Desert Hot Springs Local News and Opinion from DHS friends Get desert local news from the number 1 source of breaking news in Desert Hot Springs

Return to FODHS Home Page

It Was The Council
Who really wants the windmills in Desert Hot Springs?

A fight is getting ready to be waged in an attempt to stop the placement of windmills very near Desert Hot Springs. The planned placement of these windmills is a story first reported here on FODHS. Now FODHS has another "first" on this saga of a council that does and a council that does not want windmills.

Our very own city council (that would be the past city council controlled by former Mayor Matt Weyuker and council members Mary Stephens and Hank Hohenstein) approved the windmills.

That's because the past city council already approved them for the very locations that have been applied for.

It took a long struggle since we first reported this story back in May and many FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests to get this confirmation. Finally the city relented and supplied a copy of the zoning maps we repeatedly requested (more on that effort later).

And there is irony a-plenty in what we found.

Riverside County planning commission/supervisors zoned the areas as "Estate Density" Residential. In other words, homes with large parcels. Our very own DHS city council under the Weyuker/Stephens administration zoned the same area as I-E, meaning "Industrial Energy". They in the city's "Draft" General Plan and it has remained there.

By all written records and actions of the past council, it is clear the city wants windmills. But now they find a group that will cheer them on if they oppose the windmills. So quess what. Even though they are officially on record supporting the windmills, publicaly the tell their "supporters" they are against them.

We have pointed this out to the people protesting the windmills on numerous occasions but not once have they asked the council trio to change the designation. That was well before the latest vote to approve the new windmills.

Additional Note: Stay tuned! We hear developers are mounting a fight to oppose the windmills. If Mary and Hank try to come out as hero's in that fight, remember, they put it on paper.

And here is the technical stuff and links...

Riverside County Scoping for Dillion Wind Project PDF 
http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/hearings/pc/2006/pc062806_agenda/sr_7.1.pdf
Hune 28 Riverside County Planning Comission.  7.1 FAST TRACK COMMERCIAL WECS PERMIT NO. 116, VARIANCE NO. 1797 (FTA-2005-17), are applications submitted by Dillon Wind, LLC,  REQUEST: the project proposes to construct and operate up to 21 wind energy turbines and 1 meteorological tower west of the Devers Substation on land owned by SCE known as Area 1, with a variance to reduce scenic and wind access setbacks for WCS116 and FAST TRACK GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 811 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7346 / COMMERCIAL WECS PERMIT NO. 117 / VARIANCE NO. 1798 (FTA-2005-17), are applications submitted by Dillon Wind, LLC  REQUEST: the project proposes to amend the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan from “Estate Density Residential” (2 AC Min.) to “ Rural Desert ” (10 AC Min.); a change of zone from Controlled Development (W-2) to Wind Energy (W-E); 
http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/hearings/pc/2006/pc062806_agenda/pc062806.html  

 

 

Return to FODHS Home Page

Funny 
Video Alert
Click Here for
President Bush's
Recent Border Speech
 

 Immigrant Updates & Send  Faxes To Your Rep's 

 Whistleblower Suit 

See FODHS Whistleblower Lawsuit Page
Former police chief, Roy Hill,  Kathy Ward & Laurie Sculley say they  were also fired for exposing Hanson land deal and salary contract. 
Ann Marie Gallant was also once fired for exposing corruption of the  Carson City Council 


New Spotlight On
DHS Blight Page

Legal stuff here!

Any statements from these letters should be verified prior to being relied upon as being factual. We believe that the information is true when we post it within these letters. Even so, the reader should question and investigate the information provided as to its truth fullness.   Even though we feel that the information is true, no one should rely on any information provided until it is verified as correct.   The views represented within these letters are not necessarily our opinion.

Please Note: We will attempt to correct any information we find to be false. We will not publish any information about a public figure that we "believe" to be "False" or have "actual knowledge of being false". (See Sullivan vs New York Times) Please let us know if you find any additional information regarding any posted statements herein.  The information posted here has had a very high probability of being factually correct.  We have tried to be diligent in our postings as to avoid any "reckless disregard" for the information presented (expanded Sullivan Rule). The letters are provided a "Matter of Public Concern" therefore are "Common Law Privilege" (See Sullivan vs New York Times).  These letters are posted as citizen opinions under the First Amendment Right. In 1974, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 418 U.S. 323 there is no such thing as a false idea.  Even obvious sarcasm is not liable per 1988 ruling in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46. This forum of letters is a constitutional privilege of "neutral reporting" per Edwards v. National Audubon Society.