Counsel failed to protect Riverside County
Recently, based on county counsel's recommendation, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors put forward a motion to certify the environmental impact report for the Liberty Quarry project. During this item's public comment, speakers made it quite clear that if the supervisors certified the EIR, this would result in litigation against the county.
After the certification motion was made, county counsel then introduced a non-agenized amendment which, in her words, would indemnify the county regarding the costs of litigation.
So where did this indemnification document suddenly come from? It certainly wasn't part of the counsel's published recommendation.
And what due diligence was done by county counsel in advance of introducing this amendment? San Bernardino County, which also had an applicant indemnification clause, was left "holding the bag" for approximately $700,000 in legal costs when the applicant went out of business.
Did counsel mention this risk? Did counsel bring up the financial standing of Granite Construction, which lost $58.9 million in 2010? Or propose requiring Granite to post a bond in case they are not later able to pay? Answers: No, no and no.
This County Counsel has placed Riverside County at serious financial risk, and citizens weren't even given a chance to comment on it.
Linda Kent
Temecula
No comments:
Post a Comment