Village Lane Residence is a residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Auburn, Placer County, California — state license #310311880, licensed for 6 residents, listed as licensed in the CDSS record we retrieved August 2, 2026. It does not appear on the DHCS Assisted Living Waiver participant list checked August 9, 2026 — that list covers the state waiver only, not a home's own payment arrangements. California has 11 dated inspection and complaint documents on file for this home going back to 2021, the most recent dated February 5, 2026 — published below in full, verbatim and unscored.

See an error in this summary? Report it — free →

10 homes in view

Village Lane Residence

No photo on file yet

No photo of this home is on file — we show real, attributed images only, never a stock photo of someone else’s building.

Residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) · Small home, 6 residents · Auburn, CA · Placer County
LicensedWheelchairMemory care not on fileHospice not on fileBedridden not on file
No openings reportedBeds change hands in days ·
License #310311880, held since 1989 · read from the California state record on August 2, 2026 ·See on State Site →
155 Village Lane · Auburn, Placer County
Phone
(530) 823-6335
from the state licensing roster · August 2, 2026
No Google listing is on file for this home.
Website
None on file
Many small homes have no website — that says nothing about the care inside.
Contact facts come from the state roster, a county Area Agency on Aging roster, the home’s Google listing, or the operator — each labelled, never blended. Operators: add or correct yours, free →
Print tour sheet →

Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryApproved for 6 residents
Dementia / memory careNot on file — ask the home
Hospice careNot on file — ask the home
Bedridden careNot on file — ask the home

“Not on file” is not a no — approvals can be bed- or room-specific, so confirm current scope with the home on a tour. Where a number is shown it is the state’s own wording for how many residents the approval covers, not how many places are open today; where none is shown, the record simply does not state one.

Specific medical needs — insulin, oxygen, a catheter, an ostomy — aren’t in the state license record; ask the home directly. A feeding tube, tracheostomy, or advanced wound care usually needs skilled nursing →

See an error in these clearances? Report it — free →

What the state record says, word for word
6 NON-AMBULATORY, AGES 60 AND OVERState service designation910 - DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED (DD)the CDSS license record, verbatim · checked August 2, 2026

Since 2021, the state has visited this home 12 times and filed 11 documents. The most recent is a facility evaluation report, dated February 5, 2026.

Most recent state visit
February 5, 2026
Occupancy at the October 9, 2025 visit
3 of 6 beds

The state's published file for this home includes 3 documents with transcribed findings, dated July 10, 2025 to October 9, 2025. 3 of the 3 carry the state's recorded outcome word: “Substantiated” (3). 3 include the transcribed allegation the state investigated, word for word.

Summary composed by computer from the 3 documents below — every count derives from them, and the documents themselves are the state's records, verbatim. We never grade, score, or color a record.

What the state’s words mean
Substantiatedthe state found the allegation more likely true than notUnsubstantiatedinvestigated, but couldn’t be confirmed either way — not a finding of wrongdoingUnfoundedthe state concluded it was false or couldn’t have happenedType A citationthe most serious: an immediate health-or-safety risk, usually fixed on the spot or on a short deadlineType B citationless serious, with a deadline to fix
The last 36 months — 8 of 11 documentsFull record on the state’s site →
20261 state visit · 1 document
Feb 5, 2026Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20253 state visits · 4 documents
Oct 9, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Staff do not follow reporting requirements Staff did not safeguard resident's P & I funds

On October 9, 2025, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Ivan Avila and Cassandra Milkenson conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with licensee Tito Andrada and Administrator Tito Andrada, Jr. and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a review of records were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff do not follow reporting requirements.” Based on documentation provided, it was noted that R1 sustained several falls that were not reported as required. Facility records reviewed by LPA did not include corresponding incident reports for these falls, leaving no documented incident reports submitted to the Department. The following allegation cited above is substantiated, but no deficiency will be issued as LPA substantiated the similar allegation for Complaint #59-AS-20250425140320 on October 9, 2025. ------Continued on LIC9099C------ Substantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 9, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250425103010
Oct 9, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Facility staff failed to report unexplained injuries and bruising Facility staff did not provide timely medical care Facility staff did not allow resident return following hospital discharge

On October 9, 2025, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Ivan Avila and Cassandra Mikkelson conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with licensee Tito Andrada and Administrator Tito Andrada, Jr. and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a review of records were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Facility staff failed to report unexplained injuries and bruising.” Based on documentation provided, it was noted that R1 sustained several falls that were not reported as required. The administrator and licensee gave conflicting and inaccurate accounts of an incident that occurred on April 19, 2025. R1 suffered two falls that same day but only one was reported. Facility records reviewed by LPA did not include corresponding incident reports for these falls, leaving no documented trail of injuries or facility actions taken. ------Continued on LIC9099C----the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 9, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250425140320
Jul 10, 2025Complaint investigation reportSubstantiated

