The Battle to Save Tom-Kav–Local Tribes Fight to Preserve Cultural Heritage

by on April 17, 2012 · 16 comments

in California, Culture, Popular, San Diego

Tribes challenge the validity of environmental impact report as misleading, incomplete, say developers acted in bad faith.

Part 2 in a 2 part series.  Read part 1 here.

Tribal members sit vigil at Horse Ranch Creek Rd. construction site. Photo:

What if a developer bought up the cemetery where your grandparents were buried and started forging ahead to build a brand new housing development and shopping center right on top of it?  Or if the state government of Pennsylvania somehow cleared the way to sell the Gettysburg battlefield site to private developers in order to build a whole new city, right on top of where tens of thousands of Union and Confederate soldiers gave their lives, and where many found their final resting place?

In January 2012, Pardee Homes got the go ahead from the County to begin construction on its Meadowood project on the north side of Pala Rd.  The first order of business was Horse Ranch Creek Rd., the main road that would connect all four planned developments, including Palomar College’s North Education Center.  On January 7th, crews began their work in earnest, and almost immediately after the start of construction, crews and Native American monitors discovered what they suspected to be human remains.  Construction was halted, as is mandated by state law, and archaeologists and Indian monitors were called in to examine what had been found.

The Army Corps of Engineers and archaeologists from the same firm, ASM Affiliates, who conducted the survey for the environmental impact report were brought in to examine the new finds.  Excavation pits were dug and diligent exploration of the area where the road was to be built began for the very first time.  Developers had previously insisted that it was unnecessary to dig in the area between loci A and B because of the presence of irrigation pits.  That assertion was about to be blown to smithereens.

New artifacts discovered

Less than 50 feet away from where human remains were discovered in January, 2011 more human bone fragments were found.  Recall that prior to the arrival of the Spanish Missionaries in the late 1700’s, the Luiseños first cremated and then buried their dead.  It wasn’t until after the Missionaries arrived that the dead began to be interred according to Catholic tradition.

The archaeological dig began in full force in early February, and the more they dug, the more remains and artifacts they found.  Between February 6th and February 16th, and even as recently as February 22nd, 71 bone fragments were found representing at least six different people.  Human skull fragments were identified along with three fire hearths.  According to court documents, the archaeologists from ASM Affiliates testified that the hearths and skull fragments show that the site was a natural cremation site and a sacred burial ground of the San Luiseños.

In addition to the bone fragments, the Army Corps of Engineers reported finding “various stones with milling features,” and more midden deposits—soil stained by the presence of cooking fires and greasy from the drippings of animal fats.  All told at least 14 different burial sites were discovered.

The discovery of the three fire hearths was particularly significant.  “Archaeologists could work on 50 or 100 jobs and not find three hearths,” said the tribal attorney, Merri Lopez-Keifer.

Lawsuits filed, request for temporary restraining order denied

In the meantime, the tribes looked to the courts to put a halt to the construction at least until the site could be more thoroughly examined.  Two suits were filed:  One against San Diego County and Pardee Homes, and another against the Palomar Community College District.

The original environmental impact report submitted by Pardee Homes for the Meadowood project was dated April, 2009, to which the tribes submitted their comments and recommendations that October.  The two sides seemed to be on the same page.  On April 1, 2011, after the first discovery of human remains and after further archaeological examination, the tribes submitted a new set of revised and amended comments to the EIR, asserting that merely capping the site would no longer be an acceptable means of mitigation to protect the Tom-Kav site, and that the new studies found that the Tom-Kav boundaries extended much, much further than had been initially assumed.  The tribes wanted the Tom-Kav avoided altogether.

It was all to no avail.  In January, 2012, the County Board of Supervisors approved the Meadowood environmental impact report and gave the green light for construction to begin on Horse Ranch Creek Road, when yet more human remains were found.

According to the complaint filed against the County and Pardee, the environmental impact report “fails to identify archaeological and cultural resources that would need to be reasonably mitigated,” and “fails to include a reasonable range of alternatives that could eliminate or lessen the significant environmental impact of the project proposals, including those that were suggested by Cal Trans that would allow for a substantially lessened impact on cultural resources.”  The developers, they said, rejected proposals that would have allowed for a more protective boundary and avoid the sensitive cultural areas that were producing more significant discoveries by the day.

