Small home · Licensed for 6 · Eastvale
Accuro Homes
6764 Black Forest Drive, Eastvale, CA 92880Licensed since 2016
Overview
No openings reported
- Approved by the state: Wheelchair · Dementia · Hospice · BedriddenState licensing record · October 26, 2026
- Ways to pay: Medi-Cal ALW acceptedDHCS participant list · October 1, 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
- Dementia
- Hospiceup to 4 residents
- Bedriddenup to 1 resident
Approved by the state · State licensing record · October 26, 2026. An approval may cover specific rooms or residents; it does not establish an opening.
Read the state’s own wording
6 NONAMBULATORY, OF WHICH 1 MAY BE BEDRIDDEN.BEDROOMS 4&5 MAY NOT BE UTILIZED FOR HOUSING BEDRIDDEN CLIENTS. HOSPICE WAIVER FOR 4.
983 - RCFE / DEMENTIA
CDSS record, verbatim · October 26, 2026
As needs change
Staying through hospice
Hospice waiver on file · covers up to 4 — care may continue at the end of life
State licensing record · October 26, 2026
If memory loss develops
Dementia-care designation on file
State licensing record · October 26, 2026
We’ll ask for you. Not on file for Accuro Homes: two-person transfers or a lift, who is awake overnight and help with medicines. When we check availability, we ask about these too.
Check availabilityWhat it costs here
Covelight estimate
$4,900a month to start
Likely $4,000–$6,050
From 10 nearby homes that publish rates · this home’s rate is not on file
Monthly cost breakdownWith a shared room and basic help · room, care and fees$4,900likely a month
Starting monthly rate$4,900likely $4,000–$6,050
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 10 small homes and similar homes within 5 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
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–$6,200
- $4,900
- First monthWith a one-time move-in fee · likely $4,700–$9,400
- $7,400
How people payOn the Medi-Cal waiver list · private pay, 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 appears on the DHCS participation list, October 1, 2026. Confirm eligibility and current participation with the program. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board. On the waiver, a resident on SSI/SSP pays the home $1,444.07 a month for 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 homes10 nearby homes publish starting rates of $2,800 to $6,000
10 homes like this within 5 miles publish starting rates mostly between $4,250–$5,800.
- Eastvale MeadowsCorona · 0.5 mi · Small home$5,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- A Silver Amore Senior HomeEastvale · 1.0 mi · Small home$6,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Morning Mist HomecareEastvale · 1.6 mi · Small home$5,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Eastvale Manor Assisted LivingJurupa Valley · 1.8 mi · Small home$4,500Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Allwise Residential HomeEastvale · 1.9 mi · Small home$4,800Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Avery Garden Assisted LivingJurupa Valley · 2.3 mi · Small home$4,500Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Casa MiaMira Loma · 3.5 mi · Mid-size home$2,800Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Alicia Pines Residential CareRiverside · 4.4 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
- Royalty Senior LivingJurupa Valley · 4.7 mi · Small home$4,500Listed on Seniorly · seen September 9, 2026
- Live in Comfort CareRiverside · 4.8 mi · Small home$4,000Listed on Seniorly · assisted living shared bedroom · seen September 9, 2026
How this estimate worksWithin 25% for 7 in 10 homes in testing
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 10 small homes and similar homes within 5 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
- 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
Daily life here is not on file yet. Most small homes haven’t published it, and that says nothing about the home.
The best way to see it is a visit.
Request a tourWhere it is
6764 Black Forest Drive, Eastvale, CA 92880Address from the public record · October 26, 2026. Confirm the entrance with the home before visiting.
Opening the neighborhood map…
The 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 26, 2026 · License #336426771 · See the state’s own record
The last 36 months — 4 of 11 documents
Complaint outcomes in these 36 months, in the state’s words: 1 “Unsubstantiated”.
