By clicking on the portal below you can download a PDF of the July 10 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 07-10-15

By Mark Gutglueck
(July 9) With the August 17 trial date for the city of Ontario’s lawsuit against Los Angeles to determine ownership and management of Ontario Airport fast approaching, the Riverside County Superior Court judge hearing the matter this week ruled that Ontario will be allowed access to some but not all of the larger city’s internal documents Ontario’s lawyers contend will help prove their case.
For forty years, the joint powers arrangement forged by Ontario and Los Angeles in 1967 to have Los Angeles manage and operate Ontario Airport was considered to be highly beneficial to Ontario. The airport, which in 1967 saw fewer than 200,000 passengers pass through its gates, experienced unprecedented growth under Los Angeles’s tutelage, servicing 7.2 million passengers in 2007. Along the way, Los Angles instituted over $500 million worth of improvements to the airport, including paving its gravel parking lot, laying down a second and entirely new east-to-west runway over its obsolete northeast-to-southwest landing strip, and modernizing its existing east-to-west runway, including the widening of taxiways and the addition of storm drains. Ontario Airport’s landing and take-off paths were converted into the longest such civilian facility in Southern California, and Los Angeles further modernized its control tower, and constructed two ultra-modern terminals at a cost of $270 million, augmented with a world class concourse.
With the recession that hit the nation, state and region in 2007, however, ridership at Ontario Airport dropped off precipitously and continued to steadily decline for the next six years, reaching a low of 3.9 million in 2013. In June 2007, Gina Marie Lindsay, who had been the airport manager at Seattle Tacoma Airport, was hired as the executive director of Los Angeles World Airports, the corporate entity owned by the city of Los Angeles which operates Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International Airport and Norwalk airport. Beginning in 2007, Los Angeles began an energetic modernization and expansion effort at Los Angeles International Airport. As a consequence of those improvements, and because airlines in response to the economic downturn began phasing out many flights to outlying hub airports such as Ontario while stepping up flights to airports located within major population centers, Los Angeles International saw its passenger totals increase.
By 2010, Ontario officials were becoming increasingly dismayed at the contraction of operations at Ontario Airport. Because the downturn in flights to Ontario and the improvements at/increased flights to Los Angeles International corresponded with Lindsey’s tenure, Ontario officials cited her management of Ontario Airport as a primary factor in the decline of Ontario Airport. They initiated a campaign to pressure Los Angeles to return ownership and management of Ontario Airport to the city in which it is located. When Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airport officials resisted those calls, Ontario escalated its efforts, ratcheting up the level of rhetoric and acrimony in the campaign, openly accusing Los Angeles of purposefully neglecting Ontario Airport or of mismanaging the facility as part of a strategy to increase passenger traffic in Los Angeles. Lindsey became the focus of this vituperative campaign. Despite a boyhood acquaintance which had evolved into a friendship between then-Los Angles Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa and Ontario Mayor Paul Leon, Ontario was not able to effectively convince Villaraigosa to negotiate a mutually acceptable accommodation with regard to Ontario Airport. Instead, Villaraigoas and other Los Angeles officials became increasing disturbed by Ontario’s aggressive tactics. Ontario officials next pinned their hopes on developing alliances with both of the candidates who qualified for the May 2013 run-off for Los Angeles mayor, Wendy Gruel and Eric Garcetti. Ontario officials expressed hope that they would be able to make headway in dealing with Garcetti, who proved the eventual victor. Nevertheless, in June 2013, just prior to Garcetti being sworn in as mayor, Ontario sued Los Angeles, using the high-powered and well-connected Washington-D.C.-based law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton, which also has an office in Los Angeles, to represent it.
Ontario aggressively pursued the lawsuit, and Ontario Councilman Alan Wapner, in particular, was highly visible and vocal in asserting Ontario’s position outside the context of the court and Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton’s court filings.
Ontario had five prongs in its suit. The first prong was that the entire deal between Ontario and Los Angeles was invalid in that the Joint Powers Agreement was flawed and unenforceable. The second prong was that the transfer of the airport to Los Angeles in 1985 was illegal in that it had taken place as a consequence of a simple vote of the city council and should have entailed a full vote of the city’s electorate. The third prong was that Los Angeles had breached its contract with Ontario contained in the terms of the joint powers agreement. The fourth prong was breach of the fiduciary duty Los Angeles has toward Ontario as a consequence of the joint powers agreement. And the fifth prong is breach of good faith and fair dealing on the city of Los Angeles’s part.
The case was filed in Riverside Superior Court to avoid any conflicts that might occur because of bias toward one party or another in San Bernardino or Los Angeles counties. Judge Gloria Connor Trask is hearing the case in Riverside.
With regard to the first two prongs, Trask in February ruled that Ontario’s efforts to have the 1967 joint powers authority agreement invalidated and 1985 agreement giving Los Angeles the airport declared void had come too late and were barred by the statute of limitations even if the agreement and the transfer were flawed on legal or procedural grounds.
With two-fifths of Ontario’s lawsuit wiped out, Ontario’s lawyers are yet progressing toward trial next month, hoping to successfully litigate the case based upon breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of good faith and fair dealing.
Last December, Ontario scored one of the few positive advances it has experienced in the case when Trask ruled that Los Angeles had to provide to Ontario over 2,000 internal Los Angeles city and Los Angeles World Airport documents sought by Ontario as part of the discovery process. Those included memos, emails, letters, communications and other materials relating to Los Angeles World Airport’s managerial and administrative actions regarding Ontario Airport. It is the theory of the Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton legal team representing Ontario, composed of attorneys Andre Cronthall, Scott Sveslosky and Catherine La Tempa, that among those documents is a smoking gun or several smoking guns showing that Los Angeles World Airport officials were indeed slighting Ontario Airport and doing so purposefully because they were trying to drive passengers away from Ontario to Los Angeles.
The attorneys for Los Angeles, however, did not fully comply with Trask’s order, claiming that 399 of the documents fall under attorney-client privilege, They appealed the ruling to the Fourth State Court of Appeals. Joshua Stambaugh, an attorney representing Los Angeles, asserted in January that many of the documents sought were communications from individuals who are not named in the suit and are not likely to be added as defendants to the suit. The self-evaluation and personnel files of a person who is not a defendant in the case are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the state Constitution’s right to privacy, Stambaugh said. Moreover, Stambaugh maintained that Los Angeles, in evaluating the sought-after documents, had learned that the 399 documents in question contain attorney-client information that is not discoverable.