“ASM did not notify us that they had never dug in the road’s pathway,” said Merri Lopez-Keifer, the attorney representing the tribes.  The decision to go ahead with the project as submitted, she said, was based on faulty information contained in the EIR; faulty because it was incomplete; information that the tribes themselves relied on when making their initial recommendations.  The archaeologists never did any digging where the road was to be built, despite the fact that it was right smack in the middle of an area known to contain Tom-Kav artifacts.

For their part, Pardee, the County, and Palomar College insist that they have in all instances “proceeded in a manner required by law.”

“The tribes were completely shut out of the process,” said Lopez-Keifer.  “We asked to be included (in the initial process) but were denied by all parties,” she said.  “It was one of those ‘don’t ask for permission, ask for forgiveness’ situations.”

American Indian Studies department left out in the cold

Perhaps even more baffling, was the failure on the part of Palomar College officials to consult with their own experts.  The college has a significant American Indian Studies department that includes several professors who are themselves members of Luiseño descended tribes.  If they were looking for experts on the history and lore of the Tom-Kav site, they needed look no further than their own campus.  Native American culture often only exists through stories passed down from generation to generation.  Oftentimes there is no written record of tribal traditions or stories, which can become closely guarded secrets passed down by tribal elders.  It would have been a simple matter to ask the professors about the site, about what researchers could expect to find, and of the importance of the site.  Instead the college’s administration “chose to ignore a 40 year history of working closely with the department” on similar issues.

On March 13th, the department issued a statement on the developments at Horse Ranch Creek Rd:

We understand Palomar College did not have a legal obligation to consult with its own faculty experts about the Horse Ranch Creek Rd. project, but your choice to not solicit input on the sites of Tom-Kav (a.k.a. Horse Ranch Creek Rd.) resulted in a lost opportunity to mitigate or avoid the situation facing the college today.  Consulting with the American Indian Studies and American Studies Department would have provided you with critical insight into the “sensitive nature of the Horse Ranch Creek Road project” and its historic and religious importance to the Indian community….


Examples of Palomar College’s missteps include the statement on the Palomar College website: “A portion of the southern road alignment was identified as having the potential to contain archaeological and cultural resources in the approved Environmental Impact Report…”(emphasis added).  Misleading statements such as this have a negative impact on the college’s credibility and easily could have been avoided by consultation with AIS….

The department also lamented that instead of learning about issues related to the project from college administrators, they have been forced to rely strictly on public records and local newspaper reports.  “While not asked for input, we are now suggesting the college is misguided in continuing the stance of ‘we followed the law’ and can redeem itself by putting into action its stated commitment to honor the Native American community,” the letter concluded.

Focus shifts to the Courtroom

As soon as the first set of bone fragments were confirmed to be human in early February, the tribes acted quickly and filed for a temporary restraining order in an attempt to halt all construction on the site until a more thorough archaeological examination could be conducted, and the hypothesis of the Native American monitors could be put to the test—that the area between locus A and locus B was part of a larger burial ground and should be protected.

The lawsuits challenged the environmental impact reports for the project, specifically claiming that the reports were faulty and incomplete and therefore inadequate.

On February 28th, Superior Court Judge Harry Elias denied the TRO, saying that “legally the district is within its rights to continue the work and has followed the letter of the law up until now.”  However, the judge also chastised the district for “not taking seriously” provisions of state law that require developers to meet and confer with tribal authorities after bone fragments are found, as they were at the start of construction in January.

It was a strange twist in the proceedings:  The judge ruled that the district had followed “the letter of the law,” but yet hadn’t followed the law.

“What’s the point in having the law if you’re not ever going to enforce it?” said Lopez-Keifer, also noting that the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department deemed the matter “private” and refused to intervene.

Construction restarts amid protests

There is some dispute about construction laws and how they apply to this particular site.  Some insist that according to state law, construction crews are prohibited from beginning any major activities before 7am.  Some say that since the site is in a relatively sparsely populated area, that rule does not apply.  Yet others say it’s strictly a matter of local ordinance.

What is not in dispute is that according to the environmental impact report—which is considered the law of the land on California construction sites—Indian monitors and qualified archaeologists are required to be on site before work can begin.  Accepted practice dictates that so long as the monitors and archaeologists are on site prior to the scheduled start time, they have the final say as to whether or not work can continue.

