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?
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.
RANCHO MADRONE, SONOMA COUNTY · AS OF OCTOBER 27, 2026
Four streets need to be rebuilt, not patched.
The roads on Oakwood, Brookview, Maplewood and Glenwood Drives in Rancho Madrone are in such bad need of repair that it has become a major issue for this part of the County. Longtime residents say the road has been repaved once since 1955. Conditions are now a public safety hazard in many ways, and wheelchair access on the street is impossible.
OUR ONE ASK
Rehabilitate Oakwood, Brookview, Maplewood and Glenwood Drives.
Not yet verified: whether each street segment is County-maintained or private, and any future vote date.
REVIEWED OCTOBER 28, 2026 · COUNTY REPLIES THROUGH OCTOBER 27
Where things stand
- County rates these roads “Very Poor.” The County’s own standard is that Very Poor means rehabilitation, not patching.
- Residents requested answers by Oct 26, 5 PM. The collected replies do not resolve the Day 16 questions about the evaluation, Request #7181, ADA routing, and records preservation. This was a correspondence request, not a statutory deadline.
- Residents requested answers by Oct 28, 5 PM: a site-walk date before Nov 13, interim measures, answers on the Oct 12 statements, and each street’s pavement data and selection rationale. No completed response is recorded in this collection.
- Reported CPRA determination date: Nov 2. CPRA #26-871; the Director’s correspondence reports the date from the original receipt dates. A determination is not the same as full records delivery; any lawful extension must be tracked separately.
- Next public meeting: joint Municipal Advisory Council meeting on Sonoma Valley infrastructure, Thursday Oct 29, 5:30 PM, Lomita Service Center, Lomita Avenue, Sonoma.
- Overall tone of the County’s replies so far: polite dismissal. The County has answered process and deadlines, not the questions asked, and the supervisor has closed her personal channel.
CORRESPONDENCE RECORD · NEWEST FIRST
Twenty-three dated entries, October 10–27
- 23 · Oct 27, 2026Supervisor Rebecca HermosilloCounty
Added Glenwood Drive to her District 1 road improvement list, which is separate from the Pavement Preservation Program list. Said County staff (PI) assessed the neighborhood roads when a meeting was cancelled, but gave no evaluator name, date, or staff names.
“While I respect your right to advocate for your community and use AI as a resource, many of the daily AI-generated emails you have sent contain inaccurate assumptions about County procedures, timelines, and administrative obligations.”
“This will be my final personal response to this ongoing series of daily emails.”
Overall tone: polite dismissal. The reply thanks residents, corrects them, explains the County process, and closes the door, in that order. It grants one thing, Glenwood on the supervisor’s District 1 list, but answers none of the questions residents asked.
Not answered: Deputy Director name · who performed the evaluation · whether road or engineering staff took part · how the evaluation was conducted · who decided it replaced the meeting · Request #7181 status · ADA routing · preservation confirmation.
Disclaimers: this site’s answer to the accuracy, real-estate, and AI points in this reply.
More detail
What she granted: Glenwood Drive on her District 1 road improvement list (her list, not the Pavement Preservation Program list); confirmation that PI assessed the neighborhood roads when a meeting was cancelled; confirmation that the CPRA response follows statutory timelines, not correspondence deadlines; her calendar books about six weeks out; an invitation to the joint MAC meeting Thursday Oct 29, 5:30 PM, Lomita Service Center; and a channel left open for new or substantive safety-hazard information.
- 22 · Oct 26, 2026SPI Director Johannes HoevertszCountySaid “general statements” about road maintenance do not establish a commitment for a particular street. Deferred the Deputy Director name, open-request status, and evaluation date to the PRA process.
More detail
Gave El Niño and winter preparation as the reason no meeting date can be set. Noted ADA grievance routing and records preservation without confirming either.
- 21 · Oct 26, 2026Day 17 formal noticeResident noticeAddressed the Oct 12 written hazard determination, the Director’s Oct 26 response, and CPRA #26-871. Fourteen households across the four streets now participate.
- 20 · Oct 26, 2026, 7:44 AMCounty · CPRA confirmationCountyCPRA #26-871 was submitted; the County confirmed it is being processed under Government Code 7922.535. Determinations are due Nov 2.
- 19 · Oct 24, 2026Day 16 formal noticeResident noticeAsked who did the Deputy Director evaluation, how it was done, and who decided it replaced the meeting. Also asked for County pavement data and how the County’s public statements match the record.
Read source notice · October 24, 2026
More detail
Residents understood Monique Chapman to be the Deputy Director. The County has not confirmed any assignment in writing; the Director deferred the name to the PRA process. By Oct 28, residents asked for each street’s PCI and pavement-management ranking, and why two Very Poor District 1 roads were picked for 2026–27 and these four were not.
