Key Topics & Links

August 5, 2025 - LEA EN ESPAÑOL AQUÍ

Right now, too many local families are living in fear of ICE and find themselves under an omnipresent threat of deportation. Many of our friends and neighbors are afraid to leave their homes for fear that they may be separated from their families or whisked away by masked officers to an out-of-state detention facility … or worse, flown to a prison in a country they’ve never before set foot in. In response to this, you might have heard that the interfaith community — which includes churches and congregants from west county — is organizing a hunger strike until the Board of Supervisors passes an ordinance declaring ourselves a sanctuary county.
 
My heart is with anyone who is willing to forgo food to try to make the world a better place. I’m proud to live in a community that protests injustice and stands up for the most vulnerable among us. I admire the courage, compassion, and empathy of the folks participating in the hunger strike … especially since these virtues feel like they’re in particularly short supply nowadays.

Given this, you may be surprised or even angered by what I have to say next: I do not support passing a sanctuary ordinance. Here’s why.

1) We don’t actually have the power to become a sanctuary county.

Regardless of what we say or do, we cannot legally stop ICE from deporting members of our community. We can’t prevent federal U.S. law enforcement officers from coming into our communities, public parks and public areas of buildings and detaining or arresting residents.

Could we use the word “sanctuary”? Sure. But could we actually turn Sonoma County into a sanctuary, and shut ICE out? Sadly, no. ICE is empowered by law to conduct immigration enforcement. The federal government just invested $29.9 billion into ICE enforcement and deportation efforts, tripling the agency’s budget.

Knowing that we can’t stop mass immigration sweeps — and that more will come with the increased funding — is a horrible feeling. It’s something I think about every day, and it’s difficult to imagine the weight this reality places on our immigrant community members.

2) Because of #1, adopting a sanctuary ordinance could cause harm.

It risks creating a false sense of security and contributes to misinformation. Worse, it may put a target on the backs of local immigrants and refugees—particularly under a federal administration that has demonstrated a willingness to pursue retribution. 
 
Earlier this year, the administration released a list of so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which included the entire State of California and Sonoma County. That list was later withdrawn after pushback from several conservative counties that were also named. 
 
However, just today, the Justice Department reissued and expanded the list—this time under Executive Order 14287, formalizing the designation process as part of a broader federal enforcement strategy. Sonoma County is not currently listed, but California remains, and the administration has explicitly stated its intent to pursue litigation and ICE enforcement against named jurisdictions. 
 
This moment calls for clarity, compassion, and a steady focus on the well-being of our entire community.

3) The current sanctuary ordinance request seems to be focused on the interactions of the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office with ICE and the Sheriff does not report to the Board of Supervisors.

But there’s a problem with the Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopting a sanctuary ordinance: the BOS doesn’t have authority over the law enforcement policies of the Sonoma County Sheriff's Office (SCSO). Which means that even if we passed an ordinance telling the Sheriff what to do, he wouldn’t have to do it. Why? Because SCSO authority is derived from the Constitution of the State of California. The Sheriff does not report to the BOS. In my mind, it doesn’t make sense to adopt a policy that we don’t actually have the authority to implement. Again, this could create a false sense of security and contribute to misinformation.

4) I support the current SCSO policy, which is actually more protective of immigrants than the policy of the State of California.

a) What is the SCSO’s policy under (and beyond) the State law of S.B. 54?

First of all, the Sheriff’s office does not coordinate with ICE or participate in immigration enforcement, sweeps or raids. SCSO does not honor ICE holds or detainers, either. In fact, SCSO does not detain anyone for ICE unless legally required to — which means there is a signed warrant from a judge ordering them to.

b) So then what does the Sheriff’s office do, and how does it interact with ICE?

Currently, the Sheriff’s office gives less information to ICE than it would give to any member of the public. If a member of the public calls SCSO to inquire about the release date of an incarcerated person, SCSO will provide the date and time of release. If ICE inquires about the release date of an incarcerated person, SCSO only provides that information if the incarcerated person has been convicted of serious and violent felonies. (There is a matrix determining precisely what and how many crimes qualify. SCSO has modified this matrix over the years in ways that reduce the number of notifications.)

c) Of the 484 requests from ICE to SCSO last year, only 64 received a response with information about release date and time. (This represents a decrease in notifications of 11% from 2023.)