According to the tribal monitors, work at the Horse Ranch Creek Road site routinely began at 7am sharp.  On the morning of February 23rd, however, crews began their grading operations at 6:30am, before the monitor supervisors and archaeologists arrived.  When the monitors arrived at 6:45am, work had already begun.

“I watched tractor drivers from American Pride Grading laughing, celebrating, and pumping their fists in the air as they drove the tractors around the project site and refilled the excavation pits,” said one observer according to court documents.

“Elders stood and watched in horror while other tribal members ran out in front of the bulldozers to save what they could of the grounds,” wrote another member who was there that morning.

By the letter of the law the grading crews may not have done anything illegal, but in deliberately beginning work without having notified the monitors and archaeologists of a change in their start time they were clearly in breach of accepted standards and in violation of the procedures as they were spelled out in the environmental impact report.  It was a calculated attempt to circumvent the rules and avoid the suspicious glare of the site monitors.

Look beyond the science

The work continues on the site.  Palomar College officials say that the grading of Horse Ranch Creek Road is complete, and that there will be no further disturbance of the burial ground.  But the damage has been done.  “Because the remains came from disturbed soil, it will affect their eligibility for the National Register of Historical Places,” said Lopez-Keifer.

And the fight isn’t over yet.  The lawsuit continues over whether or not the college district should have been allowed to build over the site without taking proper mitigation procedures.  And then there’s the issue of how many entrances to the development project there will be:  Cal Trans recommends only one entrance.  Pardee Homes wants two entrances, further endangering Tom-Kav resources.  And the developers of Campus Park insist on their own entrance.  There is still much to be resolved.

Tribal representatives are still baffled at why this had to become such a brutal fight.  They say that had Pardee and the district simply agreed to move the road just a short distance then this fight could have been avoided entirely.  Had the developers consulted with the tribes, had the college consulted with their own experts on their own campus, the sides could have found an acceptable compromise and the Tom-Kav site could have preserved in its entirety.  It wouldn’t have taken much, but the developers stubbornly refused to relocate just a short stretch of Horse Ranch Creek Rd.  They still insist on a 106 foot wide road with a large, decorative median and as many as three entrances off of Pala Rd.

But the sides are talking, at least, at the behest of Judge Elias.  What the Indians really want is for the college administrators, the archaeologists, and the developers to look beyond just the science and see the true value the site holds for the tribal members; the spiritual, religious value it holds.  They insist that their beliefs and their culture should be held in the same regard as Christian beliefs and culture.

If there is a bright side to the story, Lopez-Keifer said, it’s that a lot of discussion has been generated within the Native American community.  That discussion has brought the attention of the International Indian Treaty Council, who will be sending an “immediate and urgent action letter” to the United Nations along with a request to present “Saving Tom-Kav” in person to the U.N.

Correction:  An earlier version of this story identified the remains found in January, 2011 as “full skeletal remains.”  EIR documents noted the new discovery after the initial report was filed with the County, but did not specify the type of remains found, identifying them only as “human remains.” 

{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }

Frank Gormlie April 17, 2012 at 5:28 pm

Here’s a Petition

Please Sign & Share! — Petition to Protect Tomkav Village :


Anna Daniels April 17, 2012 at 6:14 pm

The next thing is action. Thanks Andy, thanks Frank.


Frank Gormlie April 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm

It is incredible what’s going down in our name and on our watch. We bemoan the plight of native tribes here in California in history books, but watch idly by as this travesty occurs right under our eyes. No thanks to the local mainsteam media however for essentially keeping this story under wraps. Yeah, there were a couple of articles but nothing substantial and certainly nothing sustaining – such as this. This is great stuff, Andrew. We cannot allow this story to die away and must figure out ways to keep in in the public’s mind.


Andy Cohen April 18, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Really none of this is being done in “our name.” It’s all in the developer’s name.

I think the more salient point is that the Indians don’t oppose the development, all they asked was for the road to be moved just a short distance in order to avoid the burial ground. They weren’t protesting the development or the development plans as far as I could tell. From what I can gather, the Indians have been the most reasonable parties in this, and if they had simply been consulted this whole mess could have been avoided in the first place, and Palomar College and Pardee Homes would still be able to carry out their development plans.


bodysurferbob April 17, 2012 at 8:34 pm

awesome dude! this is worth coming ashore for, yeah! it’s stuff like this that gives the rag real credibility. thanks for all the apparent hard work evidenced by the depth of this series.


