“This is a hazard,” then “no immediate hazard,” on the same request

October 26, 2026

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ONLY

Dear Director Hoevertsz and Supervisor Hermosillo:

This is the seventeenth written notice concerning the Subdivision Roadways. It incorporates the prior notices and uses the terms defined in them. It concerns a written statement by SPI staff on October 12, 2026 that the County has not mentioned in any correspondence since.

Fourteen households on all four Subdivision Roadways now participate:

I. OCTOBER 12: THREE WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN 91 MINUTES

On October 12, 2026, the undersigned submitted two requests through SoCo Connect concerning Glenwood Drive: Request No. 7181 (26-003080) at 10:50 a.m. and Request No. 7182 at 11:06 a.m. At 11:08 a.m., SPI Road Maintenance replied by email to the undersigned’s formal notice of October 10, 2026, which had been sent to SPI, Supervisor Hermosillo, and the Board of Supervisors. The reply was copied to Supervisor Hermosillo and the Board (Exhibit A):

SPI ROAD MAINTENANCE · REQUEST NO. 26-003080 · OCTOBER 12, 2026, 11:08 A.M.“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, where roads are considered for pavement treatment. Additionally, SPI-RM will review the road and mitigate any immediate hazards.”

Eight minutes later, at 11:16 a.m., SPI wrote on Request No. 7182 (Exhibit B):

SPI · REQUEST NO. 7182 · OCTOBER 12, 2026, 11:16 A.M.“Thank you for this request. We have previously received the same request, 26-003080, and the status of this duplicate request will be ‘No Action Required’. Please ignore the automatic response. This is a hazard and action will be take. Thank you.”

Eighty-three minutes later, on the same request, SPI wrote the opposite (Exhibit C):

SPI · REQUEST NO. 7182 CLOSED · OCTOBER 12, 2026, 12:39 P.M.“Our crews have assessed this issue and deemed there is no immediate hazard and thus no action is required.”

Request No. 26-003080 was likewise closed on a finding of “no immediate hazard,” approximately 91 minutes after its 10:50 a.m. submission.

Supervisor Hermosillo and the Board of Supervisors have had written notice of these conditions since October 10, and of the County’s own “Very Poor” rating since 11:08 a.m. on October 12. Fourteen days later, no action has been taken. On October 23 the Director wrote, “No work is currently scheduled.” Within 83 minutes, on the same request, SPI stated in writing both that the condition “is a hazard” and that it is “no immediate hazard.” Both statements cannot be true.

II. QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE HAZARD DETERMINATION

Please answer in writing by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, with the substantive response already due that day:

1. The name and title of the SPI employee who wrote the 11:16 a.m. message, and the basis for the statement “This is a hazard.”
2. The name and title of the employee who wrote the 12:39 p.m. closure, and what information, inspection, or instruction reversed the 11:16 a.m. determination within 83 minutes.
3. Which “crews” assessed the condition between 11:16 a.m. and 12:39 p.m.: their names, the time they were dispatched, the time they arrived on Glenwood Drive, and how long they were there. SPI road maintenance operations are based in Santa Rosa.
4. Whether any County employee took a photograph on Glenwood Drive on October 12, and if so, when, where, and by whom.
5. Whether the County now takes the position that the condition is or is not a hazard.
6. What “action will be take[n]” meant on October 12, and why none has been taken.
7. On what date Glenwood Drive, and each of the other Subdivision Roadways, was added to the Pavement Preservation Program list as promised at 11:08 a.m.; which year’s list; and a copy of the entry. None appears on the 2026–27 list.
8. When SPI Road Maintenance “review[ed] the road,” who performed the review, and what “immediate hazards” were mitigated.
9. What interim safety measures, such as warning signage or hazard marking, the County will place on the Subdivision Roadways pending permanent repair, and when. Interim measures may not be used as a basis to close Request No. 7181.

Request No. 7182 and all associated entries, messages, and status changes are within the preservation request of October 22 and the Public Records Act requests of October 22 and 23.

III. CLOSURE OF REQUEST NO. 7182 AND THE CUSTOMER SURVEY

Request No. 7182 has now been closed. The County then sent the undersigned an automated invitation to “take our 60-second survey to let us know how we did” (Exhibit D). The closed request is listed as a “Pothole,” with an estimated resolution date of October 15, 2026.

