Rancho Madrone Roads
Glenwood Drive Oakwood Drive Brookview Drive Maplewood Drive

Sonoma County rated our streets “Very Poor” and called them a hazard in writing. Then it closed the request.

What’s happening: Fourteen households on four streets in Rancho Madrone, in Eldridge in Sonoma Valley, are asking the County to rebuild roads that have gone about 30 years without repaving. Longtime residents say they have been repaved only once since 1955.

Where it stands: None of the four streets is on the County’s 2026–27 paving list, no work is scheduled, and no County official has walked these streets with residents. This site is the full written record.

Read the letters See the October 12 messages View photos

County briefing · Updated October 28, 2026

Rancho Madrone Roads

Residents request rehabilitation of Glenwood, Oakwood, Brookview and Maplewood Drives in Eldridge, Sonoma Valley.

Requested action
A site walk with residents, interim hazard measures, and a written pathway to rehabilitation for all four streets.
Documented County response
October 12: Glenwood rated “Very Poor.” October 23: “No work is currently scheduled.” October 27: Glenwood added to the Supervisor’s District 1 list—not the approved paving list.
Unresolved questions
Who assessed the roads and when? What is Request #7181’s status? What are each street’s PCI and ranking? Which segments are County-maintained?
Review the written recordRoad photographs

Record reviewed through October 28; latest County reply in this collection: October 27. Residents’ requested response dates are not statutory deadlines. CPRA #26-871’s November 2 determination date is reported in the Director’s correspondence; it is not a promise of full records delivery.

MAP

The four streets of Rancho Madrone

Eldridge, in Sonoma Valley, District 1. Tap a street to see it up close on the satellite map. Whether every segment is County-maintained is one of the questions residents have asked the County to confirm.

Now showingAll four streetsRancho Madrone, Eldridge · Sonoma Valley, District 114 households

THE COUNTY’S OWN NUMBERS

Local roads score lowest, and the paving money goes elsewhere

The County reports that its local roads, 64% of the network, average a PCI of 37, while arterials average 78 to 80. Its own page says “high-use roads receive more funding.”

37
Average PCI of County local roads — the class our four streets fall in
78–80
Average PCI of arterials, the roads its page says receive more funding
64%
Share of the County network that is local roads scoring 37
2ND LOWEST IN THE BAY AREA Sonoma County’s road system ranks next to last in the Bay Area County road systems, 2024 Pavement Condition Index, three-year average.
Solano
81
San Mateo
74
Alameda
73
Contra Costa
71
Marin
67
Santa Clara
66
Sonoma
54
Napa
50
Bay Area average
67

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2024 (published November 2025).

NOT ON THE PAVING LIST District 1 on the 2026–27 resurfacing list Every District 1 segment, by listed condition and programmed cost.
ROADCONDITIONCOST
Napa RdVery Good$3,300,000
Arnold DrGood$1,100,000
Bennett Valley Rd (Enterprise–Yulupa Cr.)Good$900,000
Sonoma Mountain RdVery Poor$550,000
Bennett Valley Rd (N. of Walker)Good$450,000
Lomita AveVery Poor$400,000
Glenwood, Oakwood, Brookview, MaplewoodGlenwood: Very PoorNot listed

Source: County of Sonoma, Exhibit D, 2026–27 Modified List of Recommended Roads. District 1 total: 6 segments, 8.97 miles, $6.70 million.

Photographic evidence

Road surface conditions

Glenwood DriveAlligator cracking across both lanes, with failed patches mid-streetOctober 14, 2026 · Resident-submitted · photographer not recorded
Glenwood DriveGlenwood Drive near 970: cracked surface beside an old trench patchOctober 14, 2026 · Resident-submitted · photographer not recorded
Glenwood DriveGlenwood Drive near 970: open trench seam and a raveling potholeOctober 14, 2026 · Resident-submitted · photographer not recorded
Glenwood DriveGlenwood Drive near 970: cracking along the full curve to the curbOctober 14, 2026 · Resident-submitted · photographer not recorded
Glenwood DriveWorn, patched pavement and loose aggregate at the cornerOctober 14, 2026 · Resident-submitted · photographer not recorded
Glenwood DriveBroken asphalt along the curb lineOctober 14, 2026 · Resident-submitted · photographer not recorded
Maplewood DriveMaplewood Drive, October 24, 2026: severe alligator cracking and loose gravel · photo: Tom (sonomaroads.us)October 24, 2026 · Tom · sonomaroads.us

MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2026

Three written statements from Sonoma Public Infrastructure in 91 minutes

Two service requests went in that morning: No. 7181 (also No. 26-003080) at 10:50 a.m. and No. 7182 at 11:06 a.m. Here is what the County wrote back.