- 18 · Oct 23, 2026Day 15 formal noticeResident noticeRecorded the County’s cancellation of the Oct 30 site meeting and escalation to Supervisor Hermosillo. The matter was going to counsel review.
- 17 · Oct 23, 2026Day 14 formal noticeResident noticeRecorded that the County answered none of the Oct 23 items. Set new deadlines for Oct 26, Oct 28, and Nov 2.
- 16 · Oct 23, 2026SPI Director Johannes HoevertszCountyReplied to the Day 13/14 correspondence. It answered none of the Oct 23 items, according to the Day 14 notice.
- 15 · Oct 23, 2026Day 13 formal noticeResident noticeGave notice of the Oct 23 deadline.
- 14 · Oct 22, 2026Day 12 formal noticeResident noticeAddressed the Oct 21 correspondence and a Public Records Act request.
- 13 · Oct 21, 2026Day 11 formal noticeResident noticeRecorded administrative silence and requested an Oct 23 response.
- 12 · Oct 19, 2026Day 10 formal noticeResident noticeRecorded ten days without answers and demanded a site inspection.
- 11 · Oct 18, 2026Day 9 formal noticeResident noticeAddressed coalition expansion and a review of County commitments.
- 10 · Oct 17, 2026Day 8 formal noticeResident noticeEscalated the matter to SPI Director Hoevertsz. Continued the daily record and site audit.
- 09 · Oct 15, 2026Day 6 formal noticeResident noticeAddressed refusal of hazard mitigation, a case closure that conflicted with the record, and unanswered Board notices.
- 08 · Oct 13, 2026Day 4 formal noticeResident noticeAddressed refusal of hazard mitigation, a case closure that conflicted with the record, and unanswered Board notices.
- 07 · Oct 12, 2026, 12:39 PMSPI Road MaintenanceCounty“No immediate hazard and thus no action is required.”
- 06 · Oct 12, 2026, 11:16 AMSPI Road MaintenanceCounty“This is a hazard and action will be take.”
- 05 · Oct 12, 2026, 11:08 AMSPI Road MaintenanceCountyAcknowledged Glenwood Drive’s “Very Poor” rating. Committed to add the street to the Pavement Preservation Program list and to “mitigate any immediate hazards.”
- 04 · Oct 12, 2026County · Request createdCountyCreated Request #7181 for Glenwood Drive, classified as “Pothole.” Request #7182 was later closed.
- 03 · Oct 12, 2026Day 3 formal noticeResident noticeDay 3 formal notice sent.
- 02 · Oct 11, 2026Day 2 formal noticeResident noticeDay 2 formal notice sent.
- 01 · Oct 10, 2026Day 1 formal noticeResident noticeRaised thirty-year infrastructure neglect and a public safety hazard on Glenwood Drive.
The full text of the notices is on the Early Notices page and the numbered notice pages.
Residents’ correspondence · October 10–28, 2026
Letters by date and subject
Notices 1–10
Initial road concerns, County hazard messages, and coalition formation
Read letterOriginal PDF not in this collectionNotice 11
Unanswered referral and requested October 23 response
Notice 12
October 21 replies, public records request, and preservation notice
Read letterOriginal PDF not in this collectionNotice 13
Requested response date, reopened request, and curb-ramp access
Read letterOriginal PDF not in this collectionNotice 14
Response to the Director’s afternoon email
Read letterOriginal PDF not in this collectionNotice 15
Cancellation of the October 30 site meeting
Read letterOriginal PDF not in this collectionNotice 16
Road evaluation questions and County pavement data
Read letterOriginal PDF not in this collectionNotice 17
Hazard messages, the Director’s reply, and CPRA #26-871
Joint Residents’ Letter
Coalition response to the Supervisor’s October 27 email
DISCLAIMERS · IN RESPONSE TO THE OCTOBER 27 REPLY
On accuracy, motive, and the tools used
1 · Accuracy
The reply says the residents’ emails “contain inaccurate assumptions about County procedures, timelines, and administrative obligations.” It does not name one. Every fact on this page comes from the County’s own documents — emails, SoCo Connect records, the County’s published pavement scale, Legistar File 2025-0533 — quoted with dates.
If the County will identify any statement it believes is inaccurate, it will be corrected on this page the same day. That offer stands.
2 · Motive
The reply ties this campaign to “a real estate transaction.” Whether any resident is buying, selling, or staying has nothing to do with the neglect of streets the County itself rates “Very Poor.” That rating was issued on October 12, and it would read the same whether the resident who first raised it were moving or staying for life.
