MENDOCINO CO., 10/14/26 — Mendocino County’s civil grand jury asked the county to draft written rules by Thursday, Oct. 15, for applying state fire-safe law, including to homes built without permits. The county’s answer sets no date for that draft.
In its Sept. 1 answer, the Board of Supervisors said the procedure is “still being developed.” It said a draft is expected within 90 days after the county gets “complete and full information from Cal Fire.”
At the Sept. 1 meeting, Supervisor Ted Williams said he doesn’t expect the state to answer. “I think we have reason to believe we won’t receive a response from the state,” he said. Without an answer from the state, he said, “we would just be guessing.”
Supervisor John Haschak said the county was “kind of hamstrung a little bit because Cal Fire needed to respond and they are very busy right now.”
A civil grand jury is a panel of county residents who volunteer for a year to look into local government. State law requires the Board of Supervisors to answer each of the jury’s findings and recommendations.
What the grand jury found
In a June 24 report, the grand jury said the county’s Planning and Building Services department, known as PBS, approves permits for homes built illegally after 1991 without applying the state fire-safe rules. The department treats those homes as “pre-existing,” the jury said.
The jury traced the practice to Cal Fire’s fire prevention manual and to unwritten staff practice. The manual says, “The Mendocino Unit will not review State Fire Safe Regulation applications for any pre-existing, unpermitted structures.”
The state put the fire-safe rules in place in 1991. They cover buildings built after that, according to the grand jury. They apply in very high fire hazard severity zones and in the State Responsibility Area, where the state Board of Forestry and Cal Fire are mainly responsible for paying to prevent and fight wildfires.
The rules apply to each new building, not only to new subdivisions. In those areas, the county must tell Cal Fire about every building permit and every map that divides land, the report says. For a single home, the rules mean a road or driveway fire engines can use, a sign identifying the building, a private water supply kept for fighting fires, and fuel breaks.
What the grand jury asked for
The grand jury wanted written policies for every division of PBS. It asked for a draft by Dec. 1 and a final version by March 1, 2027. For the fire-safe procedure, it wanted a draft by Thursday, Oct. 15, and a final version by Jan. 1, 2027.
What the board said
The board did not reject any of the grand jury’s four recommendations. It said that all four “will be implemented in the future,” but on its own timeline.
For the draft of all department policies, the board said it will make the work a priority for PBS “prior to the BOS December 15th 2026 meeting.” For the final version, it set “a target of June of 2028.” It called the grand jury’s dates “unrealistic while PBS continues to provide the necessary daily operations.”
For both fire-safe items, the board’s timeline waits on Cal Fire. The board said PBS has asked Cal Fire and the state fire marshal’s office to explain in writing who is responsible for what.
The board said PBS has limited staff and must keep up with its daily work. “The Board does not intend to micromanage the Department Director or direct day-to-day workflow,” it wrote. The PBS director is to report on progress every three months through the county executive.
The board disagreed, wholly or in part, with 13 of the report’s 14 findings. It agreed only that PBS staff “are dedicated, hardworking individuals who desire a positive outcome for the public.”
The board disagreed wholly that the way PBS uses “pre-existing” gets around the fire-safe law. It also disagreed wholly that uneven enforcement opens the door to favoritism. It said PBS requires Cal Fire conditions and sign-off on permits where they apply, and the records it reviewed don’t show favoritism or bias.
Williams and Haschak were the board’s two-member committee on the answer. The full board approved the answer 5-0 on Sept. 1. No one from the public spoke on it.
Earlier reports
The grand jury had reported on the department three times since 2016, according to the June report. The board’s answer to the report in 2025 disputed all 15 findings. It turned down every recommendation but one, new software to track permits.
In its most recent June report, the grand jury said that the board’s response to the 2025 report was the only answer to its four 2024-25 reports that fell short of state law.
State law gives four ways to answer a grand jury recommendation. One is to say it will be done later, with “a timeframe for implementation.” The board gave that answer on all four recommendations this year.