Scripps Home

Pros

• The Monte Cedro community is very neat, clean, organized, and safe.
• It is a wonderful senior community with friendly staff and a great environment for seniors to live.
• The staff is praised as A+ without exception.
• Monte Cedro is an upscale retirement community with terrific facilities, two dining areas, and available levels of care.
• The facility is described as Type 1 construction designed to withstand high temperatures, giving occupants more time to evacuate safely.
• It is described as a stellar place for retirees.
• The exterior is very attractive.
• Residents can enjoy dancing in their gowns.

Cons

• The facility conducted an emergency evacuation but did not evacuate all residents.
• A 100-year-old resident was left by herself during the evacuation, with calls for staff to be fined or fired.
• There was no comprehensive headcount of residents and staff, risking lives during the evacuation.
• Memory care and activities staff are described as unfriendly.
• The facility is claimed to deserve shutdown for evacuation failures.
• Harassment of vulnerable seniors and comments about residents' finances are deemed completely unacceptable.
• The media coverage is criticized as sensationalist to gain publicity.
• Drivers are described as "dumb," implying poor transportation during the operation.

Review

Monte Cedro is portrayed in a split spectrum of reviews: on one side, it's described as a neat, clean, well-organized, and safe senior community with friendly staff and a favorable environment for older adults; on the other, it's scrutinized for how it handled a major crisis and for allegations of inequity, poor communications, and inadequate protections for vulnerable residents. Several commenters frame Monte Cedro as a place that can feel uplifting and well-run, praising the staff as "A+" and calling the community a wonderful option for retirees. One reviewer even highlights the appealing outdoor and dining experiences, noting that the place is attractive from the outside and that appointments are sometimes necessary to see the full facility.

Amid the praise, harsh criticisms emerge, especially around the economics and the human toll of emergencies. A controversial line of critique centers on the "entrance fees" that a commenter attributes to the facility's marketing - "around a half mil and up." The implication drawn by critics is that a facility serving vulnerable seniors should not be subjected to public shaming or judgments about residents' financial status, especially in a setting where real estate surrounding the area is similarly priced. This thread of the conversation foregrounds a tension between affluence, accessibility, and dignity, with some reviewers arguing that wealth-based stigma has no place in discussions of care and safety.

Crucially, much of the controversy centers on how Monte Cedro and the broader Altadena community responded to two concurrent disasters - the Eaton Fire and the extreme winds and damage that accompanied a hurricane-like event. Reviewers describe a scenario in which the Eaton Fire impacted the entire area and triggered a chaotic, high-pressure response from residents, families, first responders, and local officials. The discussion touches on shelter-in-place guidance versus evacuation, with references to national guidelines that define SIP as a protective strategy to maintain resident care and limit movement during hazards. Some reviews claim there were no evacuation warnings for Monte Cedro's segment of Altadena for an extended period, while others note that evacuation notices in the immediate vicinity were issued later, creating a complex and rapidly evolving risk environment.

Supporters of Monte Cedro's management point to the facility's design and stated resources to manage emergencies. A reviewer describes Monte Cedro as a Type 1 construction, designed to withstand high temperatures and provide occupants with additional time to evacuate safely. They emphasize that evacuation transportation and escort from first responders were part of the plan, and they praise the fire department, sheriff's department, and staff for their roles during a crisis. This perspective frames the situation as a difficult emergency with constraints imposed by dangerous conditions, arguing that the recovery and investigation are ongoing and that local responders did their best under extraordinary pressure.

Against this backdrop, several residents and family members express deep concern about the adequacy of the evacuation and the handling of vulnerable individuals. There are powerful claims that some residents were not evacuated, with statements such as "The staff left a 100 year old lady by herself while they evacuated for the fires" and calls for accountability, including demands for a complete count of every patient and staff member and a documentation of all those who remained behind. These views are presented alongside more tempered accounts from others who contend that staff, the fire department, and sheriffs performed admirably under the circumstances and that an investigation was underway to determine what happened and why. The tension between opposing memories of the same event underscores the difficulty of assessing incident management in the midst of disaster.

Beyond the immediate crisis, reviewers critique the interpersonal climate within Monte Cedro. Some describe memory care as unfriendly and criticize transportation and other operational aspects, with a few comments labeling certain drivers as less capable. Others nuance their assessments by noting strengths - such as the facility's aesthetics, the social activity potential, and the opportunity to participate in events like dancing in gowns - while acknowledging imperfections in care or communication. One reviewer recounts the experience of discovering that "appointments are necessary," implying potential hurdles for prospective residents to fully engage with the community, even as others recount positive experiences with staff and programming.

Taken together, the collection of reviews paints Monte Cedro as a four-dimensional community: a visually appealing, well-resourced senior living option with a supportive staff and appealing amenities; a setting where residents, families, and staff confronted an unprecedented disaster and debated the adequacy of evacuation and safety measures; and a place where questions about accountability, ownership, and the ethics of care linger in the wake of conflicting narratives. The emotional toll of the Eaton Fire, the competing claims about whether every resident was evacuated, and the ongoing investigations all contribute to a complicated portrait of what it means to care for vulnerable seniors in a high-profile, upscale environment.

As the discussion closes, many voices urge caution and nuance. First responders are hailed as heroes, and the broader community is urged to resist casting blame without full evidence. At the same time, there is a clear insistence that accountability matters and that residents and their families deserve transparency about who owns and runs the facility and how decisions were made during the crisis. In the end, Monte Cedro is depicted as a highly attractive, well-regarded place in many respects, but one whose crisis response has sparked intense debate and a demand for thorough investigation and clear answers to ensure the safety and dignity of every resident in future emergencies.

Cafes

• Lavender & Honey Espresso Bar (1.2 miles)
• Panera Bread (4 miles)
• Charlie's Coffee House (5.4 miles)
• Bopomofo Cafe (5.7 miles)
• Starbucks (5.9 miles)
• Panera Bread (6.7 miles)
• Panera Bread (7.6 miles)

Pharmacies

• Rite Aid (1.2 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (1.6 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2 miles)
• Rite Aid (2.6 miles)
• Walgreens (3 miles)
• Walgreens (3.2 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3.5 miles)

Restaurants

• McDonald's (1.6 miles)
• Urth Caffé-Pasadena (2.6 miles)
• Chick-Fil-A (2.8 miles)
• McDonald's (3.4 miles)
• McDonald's (4.5 miles)
• El Pollo Loco (4.5 miles)
• Taco Bell (4.5 miles)

Parks

• Hahamongna Watershed Park (2.5 miles)
• Brookside Park (2.8 miles)
• Lacy Park (4.4 miles)
• Garfield Park (4.8 miles)
• Arroyo Seco Park (5.1 miles)
• Alhambra Park (6 miles)
• Arcadia County Park (6.6 miles)

Hospitals

• Huntington Memorial Hospital Nicu (3.5 miles)
• Glendale Adventist Medical Center (5.9 miles)
• Medical 2 unit (6 miles)
• Methodist Hospital of Southern California (6.3 miles)

Places of Worship

• San Marino Community Church Nursery School (4.8 miles)
• Saint Rita's Catholic Church (4.8 miles)
• Arcadia Chinese Baptist Church (6.8 miles)
• First Evangelical Church Arcadia (7.3 miles)

Theaters

• 0206 Amc Bar Santa Ani (5.9 miles)
• AMC The Americana at Brand 18 (7.6 miles)

Physicians

• Santa Anita Medical Plaza (6.2 miles)
• Doheny Eye Center (6.2 miles)
• Healthcare Partners Medical Group (7.2 miles)

Transportation

• Metro - Monrovia Station (8.3 miles)