These 64 responses resulted in 10 ICE arrests on the grounds of the Main Adult Detention Facility. The 64 notifications included the following categories and numbers: 34 violent crimes (weapons, robbery, drug sales, kidnapping, arson), 3 sex offenses, 12 felony DUIs, 15 miscellaneous (identity theft, burglary, federal warrant, evading).
In prior years I have reviewed details of the notification list cases. Every case I reviewed included violent and serious felonies. These were not one-offs, not minor crimes, not a couple of youthful bad decisions — these were serious repeat offenders. Are we fighting to protect the vast majority of our immigrant community, or are we fighting to protect the ten folks arrested by ICE who repeatedly committed crimes? The Sheriff is trying his best to strike a balance in protecting both our immigrant community and the safety of the public at large.

5) Finally, the Board of Supervisors did adopt a resolution earlier this year in support of our immigrant community.

We directed all the County departments we oversee to take substantive action in support of immigrants. As a result, we have changed some of our policies and practices to help ensure continued immigrant access to our services. That resolution is available HERE.
 
We could declare ourselves a fire-free county. We could declare ourselves a flood-free county. But that won’t stop the fires or floods from coming. What makes more sense to me is to prepare ourselves for fires and floods — or in this case, prepare ourselves for ICE raids by volunteering for or donating to local non-profits. I challenge you to take a know-your-rights training, to learn how to support immigrants and refugees as a legal observer, or to contribute to an immigrant-supporting non-profit.

I deeply respect our community’s conviction and willingness to take a stand. I am committed to working for, fighting for, and standing alongside our immigrant community. But I can’t vote for something I don’t believe in. I can’t vote for an ordinance that amounts to an empty promise. I can’t do something that looks good on paper but doesn’t result in action and, worse, may cause harm. I’m not afraid to speak truth to power or to stand up for my beliefs… but to me, this one feels like pretending I have power. It feels like grandstanding to make a point in a way that could hurt folks who are living with an impossible daily reality. I understand that many community members feel and see things differently than I do. It’s possible for good people to hold the same values and goals and yet still disagree on strategy. I look forward to continuing the conversation with all of you… My door and mind are always open!


PS: I wanted to mention that our SCSO deputies are all members of our community and they don’t wear masks. It’s also worth noting the IJS (Integrated Justice System, the data system that SCSO and probation use) does not include documentation status. In other words, deputies and probation officers do not know the documentation status of the individuals they interact with. Should the federal government attempt to obtain information about documentation status of folks involved in our criminal justice system, they wouldn’t be able to, because the information isn’t there to begin with.

Links

• Resolution to Uphold the Civil Rights, Dignity, Health and Safety of our Immigrant Population and all Sonoma County Residents
• Support for Immigrant Communities Centralized Webpage
• Truth Act Forum Materials
• March 2025 Letter from Sheriff Engram

The City of Sebastopol and Sonoma County are exploring the creation of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to fund critical infrastructure projects in Sebastopol and unincorporated West Sonoma County. An EIFD is a funding mechanism that uses future property tax revenues from new developments to invest in local infrastructure, including roads, water and sewer systems, parks, recreational amenities, affordable housing, and climate resilience projects. Notably, an EIFD does not create new taxes but captures growth in property tax revenue to reinvest in community improvements.

The feasibility study for this EIFD is currently underway, led by Kosmont Companies, and includes public outreach, district boundary analysis, and identification of infrastructure funding needs. The process is in its initial stages, with community input playing a crucial role in shaping the direction of the EIFD and determining the types of projects to prioritize. The project aims to address the aging infrastructure of West County, including improvements to roads, flood mitigation, recreational facilities, and other community needs.

Community participation is vital, and several public meetings will be held throughout the process to gather input and refine project priorities. For more information about the study or to participate in upcoming meetings contact District5@sonomacounty.gov. Watch the September 25 Special River MAC Meeting with the EIFD Consultants below. Read the minutes from the 9/25/24 Special Joint MAC Meeting here.

