Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers and engineers tell Trinity County supervisors permitting review is stalled; callers single out DOT engineer
Summary
Several applicants, consultants and residents told the board prolonged encroachment, grading and subdivision reviews are blocking development, in some cases for years. Multiple speakers named County DOT engineer Andy Pence as a bottleneck and asked the board for oversight, outside review or reform of review timelines.
During the public‑comment period the Trinity County Board of Supervisors heard multiple accusations from applicants and consulting engineers that the county’s permitting review process has become unpredictable and protracted, leaving projects stalled for years.
Several speakers described long, repeated review cycles and shifting requirements from the Department of Transportation that increased costs and caused delays. Richard Horde of Trinity Valley Consulting Engineers told the board that "the way Trinity County Department of Transportation, specifically county engineer Andy Pence, has consistently hindered the development of multiple projects in this county," and urged board oversight or outside review to break what he characterized as a systemic bottleneck.
Other commenters reported similar experiences: one applicant said a grading permit (DP25‑10) has been in review since March 2025 and that successive rounds of new requirements have undermined a predictable approval pathway; another speaker said an encroachment project had been stalled for nine years. Several commenters said they had hired multiple engineering firms and spent substantial sums only to see fresh requirements issued late in review cycles.
Legal and procedural context: Lisa Wright cited the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code §65920), explaining state timelines for completeness review (30 days) and overall approval windows (60–180 days depending on environmental review). She asked the board to direct staff to provide a written explanation of how the county implements the statute and to identify gaps between practice and the statutory requirements.
Board response and next steps: Chair Carpenter (Chairman Carpenter Herz) acknowledged the concerns and said the board will check into the items raised through the CEO and department heads: "we will check into these items that have been brought before us today through our CEO and our department heads," the chair said. The board did not take immediate corrective action at the meeting beyond directing staff to review the complaints and report back.
Representative quotes: "This project has now been in review for a year...the issue is the lack of predictable consistency and filing process" — Ka Moa, applicant representative. "These are not isolated incidents...the Department of Transportation is the bottleneck and a gag point of many projects" — Richard Horde, Trinity Valley Consulting Engineers. "I am respectfully requesting the board direct staff to provide clear written explanation of how the county is implementing permit streamlining act...and identify any gaps" — Lisa Wright.
What the record shows: the meeting transcript records multiple, independent public commenters reporting multi‑year delays and identifying DOT review as the consistent point of frustration. County staff and the CEO were asked to follow up; the board did not commit to a specific staffing or procedural change in public session.
Provenance: public comment at SEG 1649–1871 (topicintro SEG 1649; topfinish SEG 1871) and continued comment and statutory references at SEG 1881–1955.