20261 state visit · 1 document
Mar 3, 2026Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Raquel Hernandez made an unannounced visit to the facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a required comprehensive annual inspection. LPA Hernandez met with Administrator April Lopez. The capacity is (6) current census is (0). LPA Hernandez observed 0 residents at the home as Administrator April Lopez stated they are currently converting facility to a congregate facility. Administrator stated facility will contact licensing to close facility in near future. The facility is a five (5) bedroom, three (3) bathroom home with a kitchen/dining area, living room and attached garage. The facility is Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). LPA Hernandez was accompanied by Administrator to conduct a general overall inspection, which included, but was not limited to, the following: Physical Plant: The facility is operating in the capacity approved by Community Care Licensing (CCL). There are no obstructions to indoor and outdoor passageways. The facility is maintained at a comfortable temperature. LPA Hernandez inspected resident bedrooms; they are equipped with required furniture such as: mattresses, nightstands, storage space, and sufficient lighting; bathrooms were clean, and appliances were operating appropriately. LPA Hernandez observed sufficient furniture and lighting throughout the facility. The facility is equipped with operating smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. Posters such as personal rights, the CCL complaint poster were posted in a common area. Cleaning supplies, toxins, sharps, and other dangerous items were kept inaccessible to future residents in care. There was a designated storage space for future resident/staff files. Food Service: More than seven (7) days’ supply of Non-perishable foods and more than two (2) days’ supply of perishable food supply were observed and sufficient for future residents in care. Care & Supervision: The facility has sufficient number of staff to provide care and supervision to possible future residents in care. Record Review: LPA Hernandez audited staff files for First Aid/CPR certification, criminal record clearance, trainings, and health screenings with Tuberculosis (TB) test result. No issues were observed Based on the observations made during today’s visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC809) was discussed and provided to Administrator April Lopez.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 3, 2026
20252 state visits · 2 documents
Jun 4, 2025Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Resident sustained pressure injuries while in care. Resident's hygiene needs were not met.
On 6/4/2025 at 2:00 PM, Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Eldin Serrano and Sarina Ramirez made an unannounced visit to the facility to deliver the findings of the above allegation. LPAs explained the purpose of the visit to the administrator/licensee Lesley Vannoy. The investigation consisted of file review, interviews with staffs as well as observation. Allegation #1 Resident sustained pressure injuries while in care. Resident #1 (R1) was under the care of an outside home health agency while at the facility from 1/15/2021 to 2/16/2021. The alleged event occurred on 1/15/2021. R1 was referred to home health care (HHC) on the same date, with care beginning on 1/18/2021. According to the HHC OASIS D1 start-of-care documents, R1 was receiving treatment from HHC; however, the care plan documents indicate that services were provided for other medical needs, with no mention of a diagnosis requiring wound care. On 1/22/2021, documentation noted a stage 1 pressure ulcer on the coccyx. By 2/3/2021, records indicated that the coccyx pressure ulcer had progressed to stage 2 and was being treated. Based on the investigation and records review, the allegation that R1 sustained pressure injuries while in care is unsubstantiated, as R1 was under the care of an outside HHC agency throughout their stay at the facility. *** Continuation in LIC9099C *** Unsubstantiated Allegation #2 Resident's hygiene needs were not met – There was not enough evidence to prove Resident’s #1 hygiene needs were not met. LPAs were unable to conduct additional interviews due to the facility having no residents in care. During the investigation, LPAs did not find evidence to corroborate the allegations. Based on the evidence, the allegations mentioned above are UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means 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 at this time. An exit interview was conducted where this report, LIC9099 and LIC9099C were discussed and provided to Administrator/Licensee Lesley Vannoy.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 4, 2025 · control 18-AS-20210303143604
Mar 25, 2025Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Raquel Hernandez made an unannounced visit to the facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a required comprehensive annual inspection. LPA Hernandez met with Administrator Lesley Vannoy. The capacity is (6) current census is (0). Administrator Vannoy stated currently facility is being converted to a different license. Administrator will contact licensing to close the facility soon. LPA Hernandez observed 0 residents at the home as Administrator Lesley Vannoy stated they have been moved to different homes under same license due to work being done on home on 02/03/2025. The facility is a five (5) bedroom, three (3) bathroom home with a kitchen/dining area, living room and attached garage. The facility is Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). LPA Hernandez was accompanied by Administrators to conduct a general overall inspection, which included, but was not limited to, the following: Physical Plant: The facility is operating in the capacity approved by Community Care Licensing (CCL). There are no obstructions to indoor and