The draft environmental impact report for Murieta Gardens I and II, a proposal for a shopping center and housing, is available for public comment through Sept. 24. The document will be used by county planning bodies and the Board of Supervisors to evaluate the project. No hearing has been scheduled.

Murieta Gardens I and II proposes commercial uses and 208 single-family homes on 53 acres located next to Rancho Murieta Airport and across from the Plaza and Murieta Village. The commercial uses include a supermarket and drug center, office space and a self-storage facility.

The plan was first presented to the community by Doug Wiele of Foothill Partners in late 2002 at one of the "town hall" meetings North developers Robert J. Cassano and Gerry N. Kamilos conducted monthly for three years. The owner of the property is Regency Centers.

The draft environmental report prepared by the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment finds the Murieta Gardens projects will contribute "a significant amount of additional traffic" to Highway 16, and the developers would be required to make some improvements and pay their share of the cost of other mitigations.

The impact on the airport is deemed "less than significant" and no mitigation measures are proposed.

The document evaluates the project and four alternatives. The no-project alternative would allow three residential units to be built under existing zoning. Alternative Two, the commercial and open space alternative, eliminates the housing component. Alternative Three would create mixed commercial and residential uses. Alternative Four reduces residential density to 130 units and clusters it, and proposes a parking structure for the commercial area to reduce the amount of paving.

The no-project alternative notes that the area "is the only undeveloped property within the Rancho Murieta community that is designated for commercial use. Implementation of the No Project alternative would perpetuate the necessity for extended trips down Highway 16 in order to accommodate shopping needs. Nonetheless, this current arrangement is an existing condition, and approval of a No Project alternative would not eliminate the potential for future commercial development of the site."

All the alternatives reduce density and increase open space, according to the EIR.

The draft EIR is available here.