Allegation investigated: Unlawful eviction

On 7/10/2025 LPA visited the facility unannounced to open the complaint. LPA met with licensee Tito Andrada and Tito Andrada, Jr. LPA and staff discussed the situation. Resident R1 had lived in the facility for many years. Recently R1 suffered a medical emergency and was sent to the ER. Subsequently, it was decided the resident would need to be on hospice services. Since the facility does not have a hospice waiver, the Responsible Party for R1 was told R1 could not return to the facility on hospice, and the home cannot care for R1. The home does not wish to pursue requesting a hospice waiver at this time. CCL cannot force a facility to request a hospice waiver, especially if the facility does not feel this is a service that they could adequately provide for the safety and well-being of a resident. However, since R1 was deemed ready for discharge from the hospital, and the facility did say they could not take R1 back, a proper eviction notice was technically not given. Therefore, the althe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 10, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250703083836
Feb 13, 2025Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20242 state visits · 2 documents
Oct 24, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

May 2, 2024Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

20231 state visit · 1 document
Dec 28, 2023Facility evaluation reportReport on file

Report on file with the state — no findings text was published for this visit. The complete document is on the state’s site.

Beside homes the same size
Type A citations0typical 0
Type B citations5typical 0
Substantiated complaints6typical 0
Total complaints3typical 0
State visits on file12typical 6
“Typical” is the statewide median across the 5,773 licensed small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds) in the state record — larger, longer-licensed homes accumulate more visits and reports, so compare like with like. One complaint can contain several allegations. Counts cover this license since 1989.
Year-by-year trend
YearVisitsDocumentsSubstantiated202611020253432024220202322020221102021110
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.Operate this home? Respond to or correct any document here, free. Respond or correct →

See an error in these counts? Report it — free →

$4,000$6,500 /mo
our estimate — Placer County band, market research June 2026; not this home’s quoted price
$3,000 · statewide low$8,000 · statewide high
California’s public record holds no per-home price, so we never invent one. Ask the home for its rate sheet, or
Ways families pay here
Private pay — ask what the base rate includes and what’s billed separately.SSI/SSP — California’s board-and-care payment standard is $1,626.07/mo (2026): $1,444.07 to the home, $182 stays with the resident.Medi-Cal ALW — this home isn’t on the DHCS waiver list (checked August 9, 2026). Details →

Free for families · We never sell your information · Homes never pay to appear, and rankings are never affected by fees.

Cost range look wrong? Report it — free →

Non-ambulatory approval — whole home or specific rooms, and is a spot open?
If end-of-life care were ever needed, could they stay here? What’s the plan?
How is medication handled and logged day to day?
What’s in the base monthly rate, and what’s billed separately?
Staff-to-resident ratio on day and night shifts?
How are medical emergencies handled after hours?

The first two come straight from this home’s record — a brochure won’t answer them.

Operate this home? This page is generated from CDSS public records — respond or correct it, free.
Claim your home → · See something wrong? → · How we source every fact →
Call (530) 823-6335

Is Village Lane Residence licensed?

Yes — Village Lane Residence is a licensed residential care home for the elderly (RCFE) in Auburn (Placer County): California license #310311880, shown as licensed in the CDSS state record checked August 2, 2026, licensed for 6 residents. State records list 11 inspection and complaint documents since 2021; the most recent, a facility evaluation report dated February 5, 2026, appears in the inspection record on this page.

Can Village Lane Residence care for dementia, hospice, bedridden, or non-ambulatory residents?

From the CDSS license record, checked August 2, 2026.

The CDSS license record checked August 2, 2026 lists Village Lane Residence with clearances for wheelchair / non-ambulatory; it does not list dementia / memory care, hospice care, and bedridden. A clearance that is not on file is not a “no” — it may simply be unrecorded, so if your family needs one of these, ask the home directly and confirm its current scope on a tour.

Wheelchair / non-ambulatoryDementia / memory careHospice careBedridden

From the California state record. Some approvals are bed- or room-specific — always confirm current scope with the facility.

What the state record says, word for word
Verbatim, from the CDSS license record6 NON-AMBULATORY, AGES 60 AND OVER

How much does Village Lane Residence cost?

California's public licensing record does not include Village Lane Residence's monthly price, so we never show or estimate one for a specific home. As county-level context only, assisted living in Placer County typically runs $5,000–$7,500/mo and small board-and-care homes $4,000–$6,500/mo (market research compiled June 2026 — ranges, not quotes; California's 2026 SSI/SSP board-and-care payment standard is $1,626.07/month, of which $1,444.07 is the room-and-board portion paid to the home). Ask the home for its own rate sheet and what the base rate includes — or use the cost section at the top of this page.

Does Village Lane Residence accept Medi-Cal or the Assisted Living Waiver?

Village Lane Residence is not in the DHCS Assisted Living Waiver participant record we checked August 9, 2026 — that list covers only the state's ALW program, not a home's own payment policies, so ask the home directly about private Medi-Cal arrangements. The waiver pays for assisted-living care services (not room and board) at participating homes; every DHCS-listed home appears on our statewide Medi-Cal page.

Assisted living on Medi-Cal in California →See the DHCS list →

How full it was at the last state visit

3 of 6 beds occupied (50%) when the state visited on October 9, 2025. Availability changes constantly — confirm a current opening with the home.