The Board of Supervisors discussed this at their June 4, 2025 meeting.  Key highlights of the West County analysis include:

Boundary and Scope: A proposed district, focused on population centers, covering approximately 53,400 acres across unincorporated communities such as Guerneville, Forestville, Occidental, Bodega Bay, Monte Rio, Graton, and others.

Funding Scenarios: Modeled revenue allocations range from 20% to 25% of the County’s share of property tax increment. At a 25% contribution level, the EIFD models and projections currently indicate that a bonding capacity of $130 million+ over 50 years could potentially be supported.

Potential Projects: Based on initial community feedback and consultant recommendations, the following categories of infrastructure have been identified as potential funding priorities under a proposed EIFD. Note that this list is not final and will evolve based on needs, input and further analysis.

- Sheriff substation improvements
- Emergency access infrastructure
- Dock and coastal infrastructure resilient to sea level rise
- Community gathering spaces
- Ice House upgrades (Bodega Bay)
- Roadway improvements
- Sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure
- Affordable and workforce housing
- Recreational improvements, including parks and public restrooms

These types of projects align with statutory EIFD eligibility and reflect both urgent needs and long-term investment opportunities in unincorporated West County.

Next Steps of Current Phase

Finalize Fiscal Analysis

Consultants will complete present the full fiscal analysis to the Board of Supervisors to ensure long-term viability and positive impact.

Board of Supervisors Action

Next, the Board of Supervisors would consider a resolution of intent, form a Public Financing Authority, and hold public hearings where further input on projects would be sought.

Read the full staff report from the June 10, 2025 River MAC meeting here.

Happy Pride, y’all. 🏳️‍🌈 

I’ve been told that a petition may be circulating soon urging me to remove the Pride flag from the downtown Guerneville plaza once June (Pride month) is passed. Generally speaking, I appreciate petitions, support grassroots democracy, and do my best to listen to the will of the community when making decisions. 

But I want to be clear that no matter how many signatures appear on pieces of paper opposing the year-round flying of the Pride flag, I will not back down from flying the Pride flag all day, every day in Guerneville. 

Sometimes leadership isn’t sticking your finger into the wind and seeing which way it blows. Sometimes it means making people uncomfortable in order to create positive change. It means listening to your heart and doing what’s right even if that pisses some folks off. And it *definitely* means refusing to turn back the clock on progress — refusing to turn a cold shoulder to a marginalized community group when things get dicey. We live in a time when basic human rights are being eroded here in the U.S., making solidarity and allyship more important now than ever before.

This is all to say: as long as I am Fifth District Supervisor, we will continue to fly the Pride flag year-round in Guerneville. 

Unapologetically.

Guerneville Pride Flag Background

[while I won’t apologize, I’m always happy to listen, talk and explain]:

In June 2016, a mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Florida specifically targeted the LGBTQIA2S+ community, leaving 49 people dead and 53 people wounded. The Lower Russian River community mourned, and held a candlelight walk and vigil in downtown Guerneville. There were many tears shed, we walked and gathered. An idea sparked out of the overwhelming grief that evening: why not counter the hate with love and acceptance locally? Why not fly the Pride flag year-round from the downtown flag pole? 

Since June 2017, thanks to the tireless work and stewardship of the Russian River Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (and most especially the inimitable force of nature known as Beth), the Pride flag has flown on the downtown Guerneville flag pole 24/7/365. A few years later, attorneys got involved and the practice was formalized with an actual County contract which articulates the right and duty of the Sisters to fly the Pride flag year-round in accordance with the Flag Code. (Thank you to the Sisters who sign that contract each year and dutifully follow the Flag Code; I am grateful for you.)

Some people might ask: Why the flag year-round? It’s not because everyone in Guerneville is gay. It’s not because we don’t appreciate cis-het residents here. It’s not because this is a political statement. The flag is, quite simply, a statement of love and acceptance. Love and acceptance should be a basic human value, and not political.

We are Proud year-round, not just in June. Because 24/7/365, we want EVERYONE to be WELCOME. Scratch that… we want everyone to be LOVED. (As the Sisters say, We love you, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.) We want everyone to be seen, and celebrated!

