Who evaluated our streets, public statements against the record, and the County’s own data

October 24, 2026

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY

Dear Director Hoevertsz and Supervisor Hermosillo:

This is the sixteenth written notice concerning the Subdivision Roadways. It incorporates the prior notices, including the three letters of October 23, 2026, and uses the terms defined in them. It concerns one question: who evaluated the Subdivision Roadways, and on what basis that evaluation replaced the October 30 site meeting.

I. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR’S EVALUATION

Director Hoevertsz wrote on October 21 that “Our Deputy Director was able to visit Glenwood Drive and the surrounding neighborhood streets ahead of our scheduled October 30 site meeting when an opening became available in her schedule.” On October 23 at 6:04 p.m., he wrote that the October 30 site meeting “is no longer necessary because the Deputy Director was able to evaluate the site earlier.”

The County has not named the Deputy Director in three emails. Based on the County’s published information, residents understand that official to be Monique Chapman. The County’s published descriptions of her role are:

THE QUESTIONNeither published description includes road maintenance, pavement management, or roadway engineering. On the same SPI organization page, the Director is the only official whose published responsibilities include road maintenance.

The County has relied on this evaluation to cancel the only site meeting residents were offered. Residents are entitled to know who performed it and how.

II. CONFIRMATIONS REQUESTED

Please confirm in writing, by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 26, 2026:

1. Whether Monique Chapman is the Deputy Director who evaluated the Subdivision Roadways. If not, the name and title of the official who did.
2. That official’s current title and responsibilities, and whether they include road maintenance, pavement management, or roadway engineering.
3. Whether that official is a licensed civil engineer, or was accompanied by a licensed engineer or SPI Road Maintenance staff during the evaluation, and if so, who.
4. The date, time, and duration of the evaluation, the streets covered, and whether it was conducted on foot or from a vehicle.
5. The method used, including whether a pavement condition or distress survey was performed and whether drainage, curb ramps, and pedestrian access were assessed.
6. Who directed the evaluation, and who decided that it made the October 30 site meeting unnecessary.

These are operational questions about an evaluation the County has already relied on, not records requests. The records of the evaluation remain the subject of the pending Public Records Act requests.

III. A SITE EVALUATION OF RECORD, WITH RESIDENTS PRESENT

If the evaluation was performed by an official whose responsibilities do not include roads, it cannot substitute for an engineering assessment of four roadways the County rates “Very Poor.” Residents again request a site walk, before November 13, 2026, with residents present, led by the SPI official responsible for road maintenance and accompanied by a licensed engineer. Its scope should cover pavement, sub-base, drainage, curb ramps, and sidewalks on all four Subdivision Roadways.

IV. THE DIRECTOR’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS ON ROADS

A. The July 15, 2026 “Explore with Gore” Interview

On July 15, 2026, Supervisor James Gore published an interview with Director Hoevertsz. The County-published description states that the Director “oversees everything from county roads and bridges to transit,” and that the conversation explores “maintaining roads,” how the County must “balance competing infrastructure priorities with limited funding,” and “why road repairs take time.”

By the County’s own description, county roads fall under the Director. Residents ask that the Director answer their questions about roads directly, and that the evaluation of record be performed under his direction by staff responsible for roads.

A resident of Walling Road in Geyserville commented publicly beneath that interview, asking about scheduled culvert and repaving work:

PUBLIC COMMENT, JULY 2026“We’ve tried to contact SPI before our July 28 Firewise Community meeting so we can update our neighbors. We’d like to understand the scope and timeline of this project!”

As of October 23, 2026, no reply from either official appears beneath that comment. Rancho Madrone residents are asking the same two questions: scope and timeline. They ask that these be answered in writing, and that the explanation of “why road repairs take time” be given here.

B. The November 5, 2026 Conference Session

Director Hoevertsz will speak at the Northern California Annual Public Works Conference on November 5, 2026, in a session titled “AI for Smarter Government: Analytics, Dashboards, Forms, Media.”

A CASE STUDYThe County’s own analytics rate Glenwood Drive “Very Poor.” Its online form closed residents’ request in 91 minutes. Its automated notification told residents the work was being scheduled, and the Director later wrote that no work is scheduled. Residents would welcome the Subdivision Roadways as a case study for that session, and ask that the County first apply the same analytics to answering the questions in this letter.

V. PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND THE RECORD

In public, County leadership speaks about roads as a priority. In this matter, its actions have not matched its words:

Sixteen written notices have now produced no site walk with residents, no scheduled work, and no named decision-maker. Residents ask for actions that match the County’s public statements.

VI. THE COUNTY’S OWN PAVEMENT DATA

Exhibit A compares the County’s published pavement data with the condition of the Subdivision Roadways. The County’s own records show:

• “Very Poor” means a Pavement Condition Index of 0 to 24 on the County’s published scale, its lowest category. That is the rating the County acknowledged for Glenwood Drive on October 12.
• Local roads score lowest. The County reports that local roads, 64% of its network, average a PCI of 37, while arterials average 78 to 80. It states that “high-use roads receive more funding.”
• The 2026–27 resurfacing list funds roads already in good condition. Of the six District 1 segments on the list, four are rated Good or Very Good, including $3.3 million for Napa Road, rated Very Good. None of the four Subdivision Roadways appears.
• Sonoma County’s road system ranks next to last among Bay Area county road systems, at 54 against a regional average of 67 (MTC, 2024).

Residents ask the County to state, by the October 28, 2026 response, the current PCI of each of the four Subdivision Roadways, their ranking in the County’s pavement management system, and why two District 1 roads rated “Very Poor” were selected for 2026–27 and these were not.

VII. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTIONS

All responses should be directed to every recipient of this letter. Any date not met will be noted in the record.

VIII. REVIEW BY COUNSEL AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

This matter is under review by counsel, including the County’s handling of the Request and its treatment of the children, elderly residents, and taxpaying property owners who depend on the Subdivision Roadways. Correspondence should continue to be directed to the undersigned and to every recipient of this letter until further notice.

This letter is not intended as a complete statement of the relevant facts or of the rights and remedies of the undersigned or of other residents of the subdivision, all of which are expressly reserved. Nothing in this letter constitutes a claim under Government Code section 910 et seq. or a waiver of the right to present any such claim.

I look forward to your timely response.

Very truly yours,

Cessna Champion Barrett
Property Owner, 970 Glenwood Drive
Rancho Madrone Neighborhood Coalition Coordinator
Licensed California Real Estate Broker (DRE #01281555)

EXHIBIT A

Pavement Condition Comparison: Rancho Madrone and the County’s Published Data

1. Where Glenwood Drive sits on the County’s own scale

Source: Sonoma Public Infrastructure, Pavement Preservation page. Glenwood’s exact PCI value has not been disclosed, so the whole Very Poor band is shown.

2. Sonoma County’s road system ranks next to last in the Bay Area

County road systems, 2024 PCI, three-year moving average. Bay Area average: 67. Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2024 (published November 2025).

3. Sonoma County has stayed below the Bay Area average every year

Source: MTC, Pavement Condition of Bay Area Jurisdictions, 2022 and 2024 data tables.

4. District 1 resurfacing, 2026–27

Source: County of Sonoma, Exhibit D, 2026–27 Modified List of Recommended Roads. Countywide, the list funds 43 segments, 39.48 miles, $34.96 million. District 1: 6 segments, 8.97 miles, $6.70 million. “District” as labeled in the County’s list.