outdoor passageways. The facility is maintained at a comfortable temperature. LPA Hernandez inspected resident bedrooms; they are equipped with required furniture such as: mattresses, nightstands, storage space, and sufficient lighting; bathrooms were clean, and appliances were operating appropriately. LPA tested water temperature to be at 106 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA Hernandez observed sufficient furniture and lighting throughout the facility. The facility is equipped with operating smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. Posters such as personal rights, the CCL complaint poster were posted in a common area. Cleaning supplies, toxins, sharps, and other dangerous items were kept inaccessible to residents in care. There was a designated storage space for resident/staff files. Food Service: More than seven (7) days’ supply of Non-perishable foods and more than two (2) days’ supply of perishable food supply were observed and sufficient for the number of residents in care. Care & Supervision: The facility has sufficient number of staff to provide care and supervision to the residents in care. Record Review: LPA Hernandez reviewed three (3) staff files for First Aid/CPR certification, criminal record clearance, trainings, and health screenings with Tuberculosis (TB) test result. No issues were observed Based on the observations made during today’s visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC809) was discussed and provided to Administrators Lesley Vannoy, April Lopez, and Wilaipon Evansthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 25, 2025
20241 state visit · 1 document
Mar 5, 2024Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Mary Rico made an unannounced visit to the facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a required comprehensive annual inspection. LPA met with Administrator Lesley Vannoy and was granted entry to the facility. Licensed capacity is (6) current census (6). LPA was accompanied by Administrator Lesley to conduct a general overall inspection, which included, but was not limited to, the following: Physical Plant: The facility is operating in the capacity approved by Community Care Licensing (CCL). There are no obstructions to indoor and outdoor passageways. The facility is maintained at a comfortable temperature. LPA inspected client bedrooms; they are equipped with required furniture such as: mattresses, nightstands, storage space, and sufficient lighting; bathrooms were clean, and appliances were operating appropriately.The facility is equipped with operating smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms. Posters such as personal rights, the CCL complaint poster, and the disaster plan were posted in a common area. Cleaning supplies, toxins, sharps, and other dangerous items were kept inaccessible to clients in care. There was a designated space for client/staff files. Food Service: Non-perishable and perishable food supply is sufficient for number of clients in care. Facility has a variety of food available for clients. Dishes, cups, and utensils were also stored properly. Care & Supervision: Facility has sufficient care staff for coverage 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Record Review: LPA reviewed (3) client files for admission agreements, updated physician reports, and needs and services plans. LPA reviewed (3) client medications. LPA also reviewed (2) staff files for First Aid/CPR certification, criminal record clearance, trainings, and health screenings. Based on the observations made during today’s visit, no deficiencies were cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. An exit interview was conducted, and this report (LIC809) was discussed and provided to Administrator Lesley Vannoy.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 5, 2024
Earlier years2021 to 2023 · 7 documents
20232 state visits · 3 documents
Jul 27, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility retaliated for resident filing complaint. Staff is not allowing resident to meet with their Resident Representative. Staff is not allowing resident to communicate with their Resident Representative. Resident's sleeping needs are not being met. Resident's incontinence needs not being met. Facility is unsanitary. Facility is dirty. Staff did not ensure that resident was changed into sleepwear at nightime Resident is being forced to eat.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Paola Guerrero conducted an unannounced visit to initiate and deliver the findings for the above allegation. LPA met with Facility Administrator April Lopez who was informed of the purpose of my visit and the allegation listed above. The investigation consists of direct observations, records review, and interviews regarding the above allegation. First Allegation: Facility retaliated for resident filing complaint. Regarding the first allegation, facility retaliated for resident filing complaint. LPA conducted an interview with Facility Administrator who stated facility/nor facility staff has never retaliated towards any resident, staff, or family members who file complaints against facility. LPA conducted interviews with Resident #2 (R2) Resident #3 (R3) Resident #4 (R4), and Resident #5 (R5) who all stated that they feel comfortable/and safe at the facility and have no fear of retaliation from the facility when needing to file a complaint or voice out any concerns. Resident #2-5 all stated that they feel safe. Unsubstantiated Eighth Allegation: Staff did not ensure that resident was changed into sleepwear at nigh time. Regarding eighth allegation, staff did not ensure that resident was changed into sleepwear at nigh time. LPA conducted a file review and observed daily notes pertaining to Resident #1 (R1) daily needs. Based on notes Residents #1 needs were met. LPA interviewed Residents #2-5 and asked residents if their daily needs such sleepwear/pajama change gets completed before nighttime