Tuolumne County Grand Jury • 2025-2026

2025-2026 Behind the Devastation: Tuolumne County Community Development Department Report

Published: June 26, 2026 80 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 19 findings

Budget cuts have led to concerns about future job loss, causing CDD employees to resign or retire prior to being let go. The perception of a poor employee pay structure, newly degraded work culture, and a lack of support from the Board of Supervisors has resulted in difficulty filling vacancies within CDD. Current staffing levels within CDD are not sufficient for maintaining minimum service levels without utilizing more costly third-party contracts.

Supervisor Holland’s presentation "Maybe Time for a New Approach” created a misleading comparison between the Tuolumne County and Amador County Community Development Departments by relying on staffing, budget, and permit processing comparisons between departments with materially different structures, responsibilities, and workloads.

The lack of definitive metrics/guidelines for permit approval time inhibits the ability to identify opportunities for improvement in the permit approval process and contributes to the poor public perception of the CDD. 45

The Board of Supervisors’ use of the Board Reports agenda section to deliver an extensive presentation criticizing the CDD immediately prior to the closed-session evaluation of the CDD Director created the perception of improper public discussion of personnel matters, undermined public confidence in Brown Act compliance and fair governance practices, and addressed matters not properly agendized while denying the public and the department a meaningful opportunity to comment or respond.

The timing and manner of the presentation, immediately preceding the CDD Director’s performance evaluation, contributed to the perception of intimidation, unfair treatment of county staff, and inconsistency in the personnel evaluation process.

CDD maintained a practice of applying unwritten “Tuolumne County” requirements in addition to formally adopted State codes and regulations, despite those local requirements not being formally codified or publicly adopted through the required legislative process. This practice contributed to project delays, increased costs, and frustration among applicants and contractors, and created a perception of inconsistency and inefficiency within the permitting process.

CDD routinely fails to rely on the expertise of engineer’s preparing plan documents and does not always accept plans when there is the presence of an engineer’s professional stamp on submitted plans.

CDD frequently provided applicants with incremental or successive correction notices during the plan review and permitting process whereby additional corrections or new requirements were often issued that had not been identified during prior reviews even after applicants had corrected identified deficiencies and resubmitted revised materials. This practice contributed to project delays, increased costs, and frustration among applicants and contractors, and created a perception of inconsistency and inefficiency within the permitting process.

CDD has demonstrated inconsistent enforcement of ordinance code and their level of flexibility for remediation of issues.

F10

The Board of Supervisors amended its Governance Manual on June 3, 2025, to include a Conflict-of-Interest provision establishing a mechanism for projects involving potential conflicts of interest to be reviewed by an outside agency when multiple conflict- resolution and review mechanisms already existed. The Grand Jury further found that 48 Supervisor Holland participated in discussions and voting related to the adoption of the Conflict-of-Interest provisions while having an active project that was subsequently subject to the policy. These circumstances created concerns regarding transparency, impartiality, and public trust.

F11

Policies and procedures governing the delegation of project review, permitting, and inspection responsibilities to an external agency under the Conflict-of-Interest provisions are not clearly defined. The Grand Jury found limited guidance regarding scope of authority, roles and responsibilities, communication requirements, documentation standards, and oversight of projects transferred outside Tuolumne County. In the case of the work sent to Amador County, the Grand Jury found that the solution to the problem was even more dysfunctional than the problem itself.

F12

The Grand Jury found limited transparency and project tracking when responsibility for review, permitting, or inspection is assigned to an external jurisdiction. This creates uncertainty regarding project status, decision-making authority, document retention, and accountability to the public.

F13

The Grand Jury was unable to identify an active Code Compliance Board within the County's current Code Compliance framework. Current County materials describe enforcement through the CDD and Chapter 1.10 of the Tuolumne County Ordinance Code but do not reference a functioning Code Compliance Board. The Grand Jury did not determine whether the Board was formally dissolved, whether its duties were reassigned, or when it last met.

F14

Amador County did not issue a permit for the actual work performed on the High School Road project, nor was it ever in their scope of work to issue permits for work performed in another County. Amador County officials stated that they assumed no responsibility for issuing permits for work done in Tuolumne County.

F15

The hydrant at the High School Road project was installed without a permit. While the Assistant CAO gave approval of the concept, formal written approval, and the extent to which such approval addressed installation, permitting, and compliance requirements is unclear. Qualified and appropriately certified personnel did not perform, document, or verify all required inspections, testing, and compliance evaluations necessary to confirm that the fire hydrant installation met applicable fire safety standards. As a result, the extent of the project’s compliance with applicable public safety and permitting requirements remains unclear.

F16

The Conflict-of-Interest provisions contained within the Tuolumne County Governance Manual state, in part, that “A County Board member shall not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use his/her official position to influence a governmental decision in which he/she knows or has reason to know that he/she has a disqualifying conflict-of-interest.” The Grand Jury also found that permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities conducted outside the normal jurisdictional structure reduced transparency, complicated oversight responsibilities, and contributed to confusion regarding authority, accountability, and applicable standards.