And since the 1920s — yes, you read that right; check out the latest edition of the Russian River Historical Society’s newsletter — the Lower Russian River has been a safe haven for LGBTQIA2S+ individuals. We are proud of that fact. We celebrate this history, and the present LGBTQIA2S+ culture, and most importantly, the strong and vibrant future of this culture and community in the decades to come.

At the Board of Supervisors meeting acknowledging Pride month, Sonoma County Commission on Human Rights Chair Katrina Phillips said it better than I could ever say:

The Pride flag is seen as a Rainbow and came to represent the spectrum and culture of homosexuality in 1978, known then as LGBT. The maker of the flag, Gilbert Barker, gave meaning to each color:

Red for Life
Orange for Healing
Yellow for Sunlight
Green for Nature
Blue for Harmony
Purple for Spirit

To me, that sounds like existence and peace. 

As my friend Liz Feldman once said, “It’s very dear to me, the issue of gay marriage. Or as I like to call it, ‘marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car. I didn’t gay park it.”

The sooner we realize I didn’t have gay lunch and you didn’t have a straight lunch, that we had LUNCH, we will all see that I don’t have gay love and you don’t have straight love. We have LOVE. And trust me the world needs a lot more LOVE if we are going to survive as a species.

So go have a loving lunch. Go have a proud lunch. Enjoy the beauty of the rainbows, because for the LGBTQIA2S+ community, there have been millennia of rain, of hiding in the dark, before the sunshine appeared to bring about the rainbow after the storm, before they could be proud and celebrated publicly by other members of their community. 

Also, rainbows are beautiful, and vibrant, and colorful, and look freaking gorgeous flying surrounded by our River and redwood trees. 

PS: Here is a bonus photo of my son’s kindergarten art. Over the course of the year, he drew more rainbow suns than regular yellow/orange suns. Shine on, West County Rainbows! 🌈

Updated 2/19/25

We have heard from a number of concerned community members and we are tracking this issue.  In late 2022, a Use Permit, Zoning Change, and Reclamation Plan Amendment application was submitted by Canyon Rock. 

A brief summary of the project status is:

• Application filed late 2022
• EIR required for project
• Notice of Preparation for EIR published 8/7/23
• Public Scoping Meeting was held virtually (see NOP for EIR document linked above for details) on Monday 8/21 at 6 PM via Zoom.
• The next step is for Permit Sonoma to produce a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Currently, the technical studies are still being completed that will inform that Draft EIR. Once those studies are completed the drafting of the EIR can begin. The project is in a holding pattern until the Draft EIR is ready for public review, which is currently looking like 2026 at the earliest at this point. The EIR will be required before the Planning Commission and then the Board of Supervisors hear the proposal.  
• Currently technical documents are being prepared to support the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR).
• At this time, we expect that a DSEIR will be available for public review and comment in approximately Fall 2026.  
• After circulation of the DSEIR, a public hearing will be held on the project with the Planning Commission.  A final decision on the project will be made by the Board of Supervisors at a public hearing.

For more information, including the recording from the 9/21/23 scoping meeting, see the Permit Sonoma project page here.

Our office may not take public positions on such a project, as it can affect our ability to objectively review the project when it reaches the BOS for official action.  We want to be sure Supervisor Hopkins isn’t conflicted out, which would happen potentially if she speaks out for or against the project at this time. That doesn’t mean we won’t follow closely though, and we are also appreciating the community correspondence and everyone tracking this. 

For further information, Stephen Schurke, the reviewer assigned to this project, is available to answer questions.  

Stephen Schurke
Senior Environmental Specialist, Mining Program Coordinator
Permit Sonoma
County of Sonoma 
2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Office:  707-565-1900

Here are some commonly asked questions regarding Vacation Rentals:

• I want to file a complaint about a Vacation Rental
• I want to apply for a Vacation Rental or want to know where they are allowed
• I have a Vacation Rental Violation
• I’m a Property Manageror want to become one and need information
• I want to stop operating my Vacation Rental
• I have a question that isn’t listed
• I’d like to provide feedback to inform future Vacation Rental policies, who do I contact at Permit Sonoma? Please email PRMD-VacationRentals@sonomacounty.gov.