff not providing adequate meal service to resident”, “facility staff not assisting resident with ambulating as needed” is found to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A face-to-face meeting was conducted with Administrator Oscar Lechuga, and a hard copy was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 10, 2024 · control 11-AS-20240701105401
May 10, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
On 5/10/2024, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Alfonso Iniguez conducted an unannounced annual required using the CARE Inspection Tool. LPA met with Oscar Lechuga /Administrator. LPA explained the purpose of today’s visit. The facility is licensed to serve (6) elderly adults ages 60 and above of which (6) can be non-ambulatory. Facility has an approved hospice waiver for (6). The facility is a single-story structure located in a residential neighborhood. It consists of (3) bedrooms, (2) full bathrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, shaded back yard, front yard, laundry room and attached 2 car garage. LPA Iniguez toured the physical plant with Administrator. There were no bodies of water or obstructions on the premises. A total of (3) rooms were inspected. Beds and bedding supplies were in good condition, adequate lighting was provided, and storage for the residents’ personal belongings was observed. Bathrooms were found to be within Title 22 regulations and were operational. LPA inspected (3) rooms and (2) bathrooms. Smoke and carbon monoxide are all operable conditions. The water temperature ranged from 114.5F° – 116.2F°. The room temperature ranged from 76F° – 78F°. Evaluation Report continues on LIC 809-C LPA Iniguez observed the facility to be clean and sanitary and appropriately furnished at the time of the visit. Storage areas for personal hygiene were observed. Cleaning supplies, toxins, and sharps objects were stored and not accessible to residents in care. The kitchen was inspected and there is sufficient perishable and non-perishable food available maintained properly. All fire extinguishers were charged and were operable. The last Fire/Disaster Drills were conducted on 4/5/24. A review of (3) residents' service files and (3) staff personnel files were maintained in order. LPA reviewed (3) Medication Administration Records (MARs) no discrepancies were found. LPA observed the facility's infection control practices. All mandated inspection control posters were posted throughout the facility. Copy of liability insurance will be email to LPA. Facility Annual Fess not current as 5/31/24. LPA provided PIN: 823479 to licensee. Administrator pay fees while LPA was at the facility. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA did not observe deficiencies therefore no citations were issued at this time. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of the Facility Evaluation Report was provided to Oscar Lechuga /Administrator.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, May 10, 2024
Earlier years2022 · 3 documents
20223 state visits · 3 documents
Dec 3, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ana Soto conducted an unannounced Annual required and infection control visit to the above facility. LPA was met with Vicenta Mendoza, Administrator and the purpose of today’s visit was explained. There are currently (5) residents in the facility. (1) residents are ambulatory, (4) are non-ambulatory, (0) bedridden. The facility is a single-story structure located in a residential neighborhood. It consists (3) bedrooms, (2) full bathrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, shaded back yard, front yard, laundry room and attached 2 car garage. LPA and Vicenta toured the entire facility inside and out. Documents are posted as mandated. Bedrooms 1-3 are occupied by residents and contain the mandated furniture. The (2) bathrooms have grab bars and non-skid mats and are clean and operational. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detector were in compliance and operational. Medications are stored, locked and inaccessible to residents. Ample supply of perishable and nonperishable food and personal hygiene supplies are adequate, hazardous toxins and/or sharp items are inaccessible to residents. Exit, walkways and/or passageways, front and back yard are free of debris and/or hazards. The facility is in good repair. During the visit, LPA observed the facility infection control practices. LPA observed a sanitizing station at the facility entry & visitors and temperatures are logged and checked, sanitizer/soap, paper towels, in all the bathrooms and additional sanitation supplies are stored in the garage. LPA observed staff and residents wearing masks, resident private rooms will be converted to isolation rooms (if needed) trash cans with lids, cart for PPE’s, mitigation plan posted and/or in folder, Fit testing completed for staff, and required postings throughout the facility. Visitor designated area, facility has internet & IPhone for residents to use, resident’s temperatures are checked and logged (once a day). Emergency contacts updated and posted; PPE's are enough for 30 days. All residents and staff are vaccinated and boosted According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA did not observe any deficiencies, therefore no citations were issued at this time. Technical Advisories (TA) issued. 1. Mitigation Plan 2. Fit Testing An exit interview conducted with Vicenta Mendoza, Administrator and a hard copy of report provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 3, 2022
The state marks this report as 4 pages; the online copy we transcribed has 2. You can request the full file from the county licensing office.
