Grand Jury Faults County on Fire-Safe rules
Supervisors task ad hoc committee with responding
Supervisors appointed a two-member committee July 21 to respond to a civil grand jury report criticizing the Board of Supervisors’ oversight of Planning and Building Services, after a District 5 resident said a known fire-safety gap was still open.
The 2025-26 report, “From Policy to Practice: Digging Deeper into the Board of Supervisors’ Oversight of Planning and Building Services,” was paired with a review of whether the county and other agencies properly responded to the previous year’s grand jury reports. Under state law, the board must respond to both.
Dee Pallesen told supervisors the county still has not fully implemented Public Resources Code Section 4290 and the state’s minimum fire-safe regulations — the same concern she raised in 2025, and the first recommendation of a 2024-25 civil grand jury report titled “Planning and Building Department Structural Issues: Exposing the Cracks.”
Pallesen said the board then directed the planning director to meet with CAL FIRE to resolve a discrepancy, and that the meeting never occurred. She said she contacted CAL FIRE herself and was told the agency cannot conduct a 4290 inspection without an application, and that the county is not referring all building permit applicants to the agency.
The first recommendation from the 2024-25 grand jury was for the board “to give direction to the Mendocino County Chief Executive Officer to instruct Planning and Building Services to immediately enforce Public Resource Code 4290 for all new permits pertaining to preexisting and habitable structures, commercial and industrial buildings, by July 1, 2025.”
The Board of Supervisors responded that “the recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. PBS complies with its responsibilities as it pertains to PRC section 4290 and follows the established CALFIRE procedure as provided in Attachments A and B.”
Supervisor Ted Williams, who served on last year’s grand jury ad hoc, said the process was frustrating. He described finding himself caught between a grand jury that believed one thing and county staff who maintained another.
Supervisor Madeline Cline asked whether she could reach out and have a conversation with the grand jury.
“I don’t really see a process for that,” Interim County Counsel Katharine Elliott said. She emphasized that supervisors needed to follow the grand jury’s policies and procedures, which are governed by state law. When pressed, however, Elliott said nothing prohibited Cline from reaching out.
Mulheren moved to appoint Williams and Haschak. The vote was 5-0.
Read additional coverage:
County Planning Director Resigns for New Job, as Grand Jury Report Faults Her Department (July 8, 2026)