A sea of green hats stating "ANNEXATION" filled the room at the Local Area Formation Commission's June 4 public meeting in Riverside. Anticipation ran high as Temecula annexation supporters filled the room and hundreds more filed into the lobby and overflowed outside.

The city was seeking permission to annex 5,000 acres of land on its southwestern border, which includes land on which a quarry is proposed.

Speaker after speaker stood as their names were called, telling their stories, stating facts, united in a single cause: telling the truth -- with passion, honesty, integrity.

It fell on deaf ears.

I was appalled to witness requests for annexation by Temecula from 100 percent of the residents and 85 percent of the owners of the federally controlled land to be annexed ignored.

At a meeting with George Spiliotis of LAFCO on Jan. 26, I recall the statement, "We will not consider 'land use' issues. The quarry should be left out of the discussion." Why, then, did the rock quarry become the focal point of LAFCO's decision, rather than the city of Temecula's request to bring this land under its "sphere of influence?" Why did it become all about the quarry?

When did LAFCO start deciding issues regionally vs. locally?

When did LAFCO become an "aggregate consultant?"

Mr. Spiliotis also stated, "public participation makes a huge difference to LAFCO." If true, why were the wishes of thousands of residents of Temecula, Murrieta, Rainbow and Fallbrook, who supported annexation, disregarded? Why was the passionate plea from the Pechanga tribe ignored? Why did the commission also ignore thousands of letters from residents, businesses, MDs, environmental groups, service groups, HOAs, etc.?

LAFCO's mission was to decide "practical functions; annexations, incorporations," etc.

From "Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act 2000," section 56668, LAFCO is to consider:

- "The effects of proposed action and alternate action on adjacent areas."

- "Economic integrity of agricultural land."

- "Consistency with city's specific and general plan."

- "The extent the proposal will promote environmental justice."

Most important, how could LAFCO ignore the vital issues of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, the wildlife corridor, the Santa Margarita River? Particularly if its main concern was the quarry.

At LAFCO's Feb. 26 meeting, the city of Temecula requested the June 4 meeting be moved to a larger venue to accommodate the more than 1,000 people expected. The room holds 350. Letters were sent to Mr. Spiliotis with concerns about the number of people expected. Nothing was done.

The final insult was when, after the city of Temecula completed its rebuttal (which should have ended the dialogue), the chairman allowed a "stray quarry supporter" to stand and talk in opposition of annexation. This was simply unacceptable.

With the exception of Bob Buster and John Tavaglione, I believe the decision was made before the meeting began. By making this decision, not only did it compromise the integrity of LAFCO, it set a precedent for what other cities requesting annexation might expect.

I was saddened that LAFCO so poorly represented what true justice should look like.

I expected better.

Jerri Arganda lives in Rainbow.