The Anatomy of a Controversy
Part 3 Of A 3 Part Series
By Tim McCaffrey
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
Note: This article summarizes portions of the 2025–2026 Tuolumne County Civil Grand Jury report, Behind the Devastation: Tuolumne County Community Development Department. The Grand Jury’s findings represent its conclusions based on its investigation. County officials and agencies have the opportunity to respond as required by California law.
The Grand Jury did not begin with the High School Road project. It began by looking into the Community Development Department, also known as CDD, and the staffing crisis that unfolded there during 2025. But as the investigation continued, the Grand Jury says it was led to questions about conflicts of interest involving a member of the Board of Supervisors, CDD staff, and a development project in Jamestown (That project is located at 17411 High School Road).
According to the report, the project belongs to Supervisor Mike Holland through Granite Land Holdings. The proposed development is a complex of eight large storage buildings in Jamestown.
What began as a development project became something much larger. The Grand Jury says it raised concerns about permitting, interagency coordination, regulatory compliance, fire safety, conflict-of-interest procedures, and public confidence in county government.
That is why this matters. Not because of one property. Because the public has a right to know whether the same rules are being applied to everyone.
The Project
According to the Grand Jury, Holland acquired the High School Road property in 2019. That same year, Tuolumne County Fire issued a letter to CDD listing seven conditions that needed to be addressed before any building permits were issued.
Two of those conditions are especially important.
The report says fire officials required that the necessary water flow be tested and approved before building permits were issued. The report also says a letter from Tuolumne Utilities District was required confirming that the necessary fire flow was available to the project site.
The Grand Jury states it was unable to confirm that either of those conditions were met or completed.
In 2021, CDD approved a Site Development Permit for the project, subject to roughly 60 conditions. In 2022, a grading permit was issued allowing about 12,833 cubic yards of grading.
By 2023, significant excavation and site preparation had begun. Public complaints followed, including concerns about drainage, excavation, work allegedly inconsistent with approved plans, and possible impacts to neighboring properties.
This is where the timeline begins to matter.
The report does not describe a simple disagreement over one permit. It describes a long, complicated series of events involving CDD, Public Works, Environmental Health, Tuolumne County Fire, TUD, the CAO’s office, Amador County, and the Board of Supervisors.
That is a lot of government machinery for one project. And according to the Grand Jury, the machinery did not work cleanly.
The Permitting Questions
The Grand Jury found that a substantial portion of the work performed on the High School Road project appeared to have occurred without appropriate permits in place.
That is a serious statement.
The report discusses grading and site development activities that began before all required approvals were secured. It also discusses work on Building C, which included office and residential components, and states that unresolved structural, life-safety, and fire-safety issues remained before a full building permit could be issued.
The report also says that in April 2025, seven of the previously issued “foundation only” permits were reissued as “structural only” permits. A structural-only permit, according to the report, allows construction of the building’s exterior walls. It does not allow electrical work, water, interior walls, doors, flooring, insulation, lighting, or sprinklers.
The Grand Jury later concluded that additional work occurred beyond what those permits allowed.
This is one of the central points of the report. The issue was not simply whether paperwork was confusing. The issue was whether the project moved forward while required approvals, inspections, and documentation were still unresolved.
The Conflict of Interest Policy
One of the most important sections of the report concerns the county’s new conflict-of-interest policy.
On June 3, 2025, the Board of Supervisors amended its Governance Manual to allow the county to contract with another local agency to perform county services or functions when a conflict of interest exists involving a Board member, public official, or employee.
In theory, that kind of policy could make sense. If an elected official has a project that must be reviewed by county staff who ultimately answer to the Board, there is at least the appearance of a conflict. Sending that review to an outside agency could be presented as a way to protect impartiality.
But the Grand Jury raised several concerns.
First, it found that other conflict-resolution tools already existed, including disclosure, recusal, appeals, outside consultants, and existing administrative review processes.
Second, the Grand Jury found that internal discussions about outside review for Supervisor Holland’s project had already occurred before the Board formally adopted the new policy.
Third, the report says several supervisors told the Grand Jury they did not know Holland’s active development project would be subject to the new policy so soon after it was adopted.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Supervisor Holland participated in the vote approving the new conflict-of-interest policy.
The Grand Jury did not make a legal determination about that vote. But it did conclude that the circumstances created concerns about transparency, impartiality, and public trust.
That is the central theme of this entire series.
Public trust is not just about whether something is technically legal. It is also about whether the process looks fair to the people watching.
Why Amador County Became Involved
After the conflict-of-interest policy was adopted, Tuolumne County sought outside assistance for the High School Road project.
According to the report, Mono County and Mariposa County declined to participate. Amador County agreed to provide review services.
The Grand Jury notes that Amador County was the same county Supervisor Holland had previously used in a public presentation comparing CDD operations. The report says it found no evidence that the presentation influenced the selection of Amador County, but the sequence of events contributed to concerns raised by witnesses.
On July 1, 2025, Acting CAO Roger Root sent a memo to Amador County requesting plan review, permit processing, and inspection services for the High School Road project.