OB Joe April 17, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Good job, Andy Cohen.


Jack April 18, 2012 at 7:35 am

Excellent work Andy….professional and timely. Well done you.


Kenneth Rexrode April 18, 2012 at 6:47 pm

First off, this is an intriguing article. I really appreciate all of your research and passion. I have actually lived in Fallbrook for 12 years and have nothing to gain or lose by writing this comment.

So I guess what I can’t fully understand is why if this land is/was so sacred (a village or maybe 5,000 inhabitants at some point) why the Indian tribes have never had an interest in it until now. It’s pretty obvious to me that if you had a village anywhere at some point there will probably be a few scattered bones and maybe even an intact skeleton. Just because you find a skeleton doesn’t mean it was a cemetary either.

So if in fact there were a few thousand indians living in the area 200 years ago does it mean no one else can ever live there again? It seems like the whole burial ground case gets used a bit too much. This same scenario played out with the quarry just a few months ago. One difference is that rock yards are not popular but colleges and new homes not only serve more beneift to the public but also generate tax revenues for the county.

It’s still unclear to me if an actual cemetary really existed at the Meadowood site. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favor of bulldozing legitimate burial areas but frankly I’m not sure one really existed at this site.

So I have an idea, why don’t the Indians just buy the Meadowood site. The Pala tribe has plenty of money and then they can do what they wish with the property. Since there is little demand for tract homes right now they might be able to work out an affordable deal with Pardee.

Another fact many do not know about Indian tribes purchasing private lands is that they don’t pay property taxes on the land. Hence, the county loses tax revenue. The indian tribes should not be exempt from paying property taxes when purchasing private land.

Frankly, you should write an article about this subject.

Just keeping it real and unbiased.


Andy Cohen April 19, 2012 at 12:11 am


The Indians WERE involved, at least insofar as they provided input into the original EIR. The problem, they discovered, was that the original EIR was incomplete and misleading, unbeknownst to them. Going by what was in that report, they were satisfied with the mitigation procedures that were laid out. When it was discovered that there was a gaping hole in the report, and that not all of the relevant property was tested for artifacts, they amended their comments and submitted them to the County.

But they were never really consulted. No one sat down with the tribal leaders and asked for their input. They were the only ones who might actually know what might be found on the property. They asked to be a part of the discussion repeatedly and were ignored. Palomar College never even glanced in the direction of their own experts right there on campus. The letter of the law was followed, and the Indians had a chance to submit comments, but the spirit of the law was completely ignored and outside of the bare minimum requirements they were completely shut out.

There are a couple of other things that you need to consider, too, and they have to do with cultural differences: The Indians approach significant or sacred sites differently than most of the secular population does. We have this curiosity. We want to dig the place up and see what we find; study the artifacts and learn everything we can. But tribal tradition is to leave these sites completely undisturbed and treat them with the reverence they feel they deserve. They don’t want them dug up. It’s an antiquated view, and very traditional, and in my discussions I learned that there’s actually a split within the tribes themselves as to how they approach these sites–whether they should study them and learn what they can, or as the tribal elders and those that follow strict tribal law and tradition, leave them completely alone. The stories and traditions that are passed down from generation to generation, the lore that’s passed down, is enough in their view. It’s very similar to the staunch Judeo-Christian view that what’s in the Bible is what our history is vs. the scientific process of studying and deducing via empirical evidence what our history is.

The other thing is that the ancient burial grounds, their traditional burial grounds were not like our cemeteries that are so perfectly laid out and clearly marked with headstones and such. They had their own traditions that were very different than the Catholic/Judeo-Christian tradition, so you can’t view them through the same lens that you view modern cemeteries. That doesn’t make their burial grounds any less sacred than ours. Just because they didn’t do it like we do it today doesn’t mean they’re any less significant.

As far as your assertion that they “should just buy up the land,” well, the laws are clearly in place to protect these grounds, so it shouldn’t be necessary for them to have to purchase the land. The problem is that the developers have gamed the system to circumvent these laws. That’s kind of the issue at hand. If they would have just agreed to move the road just a couple of hundred feet (probably less), then there would be no issue today. But they refused to even consider it.