F17

Supervisor Holland’s actions while serving as a member of the Board of Supervisors, a position entrusted with maintaining the public trust, raises concerns regarding compliance with Tuolumne County governance policies and ethical standards. These actions undermine public confidence in Tuolumne County government.

F18

The Grand Jury identified a clear and recurring lack of understanding by County leadership regarding the complexities of permitting, code compliance, and inspection requirements. A notable example involved the distinction between public and private fire hydrants, including the differing permitting requirements, inspection standards, jurisdictional authority, and installation procedures applicable to each. Such misunderstandings contributed to confusion regarding compliance obligations, oversight responsibilities, and enforcement actions. The absence of sufficient technical familiarity with applicable building, fire, and public works requirements created the potential for inconsistent decision-making and increased risk to both public safety and County liability exposure. Your Grand Jury appreciates that the CAO has been tasked with doing multiple jobs concurrently and is making his best effort to meet expectations. However, the Grand Jury finds that technical, regulatory, permitting, and code-compliance determinations should be made only by appropriately qualified and authorized personnel within the applicable departments or by certified subject-matter experts.

F19

The Grand Jury determined that the press release issued by the CAO on October 10, 2025, contained statements that were misleading, inaccurate, or unsupported by available documentation and witness testimony.

Recommendations 10

R3

Residential, one- and two-family d IIIB 158.15 695 $109,914.25 PERMIT DECLARATION Permit fees are non-refundable unless in error. This permit expires if work is not commenced or if work is suspended for more than 180 days. After 180 days, plans will be destroyed. To continue with this project after the expiration date, new permit application, plans and all supporting documents must be provided, and new fees based on current valuation and ordinances must be paid. Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection and shall remain accessible and exposed for inspection purposes until approved per Section 109 of the California Building Code. I hereby acknowledge that I submitted this application and state that the information given is correct. I agree to comply with all county ordinances and state laws regulating building construction. Assessment Note: Improvements to your property may result in a change in your property assessment and a site visit from the Assessor’s office. Further information is available from the Assessor’s office at 810 Court St, in Jackson or by phone at 209-223-6351. Permit Issued To: Granite land Holdings Date: 08-Oct-2025 Reviewed By: Date: 08-Oct-2025 Additional Permit Notes/Comments/Requirements: PC 3.5 HRs PRP 09-29-2025 76
R6

The Board of Supervisors and CDD should ensure that all plan review and permitting decisions are based solely on formally adopted State and local codes; any additional local requirements should be clearly documented, formally adopted, and publicly accessible
R7

The Board of Supervisors and CDD should establish and adhere to clear guidelines for plan review involving professionally prepared and stamped engineering documents. Such guidelines should define the respective roles and responsibilities of design professionals and plan reviewers, while ensuring compliance with adopted codes by September 1, 2026. 47
R8

By October 1, 2026, the CDD should evaluate and improve its plan review and permitting procedures to promote greater consistency, completeness, and accuracy in applicant feedback. The CDD should make reasonable efforts to identify and communicate all known deficiencies and required corrections during the initial review stages in order to minimize repeated correction cycles, reduce unnecessary delays, and improve transparency and customer service throughout the permitting process.
R11

By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should develop and implement formal procedures establishing minimum requirements for 49 agreements with outside counties or agencies performing project review, permitting, inspection, or related functions under the Conflict-of-Interest provisions.
R12

By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should establish a policy requiring any outside jurisdiction performing work on behalf of Tuolumne County to provide regular written status updates and supporting documentation. Tuolumne County should maintain these records within its project tracking systems, including OpenGov or any successor platform, to ensure transparency, accountability, and continuity of oversight.
R13

By September 1, 2026, the Board of Supervisors should review the status, authority, and purpose of the Code Compliance Board and determine whether an independent local review body should be re-established, activated, or otherwise replaced to provide an additional layer of public oversight and accountability within the County's regulatory framework. HIGH SCHOOL ROAD PROJECT FINDINGS
R16

The Grand Jury recommends that Tuolumne County immediately rescind the agreement with Amador County related to permitting review, inspection, and regulatory services associated with the High School Road project, and that all such responsibilities be returned to the jurisdiction of the Tuolumne County Community Development Department and other appropriate County agencies.
R18

The Grand Jury recommends that the CAO immediately discontinue making independent technical or code-compliance determinations and instead defer such matters to qualified County staff, licensed professionals, or other properly authorized experts.
R19

The County Administrative Officer should, by August 1, 2026, issue a revised public statement or corrected press release containing accurate and verified information regarding the permitting status, hydrant classification, County involvement, and approval history associated with the High School Road project. Prior to release, the information should be reviewed for factual accuracy by the appropriate County departments and qualified personnel to ensure that future public communications are complete, accurate, and consistent with the documented record. 53