Oct 3, 2022Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Licensee did not maintain a comfortable temperature for residents at all times
On 10/03/22 Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ernand Dabuet conducted an unannounced complaint visit at this facility. Upon arrival, LPA was greeted by licensee Vincenta Mendoza and conducted a risk assessment. Mendoza confirmed the facility has no COVID activity. LPA Dabuet met with licensee Mendoza and administrator Oscar Lechuga and explained the purpose of today's visit. The investigation included the following: A review of the Client roster, Staff roster, and other pertinent documents associated with the allegation. Interviews were conducted with residents #1- #3 (R1-R3), staff #1 - #3 (S1-S3), and witness #1 (W1). A health and safety inspection was conducted including a review of the facility's physical plant. Evaluation Report continues on LIC 9099-C Unsubstantiated INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: Allegation: Licensee did not maintain a comfortable temperature for residents at all times. The details of the complaint stated the facility failed to maintain a comfortable temperature for residents. The complainant requested for Community Care Licensing to inspect this facility because it was observed the facility only had small table fans in each resident’s room, and that the facilty theromostat did not present a comfortable reading on a warm day. The Department conducted a health and safety inspection on 10/03/22 at 12:40 pm and found the temperature in the facility to be within Title 22 regulations. The facility thermostat read 79.0 degrees F. Portable free-standing fans were available in all the resident’s rooms. The room temperature in bedroom #1 is 79.0 degrees; bedroom #2 is 79.0 degrees; bedroom #3 is 79.0 degrees. The kitchen, dining, and living rooms had temperatures of 78.0 - 79.0 degrees. Interviews with staff #1-#3 verified (S1-S3) that the home is not equipped with air conditioning and only equipped with heating. (S1-S3) reports during summer months when the temperature rises, they ensure the fans are operating and there is enough circulation throughout the facility. Furthermore, the staff monitors the residents for liquids and body temperature. In an interview with the property owner witness #1 (W-1) claims the home was purchased without built-in central air conditioning units. According to public records, this facility is a single family home built in 1962 with (3) bedrooms and (2) baths and 1,334 square feet of space. It has heating and no cooling. In an interview with residents #1-#2 (R1-R2), the Department learned that the facility does not have air conditioning and fans are sufficient. (R1-R2) claim they never had issues with the temperature of the home during warm days and that the facility provides a safe and comfortable living environment. The Department was unable to interview (R3) as a result of her disability. Based on information gathered, an inspection of the facility, observation, analysis of public records, and interviews conducted, the Department found no evidence to support the allegation mentioned above. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation, did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. No deficiencies were cited during this visit. An exit interview was conducted with Oscar Lechuga, and a copy of the report was provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 3, 2022 · control 11-AS-20220928175331
Mar 8, 2022Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff not following masking requirements in the facility
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Ana Soto conducted a initial complaint investigation for the allegation listed above. Today’s complaint investigation was conducted with Vicenta Mendoza, the facility Licensee. The investigation consisted of following: Interviews, record review, and observations. LPA Soto interviewed Licensee, S#1, R#1 - R#4. Received the following documents on 03/08/22: Roster and Staff Schedule. Toured rooms 1 & 2, dining room, living room, and kitchen. Based on the LPA's investigation, the investigation revealed the following. For Allegation – Staff not following masking requirements in the facility. Interviews with licensee, S#1, R#1, & R#2, stated that the staff do not wear mask. Licensee stated that they do not wear mask because no one leaves the facility. The son buys everything the facility needs and brings it to them. The visitors are admitted but they stay outside in the patio to visit with their family members. LPA attempted to interview R#3 & R#4, due to their mental disablities they could not undertsand and/or communicate with LPA. LPA Soto observed that the Licensee and S#1 did not have mask on when LPA arrived at the facility. Substantiated The Licensee and S#1 put on their masks when LPA Soto explained the need for them and prompted them too. According to the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), LPA observed the following deficiency and issued a citation. An exit interview was conducted with Vicenta Mendoza, Licensee and a copy of Report and Appeal Rights provided.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 8, 2022 · control 11-AS-20220301144006
From the deficiency page — Deficiency type: Type A · Section cited: CCR 87470(b)(2) · Plan of correction due date: Mar 8, 2022
All staff and volunteers providing direct care to a resident who has a communicable disease shall wear appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to prevent exposure to infectious agents or chemicals through the respiratory system, skin, or mucous membranes of the eyes, nose, or mouth. PPE may include gloves, gowns, masks, respirators, shoe coverings and eye protection. This was not met as evidence by: Based on observations and interviews staff were not wearing masks. which poses a potential health and safety risk to persons in carethe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 8, 2022
Plan of correction: Licensee will instruct and perform training with all staff on when and how to wear mask while working at facility. To send LPA Soto a signed training sheet all of staff attending.