Skeptical1 April 19, 2012 at 8:12 am

Andy’s response to your comment is excellent, but it leaves out one important point: private land purchased by tribes is still subject to property tax UNLESS it becomes federal trust land. The trust process is long, expensive, and complicated, and can take years to accomplish (if it is approved at all). Putting land into trust has become harder and harder in the years since Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and created massive restrictions on Indian gaming development (talk about the need for an article – someone needs to write about this so that the public finally understands what Indian gaming is all about). And I also find it fascinating how easy it is for members of the public to tell tribes how to spend their money – yes, some of the casino-operating tribes now have deep pockets, but that doesn’t mean they have millions of dollars sitting around. There are multiple considerations in buying a piece of land; Pardee would want far more than just the value of the land as it currently stands. They would also want all the potential profit to come from the hundreds of homes they wouldn’t get to build and sell. Finally, Andrew is right – why should the tribes have to shell out millions to protect a small corner of the property when there are supposed to be laws in place that mitigate the impact to Indian cultural sites? If all the developers had sat down with the tribes and worked with them, they wouldn’t be facing a lawsuit now. The tribes are not anti-development – they just want a say in protecting their traditional sites.


Kenneth Rexrode April 19, 2012 at 9:36 am


Once again, I appreciate your minful research and reporting.

As you know, in today’s world there is so little black and white. Seemingly, the color of grey just keeps growing.

However, in regards to the original EIR I believe the developer did what was required by the county. If digging “3 holes” was the requirement it wouldn’t make sense for them to dig more holes. The county building department would not have given them extra credit so why would they do more than what was required by state law?

I’m still not sure why the indian tribes have again waited so long to make this an issue. As you accurately reported in your article it is common knowledge that an “indian village” had existed in this area going back hundreds if not thousands of years.

You also pointed out that the old owners (the Pankey family) had performed excavatons that were known to many along with the indian tribes almost 50 years ago. It sure seems like the Indian tribes could have pressed more aggresively along the way if this was truly sacred land. It’s also too bad they didn’t buy the land when it was for sale. It is fair to acknowledge that although the local indian tribes (Pechanga, Pauma and Pala) have a great deal of wealth now that was not always the case so buying the land 10-15 years ago might not have been a financial option.

It’s also doesn’t seem just that the county or general public has no right to tell the indian tribes what they can or cannot do on their own property yet the indian tribes try to dictate what others can do on private land. Did the Pala Tribe consult with the private sector when they decided to build a 12 story hotel and casino in the middle of this beautiful valley? Of course not. Sometimes, it tough to have it both ways. Let’s be honest, the indian tribes really don’t want any kind of development on any private lands if there had been any previous signs of indian existence.

Also, your point about further consultations with the indians has two sides. Let me tell the other. The indian tribes don’t always play fair. The best example being the dreadful Pala Raceway that was built without any feedback or consultation of the residents of Rainbow. This motorcycle track has all but destroyed the quiet and peaceful life the residents once enjoyed. The indians have done litte to curb the incredible noise that this raceway generates. This track was built to generate income for the Pala Tribe with little to no regard for citizens in the area. Shame on Pala for their actions. (perhaps you can do a story about this problem as well).

I’m also unconvinced the indian tribes would be satisfied if the road was moved over 200 feet. I’m not sure of the topography or logistics involved but if the solution is this easy then let’s just hope the two parties can work this out with a satisfactory solution.

I also don’t believe it is fair for you to finger Palomar College either. The land in question is not even theirs. How could or would they know about what was happening at the Meadowood site? There will tremendous benefits to having the college in our area and I look forward to the day the doors open.

I also feel you need to do a story on why the indian tribes do not pay property tax on newly purchased private land. Not only is this a financial drain for the county it is simply not fair to the citizens of San Diego county.

Once again, thank you for your efforts. Hopefully, your story and this forum might provide so reasonable solution to this tricky situation.


Kenneth Rexrode


Andy Cohen April 19, 2012 at 11:28 am


I suggest you read part 1 of the story, as many of your questions are answered there.

Yes, studies had been done on the site, but the studies focused on the main village site and not the burial ground. The point of the fight right now is that the developers deliberately misled the archaeologists, telling them specifically not to dig in certain areas. Not coincidentally, those certain areas were where the road was to be built.

