How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
2900 Stoneridge Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 (opens Google Maps) · Alameda County · (925) 201-4000· 73 certified beds · avg 53 residents/day · certified since Dec 17, 2015 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified
Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: CONTINUING LIFE (6 facilities, chain avg rating 4.8★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Showing the latest 3 of 12 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. F-0684
The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. F-0802
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. F-0812
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Apr 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 1).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 5.39 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 9% in California; top 8% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.05 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 10% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.90 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 8% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 13% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 31.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 34% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 5.05, RN 0.98, weekend 4.59.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.05 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Creekview Skilled Nursing. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aschenbrenner, Richard | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 20% | 03/18/2011 |
| Bourne, Troy | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 8% | 03/18/2011 |
| Currie, Ryan | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 8% | 03/18/2011 |
| Spieker 2010 Irrv Childrens Tr | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 24% | 01/01/2010 |
| Spieker CLC LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 60% | 03/18/2011 |
| Spieker Living Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 36% | 03/18/2011 |
| Spieker, Warren | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 27% | 03/18/2011 |
| Continuing Life, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2014 |
| Griffin, Ezekiel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/02/2017 |
| Jorgensen-Kares, Darolyn | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/13/2013 |
| McElroy, Patrick | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2021 |
All 11 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Continuing Life — 6 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pleasanton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 2.8 mi | Pleasanton, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| The Vineyards Healthcare Center | 4.0 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Stratford Villa Post-Acute | 4.1 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Avondale Villa Post-Acute | 4.1 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Reutlinger Community | 7.7 mi | Danville, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Niles Canyon Post Acute | 10.8 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Masonic Home | 10.9 mi | Union City, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Vista Post Acute | 11.0 mi | Hayward, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Mission Valley Post Acute | 11.8 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| We Care Skilled Nursing - Fremont | 11.8 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Country Drive Post Acute | 11.8 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Crestwood Treatment Center | 11.9 mi | Fremont, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Alameda, CA — 69 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555895.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details