  1. 11:08 a.m.
    SPI ROAD MAINTENANCE · COPIED TO SUPERVISOR HERMOSILLO AND THE BOARD
    “Upon review, we acknowledge that Glenwood Drive Pavement Condition index (PCI) score is Very Poor. As such, SPI-RM will add your paving request to the Pavement Preservation Program list … Additionally, SPI-RM will review the road and mitigate any immediate hazards.”
  2. 11:16 a.m.
    SPI · REQUEST NO. 7182
    “We have previously received the same request, 26-003080 … This is a hazard and action will be take.”
  3. 12:39 p.m.
    SPI · SAME REQUEST, CLOSED
    “Our crews have assessed this issue and deemed there is no immediate hazard and thus no action is required.”

Glenwood Drive is not on the 2026–27 resurfacing list. On October 23 the Director of Sonoma Public Infrastructure wrote, “No work is currently scheduled.”

Two weeks later, residents still have not been told who wrote either message, which crews assessed the road, or what was found. No County official has walked these streets with a single resident.

TIMELINE

What residents sent, and what the County said back

  1. OCT 10 · 8:40 A.M.
    Notice 1: severe pavement degradation, about 30 years without resurfacing, sent to SPI and Supervisor Hermosillo. Notice 2 follows on October 11: a child’s bicycle crash on a concealed pothole, tire damage, and trip hazards.
  2. OCT 12 · 10:50 A.M.–12:39 P.M.
    Two requests submitted. The County acknowledges “Very Poor,” promises the paving list and hazard mitigation, writes “This is a hazard and action will be take,” then closes the request as “no immediate hazard.” Notice 3 goes out the same day: about 20 homes on Glenwood alone, and neighbors over 90.
  3. OCT 13–17
    Notice 4 (Oct 13) calls out “Very Poor” at 11:08 and “no immediate hazard” at 12:39. Notice 5 (Oct 14) documents sub-base failure from this year’s sewer and water line excavation, which was only patched. Notice 6 (Oct 15) sends the record to The Press Democrat after six days of out-of-office replies. On October 16 the Supervisor replies that the notices have been referred to Director Hoevertsz for a site visit (Notice 7). On October 17 she asks to remove the Clerk of the Board from the thread; residents decline (Notice 8).
  4. OCT 18
    Notice 9 announces the four-street Rancho Madrone coalition, with nine numbered requests: a lead official, the 91-minute closure, the inspection, the permanent-work pathway, jurisdiction and records.
  5. OCT 19–21
    Notice 10 (Oct 19): ten days of notices, still no engineering schedule or inspection date. Notice 11 sets an October 23 response date.
  6. OCT 21 · COUNTY
    The Director answers for the first time, by email to one resident alone. The Supervisor tells residents to report through SoCo Connect. Both mention, for the first time, a Deputy Director’s visit already made and an October 30 site meeting.
  7. OCT 22
    Notice 12, with a Public Records Act request. At 4:36 p.m. the County’s app says: “The County is scheduling your request.”
  8. OCT 23 · MORNING
    Notice 13, including the curb-ramp accessibility concerns.
  9. OCT 23 · 3:58 P.M. · COUNTY
    The Director acknowledges the records, ADA and preservation requests, and says maintenance is being addressed “with road safety a priority.” Notice 14 follows.
  10. OCT 23 · 6:04 P.M. · COUNTY
    “No work is currently scheduled.” The October 30 site meeting “is no longer necessary.” Notice 15 follows.
  11. OCT 24
    Notice 16, with the County’s own pavement data as Exhibit A.
  12. OCT 25 · COUNTY
    Request No. 7182 shows as closed. The County sends a survey: “let us know how we did.”
  13. OCT 26 · COUNTY
    Records request logged as No. 26-871. The Director’s seven-point reply defers the evaluator’s name to the records process. Notice 17 follows, signed “Remaining engaged.”
  14. OCT 27 · COUNTY
    The Supervisor adds Glenwood Drive to her District 1 road improvement list, points residents to her scheduler and Thursday’s advisory council meeting, and calls it her final personal response.
  15. OCT 28
    The joint residents’ letter goes to households for signature.

SCORECARD · AS OF OCTOBER 28

Asked, answered, still owed

ASKED

  • Rehabilitation of all four streets
  • A site inspection with residents present
  • Answers to Notices 1–17
  • Public records, now Request No. 26-871

WHAT THE COUNTY ANSWERED

  • Oct 12: “Very Poor” and “This is a hazard,” then “no immediate hazard” on the same request
  • Oct 23: “No work is currently scheduled”; site meeting cancelled
  • Oct 26: evaluator’s name, request status and evaluation date deferred to the records process
  • Oct 27: Glenwood added to the Supervisor’s District 1 road improvement list, which is separate from the paving list; staff assessed the roads, with no names or dates

STILL OWED

  • Residents requested by Oct 26: who evaluated the streets, how, and who cancelled the meeting
  • Residents requested by Oct 28, 5 p.m.: a site-walk date, interim measures, answers on October 12, PCI scores, rankings and the District 1 selection rationale
  • Reported CPRA determination date, Nov 2: records determination on No. 26-871; not full records delivery