But according to the Grand Jury, the scope of Amador County’s role was not clearly defined.
That matters because Tuolumne County remained the jurisdiction where the project was located. According to the report, Amador County officials later told the Grand Jury that they did not issue building permits for the High School Road project and did not have authority to issue permits for work in Tuolumne County. They said their role was limited to plan review and inspection services.
This became important because, in October 2025, the county issued a press release stating that Amador County had issued a permit for Building C.
The Grand Jury concluded that statement was inaccurate.
The Press Release
The October 10, 2025 press release from the County Administrative Office attempted to clarify questions about the High School Road project, including the hydrant and permit status.
According to the Grand Jury, the release contained statements that were misleading, inaccurate, or unsupported by available documentation and witness testimony.
The report specifically challenges the statement that Amador County issued a permit for Building C. The Grand Jury says Amador County denied issuing such a permit and explained that the document in question was used for internal tracking, not as an official building permit.
The report also questions the press release’s description of the fire hydrant as public and the claim that the hydrant installation complied with applicable codes.
This is not a small issue.
Official county communications matter. When the public is already asking questions, inaccurate or incomplete information from county leadership can make the situation worse.
The Grand Jury recommended that the CAO issue a corrected public statement with accurate and verified information.
The Hydrant
The fire hydrant is one of the strangest and most important parts of the report.
At first glance, a hydrant may seem like a small detail. It is not.
For a commercial storage project, fire flow, hydrant access, inspections, testing, and approval are major life-safety issues.
The Grand Jury found that the hydrant at the High School Road project was installed without a permit. It also found that qualified and certified personnel did not perform, document, or verify all required inspections, testing, and compliance evaluations needed to confirm that the installation met applicable fire safety standards.
The report also discusses whether the hydrant should be considered public or private. That distinction matters because public and private hydrants have different rules for ownership, installation, inspection, maintenance, permitting, and responsibility.
According to the Grand Jury, the hydrant appeared to have been improperly characterized as public. The report says there was no evidence that a qualified independent professional had certified the installation or documented that the hydrant met all applicable requirements.
The Grand Jury also included photos of the hydrant and noted concerns about accessibility for firefighters. Witnesses reportedly raised concerns about vegetation, placement, and whether emergency responders could quickly locate and access the hydrant during an emergency.
The Grand Jury did not determine whether the hydrant would function properly. But it did conclude that the lack of documented inspection, testing, and certification raised serious concerns.
What the Grand Jury Found
The findings related to the High School Road project are among the strongest in the report.
The Grand Jury found that Amador County did not issue a permit for the actual work performed on the project and that it was never within Amador’s scope to issue permits for work in another county.
It recommended that Tuolumne County hire qualified, certified independent third-party professionals to conduct a comprehensive review of the project. That review would examine grading, building, occupancy, fire protection systems, inspections, public safety regulations, and whether corrective action is needed.
The Grand Jury also recommended that any deficiencies be corrected at the property owner’s expense before the project advances further.
It further recommended that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued until qualified Tuolumne County CDD staff verify that all applicable county requirements, including fire and life-safety standards, have been fully satisfied.
On the hydrant, the Grand Jury recommended a comprehensive review by appropriate agencies and stated that the county should not accept the hydrant as a “donation” until permitting, inspections, corrections, and fees are complete.
The Grand Jury also recommended that the county rescind the agreement with Amador County related to the project and return review, inspection, and regulatory responsibilities to Tuolumne County.
Finally, the report found that Supervisor Holland’s actions while serving on the Board raised concerns regarding compliance with county governance policies and ethical standards, and that those actions undermined public confidence in county government.
That is a serious conclusion.
Why This Matters
It would be easy to make this story about one supervisor.
That would also be too small.
The larger issue is whether Tuolumne County has clear, fair, and consistent processes when public officials have private business before county departments.
What happens when a supervisor owns a project that needs permits?
What happens when county employees are asked to review a project belonging to someone with power over their department?
What happens when a new policy is created and quickly applied to a sitting supervisor’s project?
What happens when another county is brought in but the roles are unclear?
And what happens when the public gets conflicting information from official county sources?
Those are not personal questions.
They are governance questions.
The Grand Jury’s report argues that the High School Road project became a case study in what happens when conflict-of-interest concerns, weakened staffing, unclear procedures, and public mistrust collide.
Whether readers agree with every finding is up to them.
But the report raises questions that deserve public attention.
What I think?
In certain circles the High School Road project has become one of the most talked about developments in Tuolumne County. But this Grand Jury report is ultimately about more.
It is about whether the public can trust the process. That matters for every homeowner, builder, contractor, business owner, and taxpayer in Tuolumne County. If the rules are difficult, they should be improved. If permits take too long, the process should be made more efficient. If CDD has been inconsistent, that should be fixed.
But reform cannot mean special treatment. It cannot mean unclear side doors. It cannot mean the public is left wondering whether the same standards apply to everyone. A county that wants to grow needs a permitting system that is fair, efficient, transparent, and trusted. Right now, the Grand Jury is telling us that trust has been damaged.
The Board of Supervisors is required to respond. The public should pay attention to what they say next.
