On Oct. 5, the Healdsburg City Council will hear an appeal by fellow Healdsburg resident Lewis Bangham and me, challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit for Gallaher Signature Living to operate a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE)—to be called “The Hudson”—near Healdsburg’s railroad depot. Our appeal will show that the City Council should revoke the permit because Gallaher presented misinformation to obtain it.
During the hearing on Gallaher’s application for the permit—for which the site’s zoning allows “nonmedical” residential care and “limited medical assistance” (e.g., handing out medications) but prohibits medical care (e.g., urinary catheter insertion and colostomy care)—Gallaher’s CEO said Gallaher’s RCFEs have no medical staff and its nurses merely distribute medications. This is untrue. As trustee for a friend who lives at Varenna—Gallaher’s RCFE in Santa Rosa—I know that Varenna has medical staff and its nurses provide medical care.
California law authorizes three types of medical care at RCFEs: certain specified medical procedures and treatments by skilled professionals; dementia care, and annual medical assessments to screen residents for illness, and disability and guide future medical care. Gallaher’s RCFEs do these things.
The California Department of Social Services (DSS) cited Varenna twice in 2026 for failing in its duties to my friend. DSS found that Varenna failed to timely respond to her calls for assistance through her pendant alarm, failed to deliver services by “staff that are sufficient in numbers, qualifications, and competency to meet [residents’] needs,” and failed to perform annual medical assessments. She has had to sue Varenna to enforce her legal rights. (See Santa Rosa Press Democrat, “91-year-old widow suing Santa Rosa senior living facility, alleging elder abuse,” May 15, 2026.)
DSS also cited Varenna this year for failing to perform medical assessments of five other residents, which would have shown they were nonambulatory and thus the third-floor units in which they lived were unsafe in the event of fire. This violated a fire regulation specified in a court injunction against Varenna arising from the 2017 Tubbs Wildfire, when staff fled and abandoned the residents to fend for themselves. Even after being punished for violating fire regulations in 2017, Varenna did it again in 2025-26.
Imagine the deaths of nonambulatory residents that might have occurred had another wildfire swept through Varenna. Imagine what might occur at The Hudson if Gallaher runs it like Varenna.
Having flouted the law in operating Varenna—and, more importantly, having misled the Planning Commission to obtain The Hudson’s conditional use permit—Gallaher can’t be trusted not to repeat such misconduct in operating The Hudson. Regardless of its eligibility for affordable housing incentives, the City Council may, under Healdsburg Municipal Code section 20.28.195, lawfully revoke The Hudson’s permit as having been approved based on misinformation.
This is why I’m calling out Gallaher. The misinformation Gallaher presented to obtain The Hudson’s conditional use permit is part of a larger pattern of unlawful conduct from which Healdsburg deserves protection.
Healdsburg City Council will meet to consider this appeal among other business at 6pm, Monday Oct. 5. Watch online at www.healdsburg.gov/zoom.