4 of 6 beds were occupied at the July 13, 2024 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.
License holder
Vicenta Family Corporation, licensed since 2006.
The state’s totals for this licenseSince 2006, as the state’s facility page counts them
- State visits on file
- 9
- Total complaints
- 4
- Substantiated allegations
- 1
- Type A citations
- 1
- Type B citations
- 0
These are the state’s own totals for this license since 2006, per CDSS records. The state counts them apart from the documents above, and they can differ from what those documents show; the documents say what each visit found. One complaint can contain several allegations.
Compare with homes the same size
| This home | Typical | |
|---|---|---|
| Type A citations | 1 | 0 |
| Type B citations | 0 | 0 |
| Substantiated allegations | 1 | 0 |
| Total complaints | 4 | 0 |
“Typical” is the statewide median for licensed homes this size. It does not adjust for years licensed, and older licenses have had more visits and reports. The median is across the 6,916 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record. The figures compared are the state’s totals, not the documents.
What the state’s words mean
CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗ · CDSS complaint outcomes ↗
An “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing — it means the state investigated and could not confirm the allegation. Outcome words are the state’s own; we never grade, score, or color a record, and we publish no reviews — the state’s dated documents stand in their place.
Frequently asked questions
A citation does not make a home unsafe, and an empty file does not make a home good.
Quick answers about Angel's Haven II
Is Angel's Haven II licensed?
The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
How many residents is Angel's Haven II licensed for?
6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
Has Angel's Haven II been cited?
1 Type A and 0 Type B citation since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026. Those records count 9 state visits over the same years.
Is Angel's Haven II still open?
This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 10, 2026.
What does Angel's Haven II cost?
$4,000 a month to start — listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026.
The home lists this starting rate on Seniorly for assisted living shared bedroom, seen September 9, 2026.
Among 10 other homes of a similar licensed size in Rancho Palos Verdes that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $5,000 to $6,000 a month, and the middle figure is $5,250 (n = 10 other homes publishing a starting rate).
Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date in September 2026 — not an average of ours, and not a survey. Similar size means small and mid-size homes counted together, and large communities counted on their own, because they are different markets.
A home outside the band is not overcharging or underpricing: a starting rate covers different things in different homes, which is the first thing to ask about.
The price is made in the phone call. Nothing here is a quote, an offer or a discount.
A starting rate is the room and the base care. California homes commonly bill care levels, medication management, supplies, transport and a second person in the room as extras. Many also charge a one-time fee at move-in. Ask for that list in writing before anything is signed.
Only prices a home put out itself count here: its own website, a listing it supplied, or a price a listing site says the home confirmed. Prices a site shows without saying where they came from are left out.
Does Angel's Haven II take Medi-Cal?
On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home is not on the DHCS participation list dated October 1, 2026. Ask the program about current options. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
Who holds the license?
The license is held by Vicenta Family Corporation, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
Is there a hospital nearby?
Torrance Memorial Medical Center is 3.6 miles away in a straight line, per the CDPH licensed-hospital list dated September 16, 2026. See licensed care homes near it.
Can Angel's Haven II keep a resident on hospice?
Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 6 residents, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
Angel's Haven II license and inspection record
- Name on the license: “ANGEL'S HAVEN II”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
- License #198205039. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
- Licensed for 6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
- Licensed to Vicenta Family Corporation, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
- First licensed in 2006, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
- 9 state inspection visits since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
- 1 Type A and 0 Type B citation on file since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026. The same records count 9 state visits in that period.
- 4 complaints and 1 substantiated allegation on file since 2006, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
- The most recent state visit on file is August 26, 2026, per CDSS records as of October 25, 2026.
California writes these definitions for every licensed home, not for this one. CDSS citation definitions (PDF) ↗
Nearby
Other homes nearby
Licensed homes near this one in Los Angeles County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.
- Map
Starting rate
$5,000 a month to start
Listed by the home on Seniorly · September 9, 2026On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,700 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,850–$5,800On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,550 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,550–$6,850On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,100 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,150–$6,250On the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,950 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,050–$6,100On the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,550 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,550–$6,850On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap
Explore Los Angeles County