Residents #2-5 stated that facility caregivers are on top of that every night and ensures that their diapers are changed along with their clothes. Residents #2-5 stated that they have not witnessed residents not being changed into sleepwear at nighttime. Ninth Allegation: Resident is being forced to eat. Regarding ninth allegation, resident is being forced to eat. LPA conducted interviews with Resident #2 (R2), Resident #3 (R3), Resident #4 (R4), and Resident #5 (R5), who all stated that they have not witnessed or experienced staff forcing resident[s] to eat. Resident #2-5 stated when they are not hungry staff will prepare something on a later time for them to eat. Tenth Allegation: Staff are not following resident's care plan. Regarding tenth allegation, Staff are not following resident's care plan. LPA reviewed Resident #1 care plan along with daily care notes which indicate that Resident #1 care plan was followed. LPA LPA interviewed Residents #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5 and asked if facility follows their care plan needs, Residents #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5 all stated that facility is good with following their care plan along with making any changes based on their physicians’ orders. Eleventh Allegation: Resident's hygiene needs not being met. Regarding eleventh allegation, Resident's hygiene needs not being met. LPA interviewed Residents #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5 and asked if their hygiene needs are being met Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5 stated that their hygiene needs are always met. Residents #2-5 all stated that they have no concerns and that their daily needs are always met by the facility. Twelfth Allegation: Facility is not adhering to Admissions Agreement. Regarding twelfth allegation, Facility is not adhering to Admissions Agreement. LPA reviewed admissions agreement (Facility Policies) which states that smoking “IN” the facility is strictly forbidden. LPA conducted in-person interviews with Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5 who all stated that they have not witness any resident smoking inside the facility. Resident #3, and Resident #4, stated that facility has a designated smoking area in the backyard for residents to smoke. Based on the evidence obtained during the course of the investigation, LPA has determined that the above allegations are UNSUBSTANTIATED. Unsubstantiated: meaning that 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. An exit interview was conducted where this report (LIC 9099) was discussed, and a copy was provided to Facility Administrator April Lopez at the end of the visit. Second Allegation: Staff is not allowing resident to meet with their Resident Representative. Regarding the second allegation, Staff is not allowing resident to meet with their Resident Representative. LPA Guerrero spoke to facility Administrator and asked if the facility has ever denied residents their visitation rights. Administrator stated they are aware of every resident’s personal right and facility has not ever deny any resident their visitation rights. Administrator stated for any family who is loud or disruptive towards other clients in care facility will then offer other alternatives such as: the back patio for visitation area. LPA interviewed Resident #2-5 who all stated that they have not witnessed or experienced visitation rights to be violated. Third Allegation: Staff is not allowing resident to communicate with their Resident Representative. Regarding third allegation, Staff is not allowing resident to communicate with their Resident Representative. LPA interviewed Resident #2-5 who all stated that they have not witnessed or experienced facility staff prevent them (R#2-5), from utilizing their phones to make calls or take calls from family members, or health representatives. Resident #2-5 stated that facility staff are good with communicating to family members any concern’s pertaining to residents. Fourth Allegation: Resident's sleeping needs are not being met. Regarding fourth allegation, resident's sleeping needs are not being met. LPA conducted a file review and observed daily notes pertaining to Residents #1 (R1) daily care and needs. Based on notes LPA observed Resident #1 (R1) receiving calls between (9:45pm,11:00pm,10:41pm) from family member. LPA interviewed Residents #2-5 regarding their sleeping needs not being met who all stated that they have no issues or concerns regarding their sleepings needs. Resident #2-5 stated facility ensures that their rooms are comfortable and set at a comfortable temperature for them to sleep well. Fifth Allegation: Resident's incontinence needs not being met. Regarding fifth allegation, resident's incontinence needs not being met. LPA conducted a file review and observed daily notes pertaining to Resident #1 (R1) daily care and needs. Based on notes LPA observed that showers, pull-up change, and daily hygiene needs were met. Administrator stated that diaper change is done three times a day and depending on if resident soils. Administrator also stated that pull-ups are utilized on residents who are capable on retaining their own bladder. LPA interviewed Residents #2-5 and asked if their incontinence needs are being met Resident #2, and Resident #3 stated that their diapers are changed daily depending on their lack of control over their urination/feces staff will then change frequently.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jul 27, 2023 · control 18-AS-20211130104938
