The county's boundary-setting agency will make a decision next month that could have tremendous repercussions in the far southwest corner of Southwest Riverside County.

At issue is whether the comments made by the Temecula City Council during a meeting in mid-July constitute "new or different facts." If it is determined they do, it could trigger a review of the agency's unanimous vote in June to allow the city to annex 4,500 acres of land on its southwest border, a swath of land dominated by the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve.

George Spiliotis, the executive director of the county's Local Agency Formation Commission, said Thursday there is no particular set of state guidelines that governs whether the comments ---- which included talk of the city putting trails and park rangers in the reserve ---- qualify as new facts.

"It's really just up to the commission," he said.

If the commission decides the comments are noteworthy enough, the board's previous approval of the annexation could be reconsidered and possibly denied.

The commission is weighing in on the comments due to an application for reconsideration filed by Nelson Mamey, who owns 40 acres within the territory the city is trying to annex.

Mamey, in a letter to the commission, said the comments by the council indicate that the city is "clearly planning on changing the use of the annexation area to trails, camping and more public use and access."

This change, Mamey argues, will negatively affect the value of his land and make it more difficult to develop. Also, he said that if the city had presented these plans earlier in the year, the environmental studies attached to its application would have been deficient and the city would have been required to study the potential effects of these additional activities.

Mamey has not said what sort of development he has in mind for his holdings. According to his letter, he discussed selling it to San Diego State University earlier this year, but he was told that the university foundation that manages the reserve didn't have the money to purchase his land at the time.

During the meeting, council members said the annexation territory could one day feature a trail system that would run through the reserve.

"We're going to have trails up there and people up there," said Councilman Chuck Washington.

Earlier during the meeting, Councilman Mike Naggar detailed his vision for the land.

"We're going to master plan that area. We're going to put some trails there. We're going to try and get a trail that goes all the way to Camp Pendleton. We're going to stick our park rangers in there. All you people in here are going to go up with your Boy Scout troops; with your Girl Scout troops," he said, according to the recording of the meeting available on the city's web site.

"We're going to turn this pristine area into a place where there are interpretive trails; experiments being done by San Diego State University. We're going to make the argument that we're making that area ours."

Mamey has said those comments contradict a letter the city sent to the commission in June, a letter penned by Temecula Assistant City Manager Bob Johnson.

From the letter: "San Diego State University's Ecological Reserve's educational and research programs are intended to continue in the same manner as they have for over half a century within its natural open space habitat."

Temecula Mayor Jeff Comerchero said Thursday the comments of his colleagues do not constitute new information.

"They can't take the individual comments of one council member and make the leap that it means the city will do anything. There is a public process that would have to take place, resulting in a vote in open session.  Obviously none of that has happened or is the works," he said.

Regarding Naggar's comments in particular, Comerchero said, "Mike Naggar has a long history of supporting and being an advocate for trails. He was only expressing his personal feelings."

During a phone interview Thursday, Naggar said he is an aggressive advocate of usable open space.

"I was responsible for the city's trails master plan and the open space master plan," he said, adding that he's an avid outdoorsman who can often be found hiking or riding his bike.

"This has always been on my radar screen," Naggar said of the trails master plan. "No matter what city it is in, it will be on my radar screen. But I have not brought any formal proposal to the City Council."

The annexation was a topic of discussion during that July 13 meeting due to a condition the commission imposed when it approved the city's request in June.

According to that condition, the city was required to remove 169 acres from its sphere of influence ---- a zoning designation that identifies land a city or agency might annex in the future. That acreage includes land targeted by Northern California-based Granite Construction for its Liberty Quarry project, an open-pit mine proposed for unincorporated Riverside County land near the community of Rainbow.

The commission's condition didn't sit well with some members of the Temecula council because that change to the sphere boundary had been specifically requested by Granite and commission staff members had said in a report to the board that the request was beyond the scope of the environmental documentation prepared for the city's request.

Councilman Ron Roberts said during that touchstone July 13 meeting that the grand jury should investigate the actions of the commission.

"We're getting 4,510 acres, yes. But we're losing something that I think we should not lose," he said, talking about the sphere territory.

The council eventually approved the commission's condition, with a caveat saying the city reserved the right to bring that territory back into its sphere at a later date and annex the land in the future.

Mamey, in his letter, said the council's comments about the 169 acres in question also constituted "new or different facts."

From the letter: "The city made it clear at the LAFCO June 24 hearing that they would gladly amend their application and return it to LAFCO to remove some land from their existing sphere. ... After watching the video of the meeting, it is obvious that the city did not want to remove these lands and that the city does have future plans to annex this area."

Call staff writer Aaron Claverie at 951-676-4315, ext. 2624.