SUPERVISOR HERMOSILLO’S ADVICE, OCTOBER 21On October 21, Supervisor Hermosillo’s response to this record was to direct residents to report road concerns through SoCo Connect or SPI Road Maintenance: to open a new ticket. The undersigned had already opened two, on October 12. Within 91 minutes they produced a “Very Poor” acknowledgment, two written promises, a written finding that “This is a hazard,” and a written finding of “no immediate hazard.” Both were closed. One was reopened only after ten days of written notices; the other has now generated a customer survey. That is the process residents were told to use again.

A request on which SPI wrote “This is a hazard and action will be take” has been closed with no action taken. This letter is the undersigned’s response to the survey. Please enter it in the survey record for Request No. 7182, and confirm that its closure does not affect the open status of Request No. 7181.

IV. THE DIRECTOR’S OCTOBER 26 RESPONSE

Before this letter was sent, Director Hoevertsz replied on October 26, 2026 to the October 24 letter (Exhibit F). His willingness to check whether a resident meeting can be held before November 13 is noted. The status of the items due today is:

A. “General Statements” and Specific Written Commitments

The Director writes that “general statements about road maintenance or technology do not establish a project commitment for a particular street.” The statements in Section I of this letter are not general. They were made in writing by SPI, on October 12, about this particular street:

• 11:08 a.m. “SPI-RM will add your paving request to the Pavement Preservation Program list.” “SPI-RM will review the road and mitigate any immediate hazards.”
• 11:16 a.m. “This is a hazard and action will be take.”

The October 26 response does not mention either commitment. Glenwood Drive is not on the 2026–27 list, and “No work is currently scheduled.”

B. The October 30 Meeting, Recharacterized

Residents were never told that October 30 was a staff-only visit. Whatever it was, the result is the same: no County official has met a single resident on these streets.

C. Winter Preparation

The Director writes that his team “is also preparing for El Niño and winter events” and therefore cannot confirm a meeting date. Residents’ concerns are winter concerns: drainage failure, standing water and mud at curb ramps, and loose material on a roadway the County rates “Very Poor.” Preparing these four streets for the wet season is winter preparation. Residents ask that interim drainage and hazard measures be placed before the first major storm.

D. Distribution, Fourth Time

The October 26 response was sent only to the undersigned, Dave Palmgren, Kathleen St. John, and Donald Dabney. It omitted Supervisor Hermosillo, the First District office, the Clerk of the Board, Sonoma Public Infrastructure, The Press Democrat, and the residents previously added to the distribution. This is the fourth response not sent to all recipients after three written requests. It is attached as Exhibit F and is now before all recipients.

E. Requested by 5:00 p.m., October 28, 2026

1. A date for the site walk with residents before November 13, with road-maintenance and engineering staff.
2. The name and title of the Deputy Director, and the status of Request No. 7181. These are operational facts, not records requests.
3. The name of the County’s ADA Coordinator, the date the grievance was routed, and its reference number.
4. Written confirmation that a preservation instruction has issued.
5. The interim drainage and hazard measures to be placed before the wet season, and when.

V. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST NO. 26-871

This morning, October 26, 2026, the County’s public records portal confirmed that the residents’ request has been logged as Public Records Request No. 26-871 (Exhibit E). The confirmation cites Government Code section 7922.535.

DEADLINE UNCHANGEDThe requests were received on October 22 and October 23, 2026. On October 23, Director Hoevertsz wrote that the County “will meet the applicable statutory response deadlines based on the original dates of receipt.” Logging the request on October 26 does not move that date. The determination remains due on or before November 2, 2026.

Please confirm in writing by October 28, 2026:

1. That Request No. 26-871 covers every item in the October 22 request (items 1–7) and the October 23 supplemental request (items 8–12), and if not, the number assigned to any item not included.
2. The name and contact information of the records coordinator assigned to Request No. 26-871.
3. That the records of Request No. 7182, including its 11:16 a.m. and 12:39 p.m. entries and any crew dispatch or photograph records for October 12, are included.

VI. 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.

VII. 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.

The Director has thanked residents several times “for remaining engaged.” Residents of all four Subdivision Roadways will remain engaged until these roadways are safe and repaired.

Remaining engaged,

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

EXHIBIT A

SPI Road Maintenance email on Request No. 26-003080 · October 12, 2026, 11:08 a.m., replying to the October 10, 2026 notice

Reproduced as received; link to the County’s Pavement Preservation page omitted.

Text of both messages as received, including the original wording “action will be take.”

Exhibit D text as received. Exhibit E is summarized here; the letter as sent includes a screen capture.

EXHIBIT F

Email from Director Johannes Hoevertsz dated October 26, 2026

Reproduced as received. Not addressed to Supervisor Hermosillo, the District 1 office, the Board, SPI’s general address, The Press Democrat, or residents previously added to the distribution.