In March the appeals court ruled that Trask should reconsider her decision. The appeals court did not direct Trask to prohibit Ontario from seeing any or all of the 399 documents in dispute, but suggested that a more rigorous evaluation with regard to them needed to be made.
After again hearing from Ontario’s lawyers on why they believe they have a right to examine the documents and after being briefed by Los Angeles’s lawyers as to why they consider the documents in question to be privileged, Trask this week provided her revised findings.
Ontario is not entitled to examine any of the documents it has sought from Los Angeles over which Los Angeles has staked a legitimate claim of attorney client confidentiality, Trask determined, basing that finding on what she said was a “boiler plate” assertion of attorney-client privilege made shortly after the litigation began in October 2013 relating to the documents. Since those documents are in fact privileged, Trask thus shut the door on Ontario either accessing them for evaluation or presenting them as evidence at trial.
“I don’t believe there is a waiver of either the attorney-client privilege or privacy,” Trask said. Trask directed Los Angeles to supply the court with a detailed list of the documents it has withheld from Ontario on the basis of attorney-client privilege together with an identification as to why the privilege applies. If Trask determines that the asserted privilege does not apply, it is possible those documents would be released, though that prospect is not likely.
The judge did make one finding in Ontario’s favor, ruling that the performance reviews given to Lindsey while she was Los Angeles World Airports’ executive director can be examined by Ontario. Los Angeles had asserted that Lindsey’s privacy rights as a public employee rendered the evaluations confidential and beyond the bounds of discovery. The judge did not uphold that claim, ruling that Lindsey’s expectation of privacy and the protection vouchsafed her under contract and law was “not absolute” and the court needed to “balance [Lindsey’s] right to privacy against the need for discovery. The balance weighs in favor of disclosure.”
Within the performance reviews, Trask said, will be an “assessment of whether or not she achieved her goals. Her goals may be very revealing and important to the issues at hand.” In essence, the judge suggested that the performance evaluations held the possibility of laying out whether or not Lindsey was being tasked by the city of Los Angeles to promote Los Angeles International Airport to the detriment of Ontario Airport, which, Trask said “is directly relevant to the issues in this action.” Trask gave Los Angeles 10 days to produce the documents relating to Lindsey. Lindsey stepped down as executive director of Los Angeles World Airports earlier this year after nearly eight years in the post.
On Thursday, Cronthall told the Sentinel, “Yesterday, Judge Trask granted in part and denied in part Los Angeles’s motion for privilege of certain documents. She ruled they were obligated within ten days to produce some performance evaluations for Gina Marie Lindsey, which by our count consists of approximately 113 pages. We will await production of those documents and evaluate them at that point. I can’t speculate or predict about what is in them until I see them. The judge also ruled the city of Los Angeles did not waive the right to attorney-client privilege over certain other documents we have sought. They have the same ten days to amend their privileged document log to include what they presume to be attorney-client privileged material. We will look and everyone will look at that and if it appears that they are properly described as attorney-client privileged, there will be no further issue. If it appears that they are not privileged or if there is controversy over that issue, there may be further conversation.”
Cronthall said that neither the judge nor a special master will be needed at this point to ascertain whether the documents in question are covered by attorney-client privilege. He said that based on the description of the documents which will include generic descriptions of the content, senders, recipients and participants, “we will be able to tell whether it is confidential or not or if it fits” the definition of confidential. He said it is possible that a document that was otherwise subject to attorney client confidentiality might lose that status and the confidentiality would be deemed “waived” if it was distributed to others beyond the law firm’s clients or the attorneys employed by the city of Los Angles and Los Angeles World Airports.

APPLE VALLEY—(July 8) As Apple Valley Town officials determinedly push forward with their effort to force their acquisition of the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company, deepening differences between town residents over the issue are developing.
Some residents, including powerful and influential members of the community, have signaled they are on board with the agenda to wrest the privately held company from one of the largest venture capital conglomerates in the world, potentially using the power of eminent domain to do so.
Others are questioning the wisdom of the move, asserting the acquisition cannot be effected cheaply, and that the stated goal of dampening the prospect of the town’s residents having to accept ever escalating water rates will prove unachievable, given the state of disrepair of the water company’s physical assets and the sheer cost of purchasing the system.
The Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company was created in 1945 by Newt Bass and B.J. Westlund as an adjunct to their real estate company, Apple Valley Ranchos, their undertaking to develop Apple Valley after they acquired 6,500 acres from the Southern Pacific Railroad for $2.50 per acre. Their intention was to install the minimum amount of infrastructure to support the construction of subdivisions and make the community grow, anticipating that as Apple Valley matured, that infrastructure would be replaced by higher quality pipes, reservoirs, pumping units and appurtenances. It would turn out, however, as the town was built piecemeal, the water company merely expanded with it, a hodge podge of water mains and lines built one after the other, patched together in correspondence to the new development it was called upon to serve.
In 1987, Park Water Company, which provides water to Compton, Downey and Norwalk in Los Angeles County and was then owned by the Wheeler Family, acquired the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company. When the town incorporated in 1988, city officials had the opportunity to purchase the company for $2.5 million, but declined, choosing not to convert the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company to a municipal division, concerned less about the initial expense of acquiring the utility than with the projected ongoing and constant costs of having to repair, upgrade and maintain the system. In 2011, the Carlisle Group acquired from the Wheeler Family at a cost of $102.2 million the Park Water Company, which in addition to its Los Angeles County and Apple Valley holdings, also owns the Mountain Water Company, based in Missoula, Montana, serving some 50,000 people. The acquisition of Park from the Wheeler Family was part of the Carlyle Group’s long term investment strategy of acquiring assets that can immediately return money in terms of sales of a commodity, in this case water, to a reliable customer base, while representing a future sales profit potential, whether those assets are spun off individually or collectively.
In 2011, the town impaneled a so-called blue ribbon committee to consider acquiring Apple Valley Ranchos, but advised against it. Prevailing sentiment abruptly changed in 2014, however, when Park, after beginning to implement in 2012 rate increases on Apple Valley Ranchos customers totaling 19 percent. and then completing $8.1 million in capital improvements to the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company in 2014, instituted another 30 percent rate hike on Apple Valley Ranchos customers to be implemented from 2015 until 2017. Shortly thereafter, town officials began trading notes with Missoula city officials, where Park Water’s Mountain Water Company had likewise escalated rates.