Jun 20, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff not providing a comfortable environment for resident. Resident sustained unexplained injury while in care. Facility bathroom is in disrepair. Staff failed to abide by admission agreement. Staff does not award resident with phone calls. Staff does allow resident to have meals in resident's room.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Paola Guerrero conducted an unannounced visit to initiate and deliver the findings for the above allegation. LPA met with Facility Administrator April Lopez who was informed of the purpose of my visit and the allegations listed above. The investigation consists of direct observations, records review, and interviews regarding the above allegations. First Allegation: Staff not providing a comfortable environment for resident. Regarding the first allegation, Staff not providing a comfortable environment for resident. LPA Guerrero conducted a facility walkthrough and observed the facility to be clean, in good repair, and operating in safe conditions. LPA conducted in-person interviews with Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5, who all stated that they feel comfortable, and safe at the facility, Resident#1 and Resident #3 stated that they all get along with each other and are all friends with one another. Unsubstantiated Second Allegation: Resident sustained unexplained injury while in care. Regarding the second allegation, Resident sustained an unexplained injury while in care. LPA Guerrero conducted a file review and observed that on 8/29/21 Resident #1 was seen at Riverside Medical Center due to a fall that occurred at the facility. Administrator stated that Resident #1 had fallen from the bed and obtain a contusion on left leg. Administrator stated that a Special Incident Report (SIR), was faxed to CCL office, and resident’s responsible party was notified of the incident. Third Allegation: Facility bathroom is in disrepair. Regarding the third allegation, Facility bathroom is in disrepair. LPA Guerrero conducted a bathroom inspection and observed appliances were operating appropriately. LPA also measured and observed the water temperatures in three (3) bathrooms to be at 105.4 degrees F. Fourth Allegation: Staff failed to abide by admission agreement. Regarding the fourth allegation, Staff failed to abide by admission agreement. LPA Guerrero reviewed admissions agreement (Facility Policies) which states that smoking “IN” the facility is strictly forbidden. LPA conducted in-person interviews with Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5 who all stated that they have not witness any resident smoking inside the facility. Resident #3, and Resident #4, stated that facility has a designated smoking area in the backyard for residents to smoke. Fifth Allegation: Staff does not award resident with phone calls. Regarding the fifth allegation, Staff does not award resident with phone calls. LPA Guerrero conducted interviews with Staff #1, Staff #2, and Staff #3, who deny not allowing/or denying residents from making phone calls. LPA conducted an in-person interview with Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5, who all stated that they have not witnessed or experienced staff denying or preventing residents from making phone calls. Sixth Allegation: Staff does not allow resident to have meals in resident's room. Regarding the sixth allegation, Staff does not allow resident to have meals in resident’s room. LPA Guerrero conducted interviews with Staff #1-3 who deny not allowing residents to have their meals in their room. Staff #1 stated that it is the resident’s right if they decide that they want to eat their meal in their room. LPA conducted interviews with Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, and Resident #5 who all stated that they have not witness staff denying residents from eating their meals in their room. Due to a lack of information, the above allegations are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time. Unsubstantiated; meaning that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed and provided to Facility Administrator April Lopez.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 20, 2023 · control 18-AS-20220211162541
Jun 20, 2023Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Medication is not being administered as prescribed Licensee is not safeguarding resident files
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Paola Guerrero conducted an unannounced visit to initiate and deliver the findings for the above allegation. LPA met with Facility Administrator April Lopez who was informed of the purpose of my visit and the allegations listed above. The investigation consists of direct observations, records review, and interviews regarding the above allegation. First Allegation: Medication is not being administered as prescribed. Regarding the first allegation, Medication is not being administered as prescribed. LPA Guerrero requested to review Resident #1 medication record. LPA conducted a medication record review and observed that Resident #1 medication was being administered based on Resident #1 prescription orders. LPA observed that Mag Zinc and Memantine were the only two medications that was suggested to be taken at a specific time per Physicians orders. Based on documentation LPA observed that medications were being administered as suggested. Unsubstantiated Second Allegation: Licensee is not safeguarding resident files Regarding the second allegation, Licensee is not safeguarding resident’s files. LPA Guerrero spoke to facility Administrator and requested to review Resident #1 (R1) file. LPA Guerrero obtained the file pertaining to Resident #1, LPA conducted a file review and observed that the following documentation was in file: (2021 Physicians report, Centrally Stored Medication Record, Admissions Agreement, and Care Plan). Due to a lack of information, the above allegations are deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED at this time. Unsubstantiated; meaning that 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.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Jun 20, 2023 · control 18-AS-20211005142519
20222 state visits · 2 documents
Oct 5, 2022Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Facility staff are not addressing resident's needs. Facility staff is financially abusing resident.
Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Anna Bueno and Amber Coleman conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to conclude the investigation of and deliver findings to the above mentioned complaints. LPAs met with care provider Joy Lizel Deocades who was informed of the reason for today's visit and staff phoned administrator Lesley Vannoy. Administrator arrived at the facility but left before findings were delivered. Allegation 1: Facility staff are not addressing resident's needs. Resident interviews reveal that the facility is meeting residents' needs, specifically during medication administration. Interview with family member deny any claims of medication not being dispensed properly. LPAs observed that the medication is kept secured and logged accordingly. Allegation 2: Facility staff is financially abusing resident. Administrator stated that it is the facility's policy for residents to keep no more than $20 on their person and witness interviewed agreed that this policy is in place. Unsubstantiated Resident and staff interviews revealed that residents are responsible for their own finances. Interview with residents confirmed that staff are not involved with resident finances. Records reviewed shows that there is a theft and loss clause included in the admissions contract. Based on the information gathered during the investigation, we have found the allegations to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the allegations occurred. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed with and a copy was provided to staff Joy Lizel Deocades.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Oct 5, 2022 · control 18-AS-20200831104120
Mar 15, 2022Facility evaluation reportRoutine visitReport on file
Type of visit: Required - 1 Year
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Amy Goldenberg made an announced visit to the facility. The purpose of the visit was to conduct a required annual inspection, with an emphasis on infection control due to the COVID-19 pandemic. LPA was met at the door by staff and granted entry into the home. Staff caring for residents are wearing masks. LPA is informed that there are no COVID positive individuals in the home. The facility has an approved mitigation plan on file with this agency. Precautionary Covid-19 postings are present near the front door and at the entry point. There is one entry point designated where sign in procedures and screening occur. The staff temperature screen visitors upon entry into the facility. LPA is informed that there are currently six (6) residents in the home. LPA conducted a brief tour of the facility and made observations pertaining to the facility's infection control measures. The facility was equipped with sufficient hand hygiene supplies, sufficient cleaning and disinfecting provisions, and has a limited supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). LPA discussed the availability of additional PPE supplies to the facility at the time of this visit and advised the facility representatives to contact our office in the event additional supplies are necessary. Based on observations made during today’s inspection, there are no deficiencies being cited per Title 22, Division 6, of the California Code of Regulations. LPA reviewed this report with and a copy was provided to the facility representative.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Mar 15, 2022
20212 state visits · 2 documents
Dec 22, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: -Staff do not wear masks
This visit conducted by Amy Goldenberg, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA), is to initiate the 10 day investigation into the above mentioned complaint allegation. LPA discussed the elements of the alleged violations with Lesley Vannoy, Administrator. During this visit LPA interviewed three staff and made observations of the allegation that staff do not wear masks. LPA observed that staff are wearing masks during this visit. Interviews revealed awareness of staff requirement to wear masks by three (3) of three (3) staff interviewed. All staff report wearing masks while providing care to residents in the facility. Three (3) of four (4) residents interviewed are able to report that staff wear masks. We have found the complaint allegation is unsubstantiated, although the allegation may have happened or is valid: there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. A copy of this report is being reviewed with and furnished to the facility representative. Unsubstantiatedthe state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Dec 22, 2021 · control 18-AS-20211221124349
Sep 9, 2021Complaint investigation reportUnsubstantiated
Allegation investigated: Staff did not seek medical attention for resident. Staff did not inform responsible person of resident's fall. Staff do not follow resident's care plan. Resident sustained injuries while in care.
