Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly positive about the day-to-day caregiving and the homelike environment, with several reviewers emphasizing warmth, spaciousness, and a family atmosphere. Care quality is repeatedly noted as good; reviewers mention 24/7 care, respectful and welcoming staff, and caregivers being described as "amazing" or "wonderful." Multiple comments highlight that residents were treated like family, that staff kept relatives informed, and that family members felt welcomed when visiting. Several reviewers explicitly recommend the facility, reflecting a high degree of trust and satisfaction with personal care and communication.
Facilities and accessibility are described with mixed but specific details. Positive physical features include spacious rooms and wide hallways that accommodate walkers, and outdoor sheltered porch and garden areas that reviewers noted as useful (including for smoking). The environment is described as pet-friendly, and pets were loved by residents and reviewers alike, reinforcing the home-like feel. On the other hand, there are accessibility and physical-layout concerns: one reviewer explicitly disliked the ramp, and the presence of pets—while praised by some—was also noted as a potential drawback for others. These details suggest that while the facility is comfortable and functional for many, there are specific mobility and preference issues prospective residents should confirm in person.
Dining and daily living received mostly positive mentions for home-cooked meals, which reviewers appreciated as part of the homelike care. However, a notable negative theme is limited meal choices: at least one review expressed dissatisfaction with the variety of food options. This indicates that while meals are generally seen as a strength, dietary variety or menu flexibility may be an area for improvement or something families should ask about when evaluating fit for a specific resident's preferences or dietary needs.
Management, ownership, and cost emerge as significant concerns in the reviews. Multiple comments indicate the facility closed or was sold because the owner moved to California; there is a specific note that the property was owned by a Buddhist temple and later remodeled into a high-end rooming house. These changes signal instability in availability and suggest the original facility no longer operates in the same capacity. Cost is another recurring issue: at least one reviewer labeled the service as too expensive for their budget. Together, these points imply that prospective residents should verify current ownership, use of the property, pricing, and whether the services described in older reviews still apply.
There are also some less frequent but important negative notes that prospective families should consider. One reviewer mentioned a relative's criminal record, which appears in the reviews as a concern related to admissions or resident background—this is a situational red flag rather than a comment on care quality, but it indicates that screening or resident mix may be important to ask about. The combined pattern is that interpersonal care and the homelike environment were strong positives, while operational changes (sale/closure/remodel), cost, limited meal choices, and a few accessibility or resident-mix issues are the main drawbacks.
In summary, the reviews describe a facility that delivered highly regarded, personal, and attentive care in a warm, home-like setting, with praise for staff, communication with families, pets, and home-cooked meals. However, the operation has experienced significant changes (closure, sale, and remodeling), and reviewers flagged cost, limited meal options, and some accessibility or resident-related concerns. Anyone using these reviews to evaluate the facility should prioritize confirming current ownership and status, pricing and contractual details, specific accessibility features (including ramp configuration), meal variety, and policies on pets and resident screening before making decisions.
