Eastside San Carlos residents, worried a proposed mixed-use transit village around the existing Caltrain station will color their quality of life, turned out before the Planning Commission Monday night to plead that if the plan proceeds it should at least mitigate concerns over views, noise and parking.

The Planning Commission’s public hearing on the San Carlos Transit Village’s environmental impact report was the first formal vetting of the plan.

Members of the Greater East San Carlos Association were particularly vocal, criticizing both the current blueprint and those who they believe simply want to rubber-stamp developer Legacy Partners’ proposal. Yet, the board members — who were given a collective time block to argue their case — were not alone in airing their distress.

Nancy Oliver of the San Carlos Heritage Association worried that, while the train depot remains, the historic building will be hidden or diminished by the surrounding structures. The EIR states there will be no degradation of scenic vistas but Oliver strongly disagreed, calling the impacts “very substantial and adverse.”

Aside from noise and views, the most often mentioned area of worry was the impact of high-speed rail which some speakers said is not adequate addressed by the EIR and others called completely ignored by the city, the developer and SamTrans.

“To not have that as part of these plans is pretty short-sighted ... it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to complete this project just to have to make adjustments down the road,” said Chris Mahoney who is “not entirely opposed to the plan.”

As proposed, the transit village would convert a 10.53-acre strip of land within the existing Caltrain station and running parallel to the railroad corridor. Legacy’s proposal envisions eight buildings housing 280 “luxury” housing units among a mix of 407,298 square feet of residential, 23,797 square feet of office space and 14,326 square feet of “upscale” retail space. The project would include 667 parking spaces and a new SamTrans Transit Center on 4.29 acres. SamTrans, the land’s current owner, would grant Legacy a long-term lease for a little more than half the site followed by ownership of the proposed mixed-use and transit-oriented development.

There is an alternative scenario of 240 units and some buildings lowered to three stories.

Monday’s public hearing was the first on the draft EIR since its release. Coupled with comments submitted during the 45-day review period up through 5 a.m. today, staff will rework the document into a final EIR for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.

The GESC has made no secret of its distaste for the plan based on a loss of views, buildings that tower more than 50 feet in some sections, Caltrain parking moved south by the project and a lack of information on how the east and west sides connect. Members also want more answers about train noise, Holly Street drainage and financial impacts to existing schools, parks and public safety.

The questions were underscored at the meeting with more inquiries about earthquake hazards and construction staging areas.

The plan will “exacerbate the existing problem of people parking for free in our neighborhood,” said Sam Herzberg, who has also said the EIR doesn’t fully evaluate noise from baby bullet trains or the use of a giant sound wall.

GESC members said their worries are more constructive criticism than NIMBYism and that looking for alternatives does mean they are against the project outright.

“I’m in favor that we develop this in a smart way for the best of all people in the city,” said Tim Hilborn.

Hilborn said the DEIR flew in the face of the city’s general plan which states a key goal is to avoid impacts on adjacent issues.

Even those not associated with GESC asked for tweaks.

Resident Pat Bell told the Planning Commission to stand firm on plans for only 1.5 parking spaces per unit and to look at “creative mitigations” like shared vehicle programs.

The environmental review process underway currently is not one for decisions on the merits of the project but to determine if there are insurmountable environmental problems with the plan. Regardless, the merits often crept into the meeting, particularly among housing advocates who commended the idea of more units on the Peninsula.

“We think this project has the potential to be a model not just for the Peninsula but also the entire Bay Area,” said Chris Mohr, executive director of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County.

Some speakers questioned if the “luxury units” marketed actually translate into affordable housing and pointed out that the proponents who spoke hailed from cities other than San Carlos.

Michelle Durand can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 102.