TEMECULA -- The city's effort to annex nearly 8 square miles of rugged hillside and granite-rich land southwest of the city will be jolted back to life when the proposal is weighed by the Planning Commission on Wednesday.

The commission is scheduled to meet at 6 p.m. at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive.

Unrest about the proposed Liberty Quarry has swirled in the community since 2005, when Granite Construction Co. proposed constructing the quarry.

The 414-acre site on which the 155-acre quarry would sit is just north of the San Diego County line, west of Interstate 15 near Rainbow Valley Boulevard, just south of Temecula.

In 2007, Councilman Jeff Comerchero proposed to pull 4,997 acres of land, which included the mine site, into Temecula's jurisdiction, but the city has been on the slow, bureaucratic road to annexation. City officials have said they want to annex the land to maintain the natural beauty of the hillsides and to protect the integrity of a nature reserve.

Quarry representatives, however, say the city is trying to position itself to make a determination on the quarry, a decision they believe should be left up to the county.

One of the major hurdles in the city's process to annex the land has been the completion of a report that details the effects the annexation would have on the environment. Such reports are required for all large projects in the state.

The city contracted with Albert A. Webb in March 2007 to draft the report, which was completed in May of this year. But after a barrage of public comments -- more than 30 -- that the city is required by state law to address, the city opted to commission a second environmental report.

Not only did the two separate reports make the process take twice as long as originally expected, but it also ballooned the cost to $216,000, twice as much as originally budgeted.

Now, the second, 462-page report is ready for a public hearing and consideration by the Planning Commission.

"Now we're getting down to the nitty-gritty," Planning Commissioner John Telesio said Friday. "Once we make a recommendation, it will go to the council and then to (the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission) for a final decision."

That commission oversees municipal boundaries and will ultimately determine where the border of Temecula should be and whether to allow the city to annex the land.

On Wednesday, Temecula's planning commissioners will be asked to do several things, including consider recommending that the council accept the report, consider expanding the city's sphere of influence and consider changing what uses are allowed on the land if it is annexed.

"It's probably going to be a long night," Telesio said of Wednesday's meeting.

He pointed out that the meeting will not be a time to "decide if mines are good or bad," but rather to make basic decisions about the land's future should it become a part of the city.

While the commission's recommendation will be a step in the process, he says the real battle over the city's plan to annex the land will be at a later council meeting, when a final determination will be made.

Under the current county zoning, mining is one of the permitted activities on the land.

Steve Brown, principal planner for Temecula, said the city would like to see the land designated only for open space or hillside homes.

Brown said a majority of the land -- 4,284 acres -- will be zoned for conservation, while the remaining 713 acres will be zoned for homes that would require a minimum 10-acre lot and extra restrictions.

Brown said that 554 acres of the land abutting the west side of Interstate 15 was previously identified by the city as land that could be annexed down the line. The remaining 4,443 acres would have to be designated by the local agency formation commission as an appropriate expansion of the city's boundaries.

The reserve, established in 1962, provides protected areas for research and education on the region's ecosystems. Most of the reserve is situated just southwest of Temecula and straddles a five-mile stretch of the Santa Margarita River, which is the longest protected coastal river in Southern California.

Brown said the city is trying to accomplish three goals with the land takeover: to integrate the Santa Margarita area into the city, preserve public lands and protect the research value of the ecological reserve.

"None of this is a trial on the quarry," Brown said. "Since 1993, the city's general plan has outlined policies regarding annexations of that area."

Gary Johnson, aggregate resource manager for Granite Construction, couldn't disagree more.

"That is laughable to suggest. Everyone knows why they are doing this," he said. "To say that their annexation attempt is for conservation is a red herring."

He said the city claim that the annexation will preserve open space ignores the fact that 85 percent of the 4,997 acres it seeks to incorporate are already protected as part of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. In addition, he said, despite claims about protecting open space, the city's proposal would allow 81 homes to be built in that area despite steep slopes, lack of access roads, water, sewer or electric service.

There are currently six occupied dwellings on the land, according to the city.

"They want to disrupt 718 acres of land for homes, while we want 155 acres for the mine," he said, adding that the remaining space on the proposed quarry site will be left open and provide a buffer to keep the granite operations out of sight.

As the city has been working to complete an environmental report related to its proposal to annex the land, Granite Construction has been preparing a similar report for its proposed quarry.

Johnson said that report could be completed and submitted to the county by the end of the year. County officials said that once they receive the report it will take at least six months to review.

"It's a foregone conclusion that the city will certify their (environmental report) and go to LAFCO," Johnson said. "But I think that anyone with an unbiased view will see this for what it is -- that it is going to cost the city money, take potential tax review away from the county, increase construction costs and add trucks to the roads."

Contact staff writer Nicole Sack at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2616, or nsack@californian.com.