Subsequently, the city of Missoula utilized its power of eminent domain to condemn and seek to acquire Mountain Water Company from Park Water Company. Mountain Water fought the takeover, but when the matter went to trial before Judge Karen Townsend in April it resulted in Townsend on June 15 entering a judgment in favor of Missoula.
Even before Missoula prevailed in that case, town of Apple Valley officials began angling to take Apple Valley Ranchos away from Park Water Company. As articulated by the town, it believes it will be able to purchase Apple Valley Ranchos through a financing strategy involving issuing bonds and that it will be able to service the bonded indebtedness and carry out improvements to the water system by means of the payments made to the city by water users/customers, i.e., the town’s residents. The town’s officials maintain that the revenue from the water sales will be dedicated solely to this bonded debt service and water division operations and maintenance. and can be effectuated without any water rate increases.
This scenario is highly dependent upon Park Water’s willingness to sell the Apple Valley Ranchos water system lock, stock and barrel for a price of the town’s choosing, i.e., around $50 million. In support of this, the town, obtained from what it referred to as “an independent appraisal firm” the rather wishful “fair purchase price” of $45.54 million.
The town in a public statement said that it “would like to purchase the company in a negotiated transaction.” That was met by Park’s response that Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company is not for sale. To city officials consternation, they learned that Park is in discussions with Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., a Canadian utility company, for the sale of all of its California and Montana assets. A publicly disclosed offer was $327 million.
It thus appears that there is no prospect that Park Water Company will sell Apple Valley Ranchos for anything near the $45.54 million the town’s “independent” appraiser says it is worth or the $50 million offer recently tendered by the town in informal discussions with Park.
Indeed, the Sentinel is informed, Park Water officials “scoffed” at the town’s offer.
For this reason, Judge Townsend’s ruling looms large, fortifying the town with the eminent domain card to play.
One Apple Valley resident observing all of this, Richard Rorex, indicated he was highly skeptical of both the town’s actions and its claims.
“They are justifying this proposed takeover by trying to sell the residents the idea that they can lower the water rates the residents will pay,” Rorex said. “It is going to cost X amount to provide water, no matter who delivers it. Now they are talking about eminent domain, which is total thievery, as far as I am concerned.”
Rorex said “I see three people driving this” and he later identified them as town manager Frank Robinson, assistant town manager Dennis Cron and town attorney John Brown. “They’re looking to make their name with this,” Rorex stated.
He took particular issue with Brown’s involvement, implying that lawyers should be confined merely to vetting the legality of the town’s action or contemplated action rather than advising the council on policy. Lawyers, Rorex said, “are like bookies. No matter who wins, they get paid. The town is into this for close to a million dollars with lawyer’s fees and studies. All of that is tax money I don’t think it will be a viable purchase.”
Rorex said the town is so far apart from Park on the purchase price that it is beyond doubtful that a deal could be closed. Moreover, Rorex said, he questioned the wisdom of having the town getting involved in an arena in which the private sector has been functioning for so long. “I have never seen a government agency take over a private business and do a better job of it,” he said, citing the example of “the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which is going broke because they have been hiding their true costs.”
While acknowledging that Apple Valley Ranchos’ rates have risen, he said that there was not much chance the town could operate the water company as a division of the town and not raise rates or otherwise up the costs for consumers.
In this regard, he noted that “In all of the talk about a takeover, they never discussed connection fees. Apple Valley Ranchos does not charge a connection fee. Over in Hesperia, which owns its water agency, they charge $5,000 to $7,000 every time you want to connect to the city system. My guess is that is exactly what the town of Apple Valley will do.”
Rorex opined, “The town doesn’t have the expertise to run the water system. When the town incorporated in 1988, they could have had it for nothing. They didn’t take it then. Now they are saying we can do it better and cheaper and that people will have control over our own water. But how much control do you have through a bureaucracy? We have a nice town council but they do not know how to run a water company.”
He said he believed those pushing for the water system takeover are trying to stampede the town’s residents into supporting forcing the purchase and trying to make it seem as if everyone is in favor of it. In reality, Rorex said. “About two thirds of the people are paying no attention to this at all. Ten percent, which includes many of the town’s movers and shakers, are avidly in favor of it. The rest of us are against it. We just had a water rate increase of ten percent, and I know that our water rates are going to go up a little more, but that doesn’t bother me. The town makes it sound like everyone is complaining,” he said. “Over the last six years our sewer rates were raised by 70 percent and our trash rates by 50 percent. Those were both done by the town council. There were minimal protests filed. Why is water any different, except the town was a driver rather than Apple Valley Ranchos? I have a water bill of about $100 per month, which is probably reasonable when you consider I am living on three quarters of an acre.”
And, Rorex said, he questioned the town’s assertion that “the revenue from water operations would pay for the infrastructure repairs, maintenance and water operation and cover the cost of the bonds the town will need to float to make the purchase. I do not think those are valid numbers. I am not an accountant but I do know that two plus two equals four.”
With a recent internet posting, the town provided what it said were straightforward answers to frequently asked questions about the town’s attempt to purchase the Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company. One revelation emerging from that posting was that the $45.54 million and $50 million figures may have been low-ball quotes proffered as part of the town’s “bargaining strategy” with Park, although Park maintains no discussion of a sale with the town is ongoing.
According to the city’s web posting, “Based on our understanding of the announcement by Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., the purchase price was $257 million ($327 less $70 million in assumed debt) – well more than double the $102.2 million purchase price paid by the current owners, the Carlyle Group, just three years ago. We believe this is over-inflated and will harm ratepayers as the new owners seek to recover its excessive purchase price. Furthermore, any discussion of the acquisition of Apple Valley Ranchos must begin by separating it from the other two entities in the Park Water portfolio: Park Water in Los Angeles and the Mountain Water Company in Missoula, Montana. The town is interested only in Apple Valley Ranchos – one third of Park Water. One third of the announced purchased price by Algonquin is $86 million, which is within the range of possible values anticipated.”
According to the town’s web posting, “The lack of transparency from Apple Valley Ranchos’ owners has kept us from fully vetting the company’s financials.”
In response to charges that the town is preparing to use eminent domain to commandeer the water company, the web posting states, “No formal discussions regarding eminent domain have taken place. We are preparing to offer Park Water Co. and the Carlyle Group – Apple Valley Ranchos’ parent – a fair purchase price for Apple Valley Ranchos.” The posting then goes on to say, “Eminent domain gives municipalities the ability to acquire private property if it is determined there is a compelling public interest in doing so. If Apple Valley Ranchos refuses to sell our system to the town, this might be an option. The final purchase price under eminent domain would be set by a court based upon ‘just compensation’ – a fair purchase price.”
Furthermore, according to the posting, the town’s acquisition of Apple Valley Ranchos would not be an infringement on free enterprise because “Apple Valley Ranchos is not a normal company. It has a government-granted monopoly over the provision of drinking water in its service area. As a customer, you don’t have the opportunity to buy your water from someone else, which means you are at the mercy of the company and the California Public Utilities Commission when it comes to how much you will pay and how much profit Apple Valley Ranchos makes. Choice, a fundamental component of the free market, is non-existent when it comes to Apple Valley Ranchos. With a municipally owned water system, you have a voice.” The web posting maintains that “Apple Valley has a management team with extensive experience in water system management. Most cities in California have owned and operated their own water systems of years.”
The web posting disputed assertions that the town has spent between $700,000 and $1 million to look into the acquisition. “The town has spent less than $250,000 studying this option,” according to the posting.
And, according to the posting, the purchase can be made, Apple Valley Ranchos can be subsumed by the town, the water system can be maintained and repaired and Apple Valley residents can be protected from being gouged on the amount they will be charged for water.
“With a fair purchase price, the savings from eliminating the profit margin and other costs would be sufficient to cover the debt service without raising rates to do so,” the posting states.

For decades, Upland has lived up to its nickname, The City of Gracious Living, in the conducting of its public meetings, which were almost always run with dignity and decorum.
Recent events in the city and the public reaction to them have created a somewhat different milieu. The first and perhaps major element in this declension was the indictment and conviction of former Upland Mayor John Pomierski on political corruption charges relating to his taking bribes in exchange for obtaining favorable treatment at City Hall for those seeking city permits or those subject to the city’s regulatory function. That was followed by the arrest of Pomierski’s hand-picked city manager, Robb Quincey, on charges of unlawful misappropriation of public money, gaining personal benefit from an official contract, and giving false testimony under oath, which ultimately led to his conviction on a single conflict of interest count. In 2014, city officials further squandered the good will of many of their citizens when the city embarked on a criminal prosecution of a city resident, Fernand Bogman, who took it upon himself to cease watering his lawn as California entered a third year of drought. With city prosecutor Dan Peelman angling to put him into jail for his alleged crime, Bogman stood his ground and he became something of a cause célèbre throughout the state as newspapers, and then television and radio stations picked up on the story. The city of Upland and its officials came across as being faintly ridiculous through all the coverage, and less than two weeks after Peelman in March dropped the case against Bogman, California Governor Jerry Brown mandated water conservation measures throughout the state that mimicked those Bogman had voluntarily imposed upon himself. Last October 23, Isaiah Shelton, a sixth-grader at Cabrillo Elementary School, was killed in a hit-and-run accident on his way to school as he stepped off the southeast curb on Benson Avenue to cross Arrow Highway. A groundswell of petitions to the Upland City Council to restore the school crossing guard program the city had abandoned some four years previously out of economic motivation followed, including pleas by parents and other members of the community at city council meetings. When the council failed to respond immediately to the requests for the crossing guard program restoration, the first widespread showing of disrespect toward the council in memory manifested late last year and was repeated at council meetings early this year. Large numbers of people in attendance at the meetings openly expressed their low regard of the council. This included shouting insults at the members on the council dais, choruses of boos and catcalls greeting utterances by the council members, and open public expression of derision being vectored by council meeting attendees toward city officials.
When the controversial issue of medical marijuana availability in the city was brought to a head with a successful petition drive by marijuana availability advocates to qualify an early 2015 referendum on permitting pot shops to operate in the city and city officials sought to short circuit it by a legalistic interpretation of the licensing fee provision contained in the voter initiative and succeeded in postponing the vote until 2016, the council found itself subject to even further public obloquy.
The coup-de-grace came when Upland Development Services Director Jeff Zwack pushed forward with the approval process for the city general plan update, which had been slow cooking on one of the city’s back burners for seven years. Zwack in April pushed the update into public view and sought a quick ratification. This resulted in yet another manifestation of resident discontent, with large numbers of people showing up at council meetings to voice their opposition to the direction of the revised general plan as well as specific provisions within it.
In a reflexive action, the city council, led by Mayor Ray Musser, has sought to alter the ground rules for the public comment element of city council meetings. Formerly, citizens were afforded the opportunity to speak at the public comment period of the meeting, which came relatively early in the proceedings after the flag salute, invocation and presentations but before the council’s vote on the consent calendar – featuring non-controversial and routine items – and the more involved elements of the council agenda such as council action items and public hearings. Citizens were also afforded the opportunity to speak during each of the public hearings, as well, but could only address at that point the item of relevance to that particular public hearing. Recently instituted changes, however, have designated the public input near the beginning of the meeting for issues contained on the agenda, while reserving comment on non-agendized issues for a newly created public comment period designated at the end of the meeting. Because some meetings last for several hours, this has resulted in those citizens wishing to be heard having to wait as late as 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. or even midnight to get their opportunity to speak.
Some perceive this change as a ploy to limit, dampen or discourage public criticism of the council or otherwise discourage public participation in Upland’s civic processes.
The wave of protest over the general plan update in Upland has not subsided. This week, an element of the community protesting those changes began distributing a flier/handbill which states in its bold headline “Stop The General Plan! It’s based on an environmental political philosophy. This is part of a long-term effort to get Americans used to smaller lots, homes, vistas, resources and expectations [and] a politically predetermined lower standard of living by design.” According to the flier, the new general plan will impose higher density on the city of Upland and “higher density increases crime.” The flier calls for citizens to show up en masse at the July 13 city council meeting and the July 22 planning commission meeting to register their objections.
Marilyn Mills, a prime mover in the effort against the new general plan, said she believed that the city council and development services director Jeff Zwack are engaged in “stonewalling” to prevent the community from providing meaningful input on the proposed changes to the general plan. She said incorporating the community’s true collective sentiment into the process would necessitate that the new plan be altered significantly, which is contrary to the agenda of those currently in political control at City Hall. “What we have is more than just suspicions,” Mills said. She said the entire council is avoiding having any meaningful discussions with regard to the contents of the general plan revision. “Not one of them is willing to talk to the citizens in a public setting,” she said. She said the workshops the city is putting on with regard to the general plan revision merely outline staff’s proposal and do not provide a forum for obtaining feedback from the public. She said that councilman Gino Filippi “outright refused” to meet with her and others of like mind. “He said we should be happy with the workshops and we are lucky that we are getting that,” Mills said. “They are just looking to build higher density housing and they are running the clock out on our time to offer public input. I believe the city’s attorneys have advised them on how to do this. Putting the public comment session at the end of the meeting is part of this.”
Mayor Ray Musser insisted there was no ulterior motive to the changes being incorporated into the council meeting agendas which included separating public comment into two sessions.
“We made that change to accommodate people rather than to exclude them,” Musser insisted. “We are experimenting to see what works best. Nothing is set in concrete. We used to have the public comment section right up front and now we have oral communications for things not listed on the agenda at the end. We might go back to the way it was before, but we are trying this out. People can still comment on anything on the agenda at the first public comment session. But what we are trying to do is get people who have come for a specific item on the agenda out of there sooner. Sometimes before they would have to stay until it was very late at night before we would get to the item they had come for. Anything that is not on the agenda will be held to the end to allow us to focus on what we are trying to accomplish that night. People can still comment. We are not changing that. Many organizations do it that way. I can change it back.”
Musser said he and the council were “trying to be accommodating of everyone’s’ views.”
He acknowledged he was taken aback by the vituperation and hostility of some elements of the crowd at some recent council meetings. His impression, especially with regard to the medical marijuana issue and even some of those offering input on the general plan is that “A lot of these people are from out of town. That concerns me. It is the Upland people these issues affect. I am not saying they are not welcome but I am saying we as a council need to give our greatest attention to the people who are impacted by our decisions.”
Musser noted that he had been criticized as well for limiting speaking time, on some occasions to three minutes rather than the four minutes customarily provided to speakers at Upland’s meetings. “When you have forty speakers, it is just not practical to give them each four minutes,” he said. “That delays the other parts of the meeting to an ungodly hour.”
Mills said that it was not accurate to say that those animated about the general plan change are out-of-towners. She said it was her perception Musser and the council were changing the speaking rules to discourage Upland residents from speaking out about items having a direct impact on them and which City Hall is trying to ramrod through.
Musser said he was considering allowing those who have come to speak about the general plan update to speak at the early public input session, even though that subject is not on the agenda. “I don’t want to make them more upset than they are,” he said. “I’ll play it by ear and ask to see how many of them are there to talk about that. I will let them be heard.”

One year after the town of Yucca Valley expended close to $1 million to revise its general plan and municipal code, it this week elected to repeal a major section of the town code relating to residence-based business operations. In doing so it categorically exempted home-based art studios from the having to obtain a permit, sparing such operations from being subject to a host of conditions imposed on other businesses based in residential zones. The town council at the direction of staff, led by deputy city manager Shane Stueckle, instituted what a staff report calls “revisions” of the city code relating to home-based businesses, creating, according to Stueckle, “a new class of home occupation permits. Artist/Artist studios shall be exempt from the home occupation permit requirement, subject to the following standards: a. A maximum of two customers or two students per week may visit the residence. b. All employees shall be members of the resident family and shall reside on the premises. c. Outdoor storage of material and/or outdoor home occupation activity shall be limited to 10 percent of the lot area and shall be completely screened from public view. d. Artist studios within this class shall be permitted to participate in art studio tours and similar programs as they occur in Yucca Valley and the Morongo Basin.”
Stueckle’s staff report goes on to define art as “An original creation of an aesthetic nature in any variety of media produced by an artist and which may include creating, constructing or assembling sculptures, crafts, mixed media, performing arts, stone, masonry, electronic arts, murals, painting, photography and original works of graphic art, glass, mosaics, or any combination or forms of media, furnishings or fixtures.”
In addition, Stueckle’s report further extends its definition of what type of “art related uses [and] arts and craft uses” are deemed acceptable in home-based art studios, listing “framing, jewelry making, metallurgy, pottery, sculpture, specialty sewing/monogramming, and weaving. Art or art work as defined herein may be permanent, fixed, temporary or portable, may be an integral part of a building, facility, or structure, and may be integrated with the work of other design professionals. Art shail further be defined as the creative application of a specific skill that does not primarily serve a functional use (including but not limited to: vehicles, helicopters, weapons, functioning firearms, cottage foods, fishing and hunting gear, knives) that prevails over the artistic, aesthetic or decorative quality of the end project.”
The new ordinance defines an artist studio as a “property combining working and living space, in which original works of art are created and the primary use of the property is residential.”
Ostensibly, the town council made the exemption based on staff’s finding that to do so would facilitate an earlier council direction “to implement measures within the town’s programs, processes, and codes that support, encourage, and implement the artist industry within the town.”
Yucca Valley for several decades has been a haven for bohemian, beatnik and traditional artisans as well as entrepreneurs working in several type of media. Many of those have their operations located in traditional commercial or industrial zones, though others are located on residential properties. Some of those operations blur the distinction between traditional residential and industrial use, particularly those which entail quantity production. The staff report essentially bypassed the subject of the potential conflict between such production intensive uses and traditional residential neighborhoods by reciting several reasons why the town and town council find it desirable to allow artists to function out of their homes. “[T]he town’s parks and recreation master plan identifies numerous issues that identify the importance of arts within the town and the Morongo Basin,” the staff report states. “Yucca Valley has a rich and diverse cultural environment. There is a significant population of artists and musicians in the Morongo Basin.” The report further referenced “The abundance of local creative talent, a population interested in arts education, a vibrant music and art scene in the region, local leaders with a desire to enhance cultural programming and a diverse number of private sector commercial art establishments” in positing a justification for the change.
Nevertheless, the blanket exemption given to any home-based operation that involves what is represented as “art” or “artistic pursuit,” was not universally supported by town residents. The change has provoked the concern of those advocating strict enforcement of the town code to prevent commercial or manufacturing operations in residential areas. They questioned the need and rationale for any change to the regulations as originally framed, which were intended to prevent the intrusion of activity, noise, chemicals, pollutants or other undesirable by-products from manufacturing processes into the living environment.
Some questioned the timing of the town’s alteration of its code, which came one week before a lawsuit, Falossi vs. Koenig, relating to the obtrusiveness of a home-based operation which happens to be an art studio, goes to trial.
David Falossi is an accomplished artist and sculptor who works in many media, including large heavy objects intended as outdoor venue decorations and art pieces. He works from his home studio located on Hoot Owl Trail. Falossi has been engaged in a lawsuit against Fritz Koenig since January 2009. Key to the litigation between Koenig and Falossi is a road which traverses Koenig’s property and over which all but one of Koenig’s neighbors transit to reach their residential properties. The road is not subject to an easement, although Koenig lets his neighbors use it as “a neighborly accommodation.”
Koenig has objected to what he characterizes as the industrial nature of Falossi’s fabricating operation that is central to his sculpturing and artwork, which involves welding, stone grinding and glass grinding. Koenig maintains that such activity is incompatible with a rural residential neighborhood and out of compliance with the town’s codes that were in effect since shortly after the town’s incorporation. Moreover, Koenig has objected to Falossi utilizing the dirt road across his property to drive forklifts and a large truck to transport both the raw material Falossi uses in his fabrication process as well as the finished artwork, which in some cases weighs several thousand pounds, to and from his home studio.
Falossi, who lives at his home studio with his wife and four children, has accused Koenig of harassing him and members of his family.
The contretemps between Koenig and Falossi spread from across their adjoining property line into the courts, entailing the granting of restraining orders. Falossi sued Koenig and their neighbor Nora Fraser in order to obtain the right to transit Hoot Owl Trail, including that portion crossing Koenig and Fraser’s property with his forklift and loaded and unloaded transport truck. Upon investigation, Koenig responded, filing his own lawsuit against Falossi for unlawful business practices, maintaining in his suit that Falossi was operating his home-based studio without a home occupation permit for the previous three-and-one-half years and at other times since 1989.
Falossi is well connected politically in Yucca Valley, having been recognized by the town for the quality and nature of his work. He also has warm relations with former Yucca Valley Mayor [and former state assemblyman and now congressman] Paul Cook as well as recently departed planning commission chairman Tim Humpreville.
Last year, the planning commission and town council moved to liberalize the town’s land use policy, with the planning commission making a recommendation that the city council alter its development code to allow greater latitude with regard to the type and nature of home-based businesses that can locate in the town’s residential zones. That change transformed Falossi’s operation from one that was technically out of compliance with the town code to one that was deemed by the town permissible under the new standards. Indeed, at that time, the town was accused of having “tweaked” its code specifically to permit Falossi’s operation. During the public hearing process prior to those changes being adopted, some residents objected that permitting such uses in residential zones had the potential of destroying the tranquility of their neighborhoods.
The case of Falossi vs. Koenig is set to begin on July 13 in Judge David Cohn’s courtroom on July 13. It is conceivable the town’s action in exempting art studios from the regulations spelled out in the town code relating to home occupancy permits will be entered into evidence before the court. What is unknown is whether the jury or the court will consider the town’s action as a vindication of Falossi with regard to the intensity of his art production operation or whether the town’s alteration of the code will be interpreted by the judge or jury to be an indication that at the time Koenig launched his countersuit against Falossi that Falossi was indeed out of compliance with the town code as it was then framed.
Regardless of the outcome of Falossi vs. Koenig, the town of Yucca Valley has delcared by this new ordinance that the town will now decide what is and what is not art, and what of that art is “aesthetic.” The town has yet to state what town agent is qualified to make such determinations and the method to do so. The town eliminated its public arts advisory council three years ago.

The Chino Valley finds itself at the forefront of California’s water crisis, in terms of the joint effort by several of its local agencies in response to threats to water purity and availability and the tough line its municipal governments are taking with those deemed irresponsible in their use of water as well as the controversy one of its civic leaders has generated by suggesting his community is not actually plagued by a water shortage.
Indeed, for nearly a century, as the Chino Valley became host to a variety of agricultural operations, water came to be a highly valued commodity in San Bernardino County’s extreme southwest corner. Because the valley is blessed with fertile soil, the presence of the nearby Santa Ana River and an abundant aquifer, farmers were drawn to the area. They raised a wide variety of crops and horticulture and agriculture became a way of life.
In the 1950s, as dairy farmers in north Orange County and Southeast Los Angeles County were displaced by urbanization, the Chino Valley became a haven to their operations. In 1968, the Chino Agricultural Preserve was formed under the auspices of California’s Williamson Act — a 1965 law that was intended to preserve California farmland and to serve as a hedge against urban sprawl. The law granted substantial tax breaks to property owners agreeing to restrict their land to agricultural uses for at least 10 years. By 1970, the Chino Valley was the source for most of Southern California’s milk as well as a major supplier of cheese for a much larger geographical area.
In short order, the Chino Agricultural Preserve became the most intensive milk-producing area in the world. Within its 17,000 acre confines were just under 400 dairies and 400,000 cows. With $800 million in annual dairy production in 1976, the relatively compact Chino Valley region alone was within the entire state of California a close third in milk output behind the much more expansive Tulare and Merced counties.
Milk production is a water intensive undertaking. A cow must drink four gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk; beyond that, however, dairy farming utilizes massive amounts of water so that in total, it requires close to 1,500 gallons of water for each gallon of milk produced.
By the mid-1980s, growing numbers of dairy farmers in the preserve wanted out, as the local industry was itself being subjected to the same pressures that had been brought to bear on dairyman who had been forced to pull up the stakes of their Los Angeles County and Orange County operations two and three decades before. Coinciding with the conversion of portions of the Chino Valley’s agricultural land into housing and commercial subdivisions was the realization that decades of dairy farming had created a situation in which excessive amounts of nitrates were leaching into the water table. The dairies made a massive exodus from the ag preserve over the next two decades to the point where today there are now some 60 dairies operating in the Chino Valley.
Well before the current water crisis, a joint powers agency, the Chino Basin Desalter Authority, was formed to deal with the nitrate contamination and to manage the production, treatment, and distribution of highly treated potable water to cities and water agencies utilizing the Chino Valley water table. The Chino Basin Desalter Authority counts as its members the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Norco and Ontario, the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, the Jurupa Community Services District, the Santa Ana River Water Company and the Western Municipal Water District.
The Chino Basin Desalter Authority operates facilities which purify brackish groundwater extracted from the lower Chino Basin and distributes the drinking water to its member agencies. Those facilities consist of what are dubbed the Chino I and II desalters.
According to the Chino Basin Desalter Authority’s website, the authority “serve[s] the dual purpose of providing a reliable water supply and managing groundwater quantity and quality in the region. Chino Basin groundwater is the only water source for the Chino Desalter Authority. Chino Basin is one of the largest groundwater basins in Southern California.”
In addition to purchasing potable water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Chino Basin Desalter Authority’s member agencies have contracts with the Chino Desalter Authority for the purchase of 24,600 acre feet per year of water from the desalters. The more water the desalters produce, the less the member agencies buy from the Metropolitan Water District.
