Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans positive with important caveats. Multiple reviewers emphasize a caring, attentive staff who form genuine bonds with residents: smiling greetings, good communication, and family members repeatedly note that their loved ones "adore" the staff. Several comments describe staff as well-trained, knowledgeable, compassionate, and timely in providing care; some reviewers explicitly call out an "amazing administrator," professional owners, and an atmosphere of meaningful visits and emotional connection. The home-like scale (a small 10-resident community), cleanliness, lack of odor, quiet environment, and comfortable location with redwood surroundings are consistently mentioned as strengths. Practical positives include freshly prepared daily meals enjoyed by many residents, transportation availability, open visitation policies, a relatively fast move-in process, a range of memory-care levels, and pricing that reviewers see as comparable to other local options. Some specific outcomes (for example, a resident gaining weight) are cited as evidence of effective care.
At the same time, there are recurring and consequential criticisms that prospective families should weigh carefully. A few reviewers raise serious safety and operational concerns: one or more reviews describe the environment as "dangerous" or "unsafe" and note that staff or management refused night-time family checks. These are significant red flags that contrast sharply with the positive accounts and should be investigated directly with the facility. Management involvement appears inconsistent in the reviews: while several people praise the owners and administrator as kind and knowledgeable, other reviews explicitly state the owner is not on the floor and describe the house manager as uneducated, unprofessional, and frequently on the phone. This inconsistency suggests variability either over time (changes in leadership/new ownership) or between shifts and should prompt questions about leadership presence and supervision during a visit.
Dining and programming show mixed signals. Many family members praise the food—freshly prepared, enjoyed by residents, and associated with improved resident appetites—while at least one reviewer reports "poor cooking." Similarly, reviewers highlight the small, home-like setting and individualized attention, but several also say the community needs a more stimulating environment and that some residents are in advanced stages of mental conditions that families had not anticipated. This points to a potential mismatch between the resident mix and expectations about programming or therapeutic activities; small memory-care homes can be excellent for individualized care but may have limited capacity to provide varied, structured stimulation for residents across a wide spectrum of cognitive needs.
Patterns in the feedback indicate that the facility has strengths in compassionate hands-on care, cleanliness, and family communication, but also has variability in management presence, staff experience, and safety practices according to different reviewers. The discrepancy between glowing testimonials and serious safety/management complaints suggests either inconsistent experiences across different families or changes in staffing/ownership over time (one review mentions new ownership). For anyone considering Redwood R & R, the reviews recommend verifying current conditions directly: meet the owners and house manager in person, observe staff-resident interactions across multiple shifts (including nighttime if applicable), ask about staffing levels and staff training, request clarification of policies on family checks at night, review examples of daily programming for stimulation and cognitive support, sample the food or review menus, and ask for references from current families with residents who have similar care needs. These steps will help reconcile the mixed reports and determine whether the facility’s strengths align with a particular resident’s needs and safety expectations.