A hazard does not need a motive. A supervisor is elected to keep the streets safe for every household on them, and this record of twenty-three dated entries does not depend on any one resident.
3 · AI
The reply acknowledges AI used “as a resource.” Yes — openly. These notices and this site were drafted with assistance from Cessna AI Solutions. AI is a tool now used across public life: attorneys draft with it, judges cite it, and agencies and newsrooms use it daily.
The tool that drafts a letter does not change what the letter is drawn from: the County’s own words, dates, and ratings. A statement is accurate by whether it matches the record, not by how it was typed. Criticizing the drafting tool does not answer the County’s own “Very Poor” rating.
About this site
This site is a citizen record compiled by Cessna AI Solutions and the Rancho Madrone Neighborhood Coalition. County statements are quoted from emails and SoCo Connect messages received by residents, with dates, and sources are named throughout. It is not legal advice and does not speak for the County of Sonoma. Photographs are credited to the residents who took them and used with permission. If any statement here is shown to be inaccurate, it will be corrected.
SCORECARD
Asked, answered, still owed
What was asked
- Rehabilitation of the four streets. The County rates them “Very Poor,” and the County’s own standard is that Very Poor means rehabilitation, not patching.
- A site inspection or site walk of the four streets.
- Answers to the formal notices, Day 1 through Day 17.
- Public records: CPRA #26-871, submitted October 26.
What the County answered
- Oct 27: Added Glenwood Drive to Supervisor Hermosillo’s District 1 road improvement list. That is her list, not the Pavement Preservation Program list.
- Oct 27: Said County staff (PI) assessed the neighborhood roads when a meeting was cancelled. No evaluator name, date, or staff given.
- Oct 26: The SPI Director deferred the Deputy Director name, the request status, and the evaluation date to the public records process.
- Oct 12: Created Request #7181 for Glenwood Drive, classified as “Pothole.” No status given since.
- Oct 12: One hour apart, Road Maintenance wrote “This is a hazard and action will be take.” and “No immediate hazard and thus no action is required.”
What is still owed
- Residents requested by Oct 26, 5 PM: the Day 16 evaluation questions, Request #7181 status, ADA grievance routing, and records preservation confirmation. These remain unresolved in the collected replies; this is not a statutory deadline.
- Residents requested by Oct 28, 5 PM: a site-walk date before November 13, interim measures, answers on October 12, each street’s PCI and ranking, and the selection rationale. This is a correspondence request, not a statutory deadline.
- Reported CPRA determination date, Nov 2: CPRA #26-871. This concerns the determination, not delivery of all records, and is subject to any lawful extension.
WHO’S IN CHARGE · VERIFIED OCTOBER 24, 2026
Who decides, and how road money works
The Board of Supervisors
Board contact: (707) 565-2241, bos@sonomacounty.gov, 575 Administration Dr, Room 100A, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. Board meetings are Tuesdays.
The November 3, 2026 election
Only Districts 2 and 4 are on the ballot. Ballot listing only, no endorsement: District 2: Joanna Paun, Sylvia Lemus. District 4: Tom Schwedhelm, Melanie Bagby. Polls open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. No County road-funding measure is on the ballot; road money still comes through the annual budget.
How road money works
The PPP list in Legistar File 2025-0533 covers two fiscal years: $22,755,725 for FY 2025-26 and $23,004,111 for FY 2026-27. Sources: the County General Fund, the state SB1 gas-tax allocation, the Measure L transient-occupancy-tax share, refuse franchise fees, and aggregate road mitigation fees. SPI builds the recommended list from pavement data and field observation under the County’s Road Evaluation Framework, which does not name specific roads.
Beyond the Board
Not to be confused with the County list
The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) is a separate 12-member regional board (nine city members and three supervisors: Hopkins, Coursey as Vice Chair, and Rabbitt). It decides regional Go Sonoma transportation funding. It does not vote the County PPP list. SCTA: 411 King St, Santa Rosa, CA 95404, (707) 565-5373, info@scta.ca.gov.
2027 outlook
No supervisor seat is up in 2027. Districts 2 and 4 are filled by the November 2026 election; Districts 1, 3 and 5 run to January 2029.
Sources: Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Sonoma Public Infrastructure, Sonoma County Registrar of Voters, Legistar File 2025-0533.
GET INVOLVED
More voices help us be heard
Join your neighbors in asking for Oakwood, Brookview, Maplewood and Glenwood Drives to be rebuilt. Have a thought to share or want updates?
Email tom@sonomaroads.usContent and cover photo shared by Tom of sonomaroads.us, with permission.