By desalinating and treating the groundwater in the southern portion of the Chino Basin, the desalters also filter out nitrates from the groundwater basin and assist in achieving “hydraulic control” of the basin to stop the flow of contaminated groundwater into the Santa Ana River. The Chino I Desalter commenced operation in 2001, and was expanded in 2005. The Chino II Desalter became operational in 2006, and was expanded in 2010 to add an extra 10.5-million gallons per day capacity, which will be fully operational with the completion of soon-to-be-completed components of the project.
On April 1, after three years of drought and a measurement of snowpack that showed the thinnest amount of snowpack in more than 60 years of record-keeping in the Sierra Nevada, Governor Jerry Brown mandated that cities throughout the state cut back on potable urban water usage by at least 25 percent.
On May 26, the Chino Hills City Council passed an urgency ordinance vesting in the city code enforcement division the authority to ferret out wasteful use of water and cite the offenders, using a series of escalating fines and other means, to discourage the casual overuse of water. The inducements to save water ranged from a non-monetary assessment written warning to a $100 fine, $200 fine, third and fourth offenses assessments of $500 and ultimately a misdemeanor citation, conviction on which carries with it a six-month jail sentence. Not to be outdone, the Chino City Council on June 2 passed an urgency ordinance authorizing citing first- and second-time offenders within 12 months with written warnings, a relatively mild punishment of a $50 fine attached to the offender’s water bill on a third offense, with $100 and $150 fines triggered by fourth and fifth violations. Beyond that, the city manager is authorized to employ a flow restrictor. If that does not cure the problem, offenders will be hit with a $1,000 fine. After that, the ordinance authorizes seeking to send offenders to jail.
Low-growth and no- growth advocates in Chino Hills seized upon their city’s move to criminalize profligate water use to propound the need to impose a building moratorium that would prevent further demands on the city’s water supply. Further construction, they reasoned, would increase the city’s use of water, thus undercutting the city’s goal of meeting Governor Brown’s 25 percent water use reduction mandate. At that point, Chino Hills City Manager Konradt Bartlam leapt into the breach, serving up what many saw as a paradoxical and highly problematic assertion that there is no water shortage in Chino Hills.
“The city does not have a water emergency,” Bartlam propounded. “Our water comes from sources not affected by the snowpack or rain problems.”
In explaining why the city has given itself the authority to jail its citizens for wasting water, Bartlam said the action was taken essentially to placate the governor. “The city is following a state edict to conserve water,” he said.
Despite the mandate, he suggested the city could allow construction of new housing, in particular apartment complexes, and would not be likely to run afoul of Brown’s ire. He said approval already given to residential projects could not be legally withdrawn.
Bartlam acknowledged that the state could punish the city – in the form of $1,000 per day fines – if it does not meet the water reduction goal set my Brown.
“If we don’t show any reduction we could be fined,” Bartlam said. But that was unlikely, he said, suggesting that the state would probably take into consideration that the residents who lived in the city on April 1 will have reduced their water consumption and any new construction, in particular the apartment complexes which the low-growth and no- growth advocates are so animated about, will be less water use intensive than single family residences, since multi-family projects use less water overall per person than tract homes because of the reduced need for yard and landscape irrigation.
Without stating so directly, Bartlam seemed to imply that allowing higher density/lesser landscape intensive residential development would meet with the spirit, if not the letter, of the governor’s mandate.
Meanwhile, Chino Hills reduced its water consumption in May by 21 percent over what it had used two years previously, while the city of Chino achieved the water reduction goals set for it in May, having reduced its average water consumption by 26 percent for the month. Those figures were provided by the State Water Resources Control Board. Though those rates of reduction were significant, they both lagged behind the average for the entire state, which saw its consumers utilize 29 percent less water in May than in the same month of 2013.
In Chino, the average residential water consumption per person per day was 84.7 gallons in May, according to the state. In more affluent Chino Hills, each person used 115.7 gallons on average.
Chino residents were actually slightly below the average water usage per person throughout the state, which stood at 87.5 gallons per day.

BARSTOW—Colonel Sekou Karega has assumed command of the Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow from Colonel Michael Scalise.
Scalise had been in place as base commander since 2012. He and his wife Anne and their two children, Jack and Katie, are now heading to his next billet at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
Upon departing, Scalise said of the logistics base and Barstow, “It was a pleasure to have been a part of this wonderful community for three years.”
Karega comes to Barstow from Washington, D.C., where he was until recently serving in the Pentagon as a senior officer overseeing the Marine Corps Installations Command.
Karega hails from of Benton Harbor, Michigan. He has a bachelor of science degree in biology and holds a juris doctor degree, which he earned in 1993 from Thomas M. Colley Law School. He later earned a master’s degree in national security affairs in 2002. He is the author of the book, Political Transition in Iran: the ideological struggle for power within the Islamic Republic.
Some of Karega’s personal awards include the Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Defense Meritorious Service Medal and two Gold Stars. He was formerly the Marine Corps’ intelligence attaché in the West African county of Senegal.
Karega said, “I’m looking forward to a close and prosperous relationship working with the community and giving my best to this base during my time here.”

Well! We Republicans certainly have a variety of candidates to choose from in the competition for our party’s 2016 presidential nomination. Lest I be charged with showing some particular bias, I will list them out alphabetically: There is Jeb Bush, former Florida governor and the brother and son of two of our former presidents; Ben Carson, a retired neurosurgeon and prolific author; Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey and a former U.S. Attorney; Ted Cruz, senator from Texas; Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO; Lindsey Graham, senator from South Carolina; Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor; Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor; John Kasich, governor of Ohio; George Pataki, a former New York governor; Rand Paul, senator from Kentucky; Rick Perry, a former Texas governor; Marco Rubio, senator from Florida; Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania; Donald Trump, real estate developer; and Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin. By the time this gets in print, maybe one or two others will have tossed their hats in the ring…
2016 could be a good year for us Republicans. If we capture the White House and hold onto the Senate and Congress that would be a triple play, a hat trick, the triple crown…
2016 is a century on from 1916. Let me only partially digress. Without looking it up, or at the bottom of this page, can any of my readers say who the Republican nominee for president was in 1916? As I said, the answer is at the bottom of my column. It is upside down and inside out, so you will have to flip the Sentinel around and hold it up to a mirror to read the answer…
The large field heartens me, though I do have some concerns. With sixteen in the race and counting, it seems we have a healthy sense of competition. I hope this competition will result in the interplay and clashing of ideas. I want the best ideas to win out. In contrast to the Democrats, who have only two candidates declared, I think the lack of a clear front-runner in the huge GOP 2016 field shows we are the party most committed to the marketplace of ideals. The Democrats are the party, it occurs to me, of rigid overgovernance. Government is a necessary evil. I personally want to put up with the minimal amount of its intrusiveness as is possible. Like General George Patton said, “Politicians are the lowest form of human life and Democrats are the lowest form of politician…”
I am an adherent of the 11th Commandment which enjoins me from speaking ill of any fellow Republican. But I am not prevented from speaking highly of one candidate over all the others…
I invite you to make your own comparisons. If you undertake such a comparison thoroughly and honestly, I do not think you can come to any different conclusion than I have. The candidate who stands, indeed towers, head and shoulders above the other Republicans and head, shoulders, chest, abdomen, pelvis, thighs and knees above the Democrats is Ben Carson. Do your own research and you will see I am right. I call upon my fellow Grand Old Party members to work with me to make him our next president. And to my readers who are
Democrats, I invite you to repent of your current political affiliation and convert to Ben’s cause now…
Answer:  sehguH snavE selrahC

Today, in the 21st Century, the Double R Bar Ranch in Oro Grande is one of the vestiges of the personae of Roy Rogers, who was himself a vestige in the 20th Century, albeit an ersatz one, of the American cowboys of the 19th Century.