Residents’ correspondence · October 10–28, 2026

Letters by date and subject

WHO DECIDES

Paving is approved by a majority of the five-member Board of Supervisors

“Larger road projects for new pavement requests are approved by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and contracts for pavement projects are managed by the SPI-Engineering Division.” SPI Road Maintenance, October 12, 2026

Sonoma Public Infrastructure recommends the resurfacing list; the Board votes on it at a public meeting. One supervisor alone cannot add a road.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

  • District 1 · Rebecca Hermosillo, 2026 Chair. Represents Rancho Madrone. Term runs to January 2029.
  • District 2 · David Rabbitt. Open seat on the November 3 ballot.
  • District 3 · Chris Coursey, 2026 Vice Chair.
  • District 4 · James Gore. Open seat on the November 3 ballot.
  • District 5 · Lynda Hopkins.

Meets Tuesdays · bos@sonomacounty.gov · (707) 565-2241 · 575 Administration Drive, Room 100A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403

SONOMA PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

  • Johannes Hoevertsz, Director. Oversees roads, transit, waste, airport and facilities.
  • Vanessa Garrett, Deputy Director, Engineering & Maintenance. Road projects and maintenance of the County road system.
  • Monique Chapman, Deputy Director, Transportation & Operations. Waste, small water systems, transit and fleet.
  • Rob Houweling, Road Operations Division Manager. Maintenance of the County’s 1,328 miles of roads.

The County still has not said which Deputy Director evaluated these streets. spi@sonomacounty.gov · (707) 565-2550 · Road maintenance (707) 565-5100 · 400 Aviation Blvd, Suite 100, Santa Rosa

DISTRICT 1 OFFICE

  • Katie Mason, District Director
  • Jessica Barajas, Board Aide and scheduler. The Supervisor’s calendar books about six weeks out.

District1@sonomacounty.gov

COUNTY EXECUTIVE

  • David Guhin, County Executive. Appointed by the Board; appoints and supervises the SPI Director and prepares the budget. Does not vote on the paving list.

(707) 565-2431 · 575 Administration Drive, Suite 104A, Santa Rosa

A SEPARATE BODY

The Sonoma County Transportation Authority is a 12-member regional board: nine city members and three supervisors (Hopkins, Coursey and Rabbitt). It decides regional Go Sonoma transportation funding, not the County’s paving list.

info@scta.ca.gov · (707) 565-5373 · 411 King Street, Santa Rosa

Where the paving money comes from

The Pavement Preservation Program list, Board file 2025-0533, covers two fiscal years: about $22.8 million for 2025–26 and $23.0 million for 2026–27.

Funding sources: the County General Fund, the state SB 1 gas-tax allocation, the Measure L transient-occupancy-tax share, refuse franchise fees, and aggregate road mitigation fees.

SPI builds the list from pavement data and field observation under its Road Evaluation Framework, which does not name specific roads.

Still unverified

Whether every segment of the four streets is County-maintained or private, and whether any future Board vote date has been set. Both questions are before the County.

November 3, 2026 election

Districts 2 and 4 are open seats on the ballot. District 1, which includes Rancho Madrone, is not on the ballot this year. Because the resurfacing list needs a majority of the Board, all five seats bear on whether these streets are funded. No County road-funding measure is on the ballot; road money comes through the annual budget.

Listed candidates: District 2, Joanna Paun and Sylvia Lemus. District 4, Tom Schwedhelm and Melanie Bagby. Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on November 3.

No supervisor seat is up in 2027. Districts 1, 3 and 5 run to January 2029 and are next elected in 2028.

Candidate list as published by the Sonoma Roads community site; confirm with the Sonoma County Registrar of Voters. Listed as ballot information only. This site makes no endorsement.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Fourteen households on all four streets

GLENWOOD DRIVE

  • Ben Putterman · 904
  • Sherry and Paul Michael Hartman · 912
  • Kathleen St. John · 941
  • Dave and Pam Palmgren · 964
  • Cessna Champion Barrett, Coordinator · 970

OAKWOOD DRIVE

  • Quetzal Fasel and Simon Blanchette · 838
  • Donald Dabney · 839
  • Marilyn Lewis and Scott Giomi · 846
  • Ty Caton · 849 & 851

BROOKVIEW DRIVE

  • Scott and Angela Landgraf · 15555

MAPLEWOOD DRIVE

  • Tom Proctor · 15559
  • Sue Keller · 15565
  • Bill and Sandy Morgantini · 15571
  • Bo Kearns · 15592

What’s next

MON, NOV 2 Reported Public Records Act determination date Request No. 26-871, counted from the original receipt dates of October 22 and 23, as the Director committed in writing.
BEFORE FRI, NOV 13 Residents request a site walk before November 13 Requested with road-maintenance and engineering staff. On October 26 the Director said staff would check whether one can be held.