Overall sentiment across the reviews is cautiously positive about the home’s cleanliness, homelike appearance and pricing, tempered by recurring concerns about space, activities and staffing adequacy.
Facilities and environment: Reviewers consistently note that the property is well maintained on the outside — the garden and front of the house are described as well-kept — and interior rooms are light and very clean. However, common living areas are small, and one reviewer described the living space as dark; several comments point to limited public space and some clutter despite overall cleanliness. The outside yard is characterized as average rather than a standout feature. The home is small (licensed for up to six residents) and currently under capacity at four residents, which supports a home-like atmosphere but limits communal space and activity options.
Care quality and staffing: The home is CNA-owned, which reviewers cite as a positive sign of managerial knowledge of care. The facility reportedly maintains medication controls (drug lockup) and provides medication administration, and weekly menus are used for dining planning. However, multiple reviewers raised concerns about staffing levels and whether the available staff can safely meet higher care needs. Specifics mentioned include three staff on hand; this number combined with the limited communal space led reviewers to want an evaluation before committing. The overall tone is that basic care tasks appear covered, but there is uncertainty about the home’s ability to manage more complex or intensive needs.
Rooms, occupancy and pricing: Pricing is presented clearly in the reviews: shared-room with shared bath at $2,000 and a private-bath option at $2,200. Reviewers find pricing reasonable. The small capacity (up to six residents) and current occupancy (four residents) are seen as pros for personalized attention but also underline the limited size of shared/common spaces. Shared rooms and shared baths were explicitly mentioned and may be a negative for those who require or prefer private accommodations.
Activities, social life and suitability: Several reviews call out limited activities and question whether a prospective resident would like the environment. With limited public spaces and a small resident population, social programming appears sparse. One reviewer explicitly stated they were unsure about suitability and wanted a formal evaluation before deciding. The home’s quiet cul-de-sac location near Piedmont Rd/Milpitas may appeal to those seeking a tranquil setting but may not provide the level of stimulation some residents need.
Management and operations: The home appears to have an efficient admission process (one note that the process continued until completion) and some degree of organizational infrastructure (owner operates another home, weekly menus, drug lockup). Reviewers appreciated the cleanliness and the fact the owner is clinically trained (CNA). However, the comment that the home was "busy on arrival" could indicate peak-time staffing strain or a hectic onboarding experience; it was not universally framed as positive.
Notable patterns and recommendations: Strengths are cleanliness, reasonable pricing, a homelike small scale, and clinical ownership/oversight. Repeated concerns center on limited communal space, the quality and variety of activities, the adequacy of staffing for higher care levels (three staff cited), and the shared-room/shared-bath arrangement for some options. For prospective residents or families, the reviews suggest this home is worth considering for those seeking a clean, affordable, small, CNA-owned setting in a quiet area — provided that a personalized evaluation confirms the staff can meet the resident’s specific care needs and that the shared-space arrangements suit their preferences. A focused visit during non-peak hours and a formal care-assessment prior to commitment are advisable to address the recurring concerns raised in these reviews.