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Anna Bueno conducted an unannounced visit to the facility to investigate the above allegations. LPA met with caregivers Louis and Joann, administrator Lesley Vannoy arrived shortly. LPA toured the facility, conducted interviews, and reviewed files. The first two allegations state that staff did not seek medical attention for resident and did not inform responsible party of the resident’s fall. LPA interviewed staff 1 (S1) and staff (S2) who stated that the care provider was notified as soon as Resident 1 (R1) was discovered to have fallen. LPA viewed a text message sent by the caregiver to the responsible party time stamped at 4AM. LPA viewed a transcribed voicemail from the care provider representative and it was time stamped at 2:34AM. The third allegation states that staff do not follow resident’s care plan. During interviews and reviews of documents, LPA discovered that R1’s care plans were followed by staff. The last allegation states that resident sustained injuries while in care. LPA interviews confirmed that R1 injuries resulted from fall while sleeping. *****CONTINUED ON LIC 9099C***** Unsubstantiated 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 and a copy of this report was provided to Administrator Lesley Vannoy.the state’s words, verbatim · CDSS document, Sep 9, 2021 · control 18-AS-20210831131011
0 of 6 beds were occupied at the June 4, 2025 state visit — a count on that day, not an opening.
License holder
Vannoy, Lesley Sihavong/James, licensed since 2016.
The state’s totals for this licenseSince 2016, as the state’s facility page counts them
- State visits on file
- 11
- Total complaints
- 5
- Substantiated allegations
- 0
- Type A citations
- 0
- Type B citations
- 0
These are the state’s own totals for this license since 2016, 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 | 0 | 0 |
| Type B citations | 0 | 0 |
| Substantiated allegations | 0 | 0 |
| Total complaints | 5 | 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 Accuro Homes
Is Accuro Homes licensed?
The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
How many residents is Accuro Homes licensed for?
6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Has Accuro Homes been cited?
0 Type A and 0 Type B citations since 2016, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. Those records count 11 state visits over the same years.
Is Accuro Homes still open?
This license was on the CDSS roster as of November 12, 2026.
What does Accuro Homes cost?
$4,900 a month to start is a Covelight estimate, likely $4,000–$6,050. This home’s own rate is not on file. Ask: “What is the all-in monthly rate, and what would push it higher?”
Covelight’s estimate starts from the rates 10 small homes and similar homes within 5 miles publish, then adjusts for this home’s size, state care approvals, Medi-Cal waiver participation, years licensed and the area’s prices. In testing, the likely range held the real rate for 6 in 10 homes. This home’s own rate is not on file.
Among 165 other homes of a similar licensed size across Riverside County that publish a starting rate, the middle half runs $3,800 to $5,000 a month, and the middle figure is $4,500 (n = 165 other homes publishing a starting rate).
Each of those is a home’s own published figure, gathered on its own date between September and October 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. What Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver covers in a care home.
Does Accuro Homes take Medi-Cal?
On Medi-Cal’s Assisted Living Waiver: this home appears on the DHCS participation list, October 1, 2026. Confirm eligibility and current participation with the program. The waiver pays for care services, not room and board.
Who holds the license?
The license is held by Vannoy, Lesley Sihavong/James, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Can Accuro Homes keep a resident on hospice?
Hospice care is approved on this license, covering up to 4 residents, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
Accuro Homes license and inspection record
- Name on the license: “ACCURO HOMES”, per the CDSS roster as of May 25, 2025.
- License #336426771. The state lists this license as “Licensed,” per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed for 6 residents — a small home, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- Licensed to Vannoy, Lesley Sihavong/James, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- First licensed in 2016, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 11 state inspection visits since 2016, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026.
- 0 Type A and 0 Type B citations on file since 2016, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. The same records count 11 state visits in that period.
- 5 complaints and 0 substantiated allegations on file since 2016, per CDSS records as of October 26, 2026. One complaint can carry several allegations.
- The most recent state visit on file is March 3, 2026, per CDSS records as of October 26, 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 Riverside County, most information on file first. Every listed home appears on the same terms.
- Map
Starting rate
$5,500 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
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$5,000 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,100–$6,150On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,900 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $4,000–$6,050On the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Bedridden: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,600 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,800–$5,700- Assisted living: Licensed by California as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly — the assisted-living license category.
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,750 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,900–$5,850On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Dementia: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
- Map
Estimated starting rate
$4,500 a month to start
Covelight estimate · likely $3,700–$5,550On the state record
- Wheelchair: on the state record
- Hospice: on the state record
Street maps © Protomaps · © OpenStreetMap
Explore Riverside County