Roy Rogers was arguably the most famous of the 20th Century cowboys, competing with the likes of John Wayne Randolph Scott, Hopalong Cassidy and Gene Autry, all of whom, like himself, were not real cowboys but the celluloid recreations of such.
Roy did know how to ride a horse and he could use a lasso, just like a real cowboy. But he was a city slicker, born in a tenement building on 2nd Street in Cincinnati, Ohio where Riverfront Stadium would later be constructed, allowing him to brag that he was born at second base.
His real name was not Roy Rogers but actually Leonard Slye. He dropped out of high school, worked with his father in a shoe factory in Cincinnati and at the age of 18 went to California, where he for a time found work driving a gravel-truck for a company doing work on a highway construction project. Later, he moved to Tulare, where he had his closest brush with being an actual cowboy, as there were cattle, dairy and horse farms there. He did get a quasi-ranching job, picking peaches for Del Monte in Tulare. He left Tulare for Southern California, where his sister lived in 1931. There he auditioned for the Midnight Frolic radio program, which broadcast over KMCS in Inglewood, playing guitar, singing, and yodeling. He joined a local country music group called The Rocky Mountaineers. Subsequently, he left that group and formed another, Sons of the Pioneers, which obtained a contract with the newly formed Decca Recording Company The Sons of the Pioneers recorded for Decca 32 songs in the next two years.
From his first film appearance in 1935, he worked steadily in Western films, including a large supporting role as a singing cowboy while still billed as “Leonard Slye” in a Gene Autry movie. In 1938, Leonard Slye starred in his own film, took the name Roy Rogers, and left the Sons of the Pioneers to focus on his own career. He became a serious competitor to Gene Autry as the nation’s favorite singing cowboy. In 1940, Rogers played a supporting role in the John Wayne classic Dark Command, after which point he became a major box office attraction. In many of his movies he played himself, that is, the new name he had adopted, Roy Rogers. He was the top money making western star from 1943 to 1954. He made a lot of money from his film roles and public appearances. He met Dale Evans in 1944, while playing opposite her in a film role and married her in 1947 after his second wife, Arline, died from complications of childbirth . The Roy Rogers Show ran on television from 1951 through 1957, featureing Roy, Dale, his horse Trigger and his dog Bullet. Known as “The King of the Cowboys,” Roy became an idol to many children because of this exposure.
In 1965 Roy and Dale parlayed some of the wealth they had accumulated from their film and musical careers into the purchase of what would become the Double R Bar Ranch. From the time they purchased the ranch, located on 64 acres at 14433 Roy Rogers Ranch Road, to Roy’s death in 1998, the ranch, framed by picturesque mountains and surrounded by agricultural uses and hobby farms, was used primarily as a horse training and breeding facility. The ranch entrance is marked by a unique log fence with wood reclaimed from the Roy Rogers Museum.
Situated on the ranch are two residences: a 1,700-square-foot home with three bedrooms and three bathrooms, and a 1,200-square-foot brick home that was on the ranch when the couple purchased it. The brick home has since been converted into a museum to showcase Roy Rogers memorabilia and part of the barn was transformed into a theater for watching movies, many of them Roy and Dale’s westerns.
There is a 1,500-square-foot bunkhouse that provides a large reception area with two carpeted bedrooms and one bath; a stable with two tack rooms and 15 stalls — most of which are outfitted with watering systems, lighting and feeders; a half mile track; 10 fenced in pastures; and a four-horse electrified walker and 50-foot round pen with a metal roof.
Still extant on the property is an authentic Wells Fargo buckboard wagon that was used in the movies, a one-man-band instrument Roy used to entertain guests, a Decker Brother’s 1863 Baby Grand Piano, artwork, Roy Rogers’ collectible toys and radios, furniture and Double R Bar Ranch branded items

Nama demissum is an annual flowering plant, known by the common name purplemat, or Purple mat.
Purple mat grows in the American desert southwest, such as the Mojave Desert, and parts of Mexico on dry sandy or gravelly flats from 2,000 feet to 5,500 feet in elevation in creosote bush scrub. The plant grows to three inches high in a small patch of hairy glandular herbage. The corolla is generally funnel-shaped.
The flowers range from pinkish to purple. It blooms from February to May. With its short stems generally growing along the ground, purple mat flowers are relatively large and bright. Flowers are supported by a calyx which has five thin lobes, fused at the base. From here, the corolla tube extends about half an inch, opening to five symmetric, purple lobes. The inside of the corolla tube is whitish in the middle, yellow around the base. Inside are five stamens of slightly different lengths, attached near the base and not exserted. Parallel, darker purple veins run up the corolla tube The fruit is capsulated, generally loculicidal, and ovoid to elliptic. Its plentiful seeds generally are small, reddish brown, brown, black or yellow
Leaves are mostly basal, from where the branched, greenish-red, glandular hairy stems extend just a few inches, topped by a small cluster typically containing 3 or 4 flowers, each joined to the main stem by short pedicels and subtended by a few leafy bracts. Leaves are broad at the top, tapering gradually towards the base.
It is listed as being a member of either the hydrophyllaceae family or the borage family (boraginaceae).
The Kawaiisu made an edible mush of purple mat seeds by pounding them in a mortar and boiling them.