What do state inspections show for Village Lane Residence?

Verbatim from CDSS complaint-investigation reports — the state's own words, never summarized by us. Record checked August 2, 2026.

The CDSS state record checked August 2, 2026 lists 12 state visits and 11 dated documents since 2021 for Village Lane Residence; 3 complaint-investigation narratives are transcribed verbatim below. The most recent, dated October 9, 2025, records an allegation the state marked “Substantiated. Open any entry to read the state's full finding, word for word.

Most licensed homes receive some findings over 36 months; what matters is what was found and whether it was corrected. Counts here are shown compared with homes of similar size, and the state's own words appear in full below.

3 transcribed reports on file

2025

Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Substantiated
Allegation the state reviewedStaff do not follow reporting requirements Staff did not safeguard resident's P & I funds
State's findingSubstantiatedThe state investigated and found this allegation more likely than not true.
On October 9, 2025, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Ivan Avila and Cassandra Milkenson conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with licensee Tito Andrada and Administrator Tito Andrada, Jr. and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a review of records were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Staff do not follow reporting requirements.” Based on documentation provided, it was noted that R1 sustained several falls that were not reported as required. Facility records reviewed by LPA did not include corresponding incident reports for these falls, leaving no documented incident reports submitted to the Department. The following allegation cited above is substantiated, but no deficiency will be issued as LPA substantiated the similar allegation for Complaint #59-AS-20250425140320 on October 9, 2025. ------Continued on LIC9099C------ SubstantiatedCDSS inspection report, October 9, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250425103010
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Substantiated
Allegation the state reviewedFacility staff failed to report unexplained injuries and bruising Facility staff did not provide timely medical care Facility staff did not allow resident return following hospital discharge
State's findingSubstantiatedThe state investigated and found this allegation more likely than not true.
On October 9, 2025, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Ivan Avila and Cassandra Mikkelson conducted an unannounced complaint investigation visit regarding the above allegations directed by the Department. LPA Avila met with licensee Tito Andrada and Administrator Tito Andrada, Jr. and explained the purpose of the visit. During the investigation process, interviews and a review of records were initiated. LPA investigated the allegation, “Facility staff failed to report unexplained injuries and bruising.” Based on documentation provided, it was noted that R1 sustained several falls that were not reported as required. The administrator and licensee gave conflicting and inaccurate accounts of an incident that occurred on April 19, 2025. R1 suffered two falls that same day but only one was reported. Facility records reviewed by LPA did not include corresponding incident reports for these falls, leaving no documented trail of injuries or facility actions taken. ------Continued on LIC9099C----CDSS inspection report, October 9, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250425140320
Complaint investigationAllegation reviewed · Substantiated
Allegation the state reviewedUnlawful eviction
State's findingSubstantiatedThe state investigated and found this allegation more likely than not true.
On 7/10/2025 LPA visited the facility unannounced to open the complaint. LPA met with licensee Tito Andrada and Tito Andrada, Jr. LPA and staff discussed the situation. Resident R1 had lived in the facility for many years. Recently R1 suffered a medical emergency and was sent to the ER. Subsequently, it was decided the resident would need to be on hospice services. Since the facility does not have a hospice waiver, the Responsible Party for R1 was told R1 could not return to the facility on hospice, and the home cannot care for R1. The home does not wish to pursue requesting a hospice waiver at this time. CCL cannot force a facility to request a hospice waiver, especially if the facility does not feel this is a service that they could adequately provide for the safety and well-being of a resident. However, since R1 was deemed ready for discharge from the hospital, and the facility did say they could not take R1 back, a proper eviction notice was technically not given. Therefore, the alCDSS inspection report, July 10, 2025 · control 59-AS-20250703083836

Transcribed from CDSS complaint-investigation reports · record checked August 2, 2026.

What the state has logged

California has logged 12 state visits for this home as of August 2, 2026. These are the home's own counts, straight from that record — shown beside the statewide median for small board-and-care homes (6 or fewer beds), computed across all 5,773 licensed homes of that size, because larger and longer-licensed homes naturally accumulate more visits and reports. They are facts, not a grade — a citation may be minor and since corrected, and an “unsubstantiated” complaint is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Type A citations
0
typical for this size: 0
Type B citations
5
typical for this size: 0
Substantiated complaints
6
typical for this size: 0
Total complaints
3
typical for this size: 0
State visits on file
12
typical for this size: 6
See the full inspection record on the state's site →
Talk to this home directly

You can call them yourself, anytime — you never have to go through us.

(530) 823-6335
What isn't in the state record

Resident reviews, the exact monthly price, and the languages staff speak aren't part of California's public licensing record, so we don't show them here. Ask the home directly — the tour questions above are a good start.

Operate this home? The record above comes from California's public licensing data. You can respond or correct it — free. Claim your home — free →

See something wrong? Report an error — free → · How we source every fact →

This page is generated from CDSS Community Care Licensing public records. How we build these pages →

Do you run Village Lane Residence? Claim this listing — free — add photos, activities, languages, and today’s availability.