Imagine it this way: Draw a right(ish) triangle. Label the bottom two corners of the triangle “point A” and “point B,” and label the top point of the triangle “point C.” Point C at the top is where the main village was, where D.L. True and Rosemary Pankey did their explorations beginning in the 1950’s. That site was further examined as part of the original EIR and its boundaries expanded. Points A and B were also examined more recently and found to contain artifacts and thus included as part of mitigation procedures in the EIR. But the area in between points A and B was never examined at all until AFTER construction began this past January. Now you tell me if it makes sense that a site that was occupied for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years would be devoid of any evidence of inhabitance in between points A and B? It’s a relatively small area, and yet that’s what the developers wanted everyone to believe.

They wanted that road to go right in between points A and B, and they didn’t want anything to stop or alter the development plan they already had in place. In the EIR itself the archaeologists noted that they had not examined that area between A and B, and that it was likely that when they began to grade the ground for construction of the road they would encounter further artifacts, and should that happen construction would have to be halted.

The plans for the development weren’t submitted to the County until 2009. When the Indians began to suspect that something was missing from the Draft EIR in 2008, they submitted an addendum to their original statement and recommended that the whole site be avoided altogether. Again, it wouldn’t have taken much to move the road. They weren’t asking for it to be moved very far, but just outside of Point A. But as Skeptical1 noted above, moving the road might have caused the developers to give up a small amount of precious commercial property or a small handful of housing units, which would affect their bottom line on the project.

I originally had the same question as you: “Why did they wait so long to get involved?” The answer is that they didn’t wait. They were trying to be a part of it all along, but were shut out of the process almost entirely. The spirit of the law says that they are to be consulted and an integral part of the development planning process. The letter of the law accepts their written response to the Draft EIR as sufficient consultation, whether or not their recommendations are heeded.

Until January, when construction crews began to dig up additional artifacts, no harm had actually been done. And according to the law, if no actual harm has been done, there is no grounds for a lawsuit.

As to Palomar College: They are the sole responsible party for the construction of the road per the purchase agreement. Thus they are the developer of record and are responsible for mitigation procedures related to the construction of the road.


john doe April 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm

It is obvious from this story that it is being propogated by tribal interests only. This story, along with all the others, is filled with misinformation and is itself spreading propoganda because the other side has not been consulted. It looks unbiased, because you cite the EIR and court documents, but none of the people involved besides the tribes has a voice in this or the other pieces. How about a “Part 3” told from the perspective of the agencies and the contractors? Want to dig deeper into the politics? Find out if human remains were moved for the construction of any of the major casinos in San Diego County, and then ask why those situations were not protested.


Kenneth Rexrode April 19, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Some follow up to the skepitcal1.

Yes, you are right about the process and what it entails. It is lengthy and does take time with the Rincon suit ultimately setting a critical standard moving forward.

It’s also my understanding there are over 50 properties in San Diego county that the Indian tribes are currently trying to put into federal trust. This amount might not seem very large but would equate in the range of 2 to 3 million dollars a year in lost revenue to the county. Multiply this by just 30 years and that is 60 to 90 million dollars. The county just cannot afford to lose this revenue. Please keep in mind that most of these newly acquired properties have been purchased by the wealthier gaming tribes in the area. There is little doubt they can afford to pay the tax.

As I mentioned before, why should the Indian tribes in our county feel they should not have to pay this property tax? This is simply a slap in the face to all of the other property tax paying citizens.

Again, in regards to the Fallbrook situation I am hopeful that all parties involved can arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Keeping it real,

Kenneth Rexrode


Kenneth Rexrode April 19, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Andy and Skeptical 1,


Listed below are the hours of operation for the Pala Raceway.

Wed.-Monday 9-7
Sat/Sun. 9-3
Closed Tuesday

Hence, for 52 hours a week, the residents of Rainbow are being held hostage by the constant noise generated by this operation.

Again, the Pala tribe has only taken ridiculous steps to try to mitigate noise. Bigger mufflers and burms just don’t cut it. The residents of the peaceful community of Rainbow are livid. I do not live in the immediate area but know people who have moved away while property values have clearly been affected by the constant noise.

That said, the Pala Tribe has done some wonderful things for Fallbrook. They have donated a substantial amount of money to non-profits and even donated $150,00o to fabulous new Fallbrook library.

However, the only solution to the raceway debacle is to shut it down or just move it (probably more than 200 feet) to another location on their reservation.


Kenneth Rexrode


Sage November 23, 2017 at 7:22 pm


I’d just like to you know that my family owns the Pankey Ranch. I don’t like it how you continue to manipulate us. This is uncalled for and very rude of you to do.


Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: