Belmont City Council
February 10, 2026

it receives a complete NOI package (original signed NOI, vicinity map, and check).

Applicant shall also submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City for review and approval. Throughout the project life, the SWPPP shall be revised as necessary to accommodate site changes during to construction.

69. Verify location of utility meters, valves, back flow preventers, and hydrants with appropriate utility company. Show relationship of each to site improvements, such as retaining walls.

Hydrology & Water Quality
Special Projects

70. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist, Special Projects Worksheet F documenting the LID treatment reduction credit, a narrative of LID Feasibility/Infeasibility and a Storm Water Treatment Plan showing a minimum of 100% LID treatment is incorporated into the storm water treatment design as shown on the City approved Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan prepared by BKF for review and approval by the City Engineer.

71. All plans shall conform to the requirements of the City NPDES stormwater discharge permit and the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). The project plans shall include permanent storm water quality protection measures. The project plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses to be conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with storm water run- off. A Storm Water Treatment Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement shall be prepared by the applicant incorporating the conditions of this section. The applicant shall execute the Agreement with the Director of Public Works or designee. The Agreement shall outline the continuous operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for the permanent storm water treatment facilities including irrigation and landscape maintenance of Green Infrastructure elements constructed in the public right-of-way and shall be recorded with the County Recorder’s Office. This Agreement shall be executed prior to the first occupancy of the building.

All Projects

72. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance, Chapter 9 of the City Code. Soil or other construction materials shall not be stockpiled in the public right- of-way unless an encroachment permit is obtained from the Department of Public Works. Grading shall neither be initiated nor continued between November 15 and April 15. Grading shall be done between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Director of Public Works. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction shall be implemented to protect water quality.
142

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

Construction - BMPs

73. Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the applicant must submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system. The plan shall include the following items:
a) A site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography, and slopes; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal area; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourses or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas.
b) Erosion and sediment controls to be used during construction, selected as appropriate from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Erosion and P.O. Box 791, Oakland, CA 94604-0791. c) Methods and procedures to stabilize denuded areas and install and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established.
d) Provision for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site, such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, fiber rolls, silt fence, check dams, storm drain inlet protection, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stockpiles and/or other measures.
e) Provisions for installing vegetative cover in disturbed areas, including areas to be seeded, planted, and/or mulched, and types of vegetation proposed. f) Provision for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff around the project site (e.g., swales and dikes). g) Notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetation and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; types of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation.

74. During grading and building operations, the owner/applicant shall ensure that applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) are followed to prevent discharge of soil or any construction material into the gutter, stormdrain system or creek.

75. The owner/applicant shall ensure that all construction personnel follow standard BMPs for stormwater quality protection during construction of project. These includes, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Store, handle and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly, so as to prevent their contact with stormwater.
143

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

b) Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment, and non- stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses. c) Use sediment controls, filtration, or settling to remove sediment from dewatering effluent.
d) Do not clean, fuel, or maintain vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated.
e) Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses with field markers or fencing. f) Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching or other measures as appropriate.
g) Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather (April 15 through November 14).
h) Limit and time applications of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff.
i) Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. j) Do not track dirt or other materials off-site; clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods.

76. If construction is not complete by the start of the wet season (November 15 through April 15), prior to November 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation. As appropriate to the site and status of construction, disturbed soils through temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, matting, tarping or other winterization requirements shall include inspecting/maintaining/cleaning all soil erosion and sedimentation controls prior to, during, and immediately after each storm event; stabilizing physical means; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of- way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels, and other chemicals. Plans to include proposed measures to prevent erosion and polluted runoff from all site conditions. As site conditions warrant, the Department of Public Works may direct the developer to implement additional winterization requirements.

Operational – COAs & BMPs

77. All plans shall conform to the requirements of the City NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and the San Mateo Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (STOPPP). The project plans shall include permanent storm water quality protection measures. The 144

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

project plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses to be conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with storm water run-off. A Maintenance and Operation Agreement shall be prepared by applicant incorporating the conditions of this section.

78. The property owner shall install, operate, and maintain all permanent stormwater quality protection measures included in the approved project plan using qualified personnel. The property owner/applicant must keep a maintenance and inspection schedule and record to ensure that the treatment control measures continue to operate effectively for the life of the project. Records must be provided to the Department of Public Works, on an annual basis, on or before June 30 of each year.

79. A Maintenance Plan for every stormwater treatment control, and/or Hydro Modification measure or applicable site design measure, inclusive of maintenance and inspection checklists and Maintenance Inspection Report Forms, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. A copy of the final, approved Maintenance Plan(s) shall be made a part of the Maintenance Agreement. A copy of the final, approved Maintenance Plan(s) shall also be on file with the Public Works Department.

80. The developer shall provide to the first residents/occupants/tenants practical information materials (as furnished by the City) on good housekeeping for hazardous products, proper use and disposal of hazardous products, and prohibited discharge practices.

81. Efficient irrigation systems shall be used throughout all landscaped areas in accordance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

82. All landscaping shall be maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation systems to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.

83. The property owner/association shall implement a trash management and litter control program including emptying trash receptacles in common areas, noting trash disposal violations by homeowners or business, and notifying violators.

84. The phrase “No Dumping-Drains to Bay” or equal phrase shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets by stenciling, branding, plaque or casting.

85. The property owner shall install trash capture devices in storm drain systems that lead directly to the off-site storm drain system or outfall. Devices shall be approved by the Director of Public Works or designee. Trash capture devices are required on site consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board definition of Full Capture 145

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

System. All on-site trash capture devices shall be cleaned routinely and maintained by the Owner per the Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement.

86. All on-site drain facilities must be inspected twice a year and cleaned immediately prior to the rainy season (prior to October 15) and once again during the rainy season. Results of inspection and cleaning shall be reported to the Department of Public Works on an annual basis on or before June 30 of each year.

87. Streets and parking lots must be swept immediately prior to and once during the storm season. Records of street cleaning shall be reported to the Department of Public Works on an annual basis on or before June 30 of each year.

88. Trash enclosures and dumpster areas must be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Drains within the trash enclosure will be connected to the sanitary sewer system.

89. No wastewater (including equipment cleaning wash water, vehicle wash water, cooling water, air conditioner condensate, and floor cleaning wash water) shall be discharged to the storm drain system, the street or gutter.

90. New buildings such as food service facilities and/or multi-family residential complexes or subdivisions shall provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area and to contain litter and trash, so that it is not dispersed by the wind or runoff during waste removal.

91. Interior level parking garage floor drains, and any other interior floor drains, shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards. A permit is required for discharge to the sanitary sewer.

92. Boiler drain lines, roof top equipment with drain lines, and/or equipment for washing and/or steam cleaning activities shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards.

93. Roof drains shall drain away from the building and be directed to landscaping or a stormwater treatment measure.

94. The developer shall provide to the first residents/occupants/tenants practical information materials (as furnished by the City) on good housekeeping for hazardous products, proper use and disposal of hazardous products, and prohibited discharge practices.
146

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

95. The property owner/association shall implement a trash management and litter control program including emptying trash receptacles in common areas, noting trash disposal violations by homeowners or business, and notifying violators.

96. Outdoor storage areas for oils, fuels, solvents, coolant, and other chemicals shall be designed to provide secondary containment such as berms and roof covers. Process equipment sited outdoors shall be placed on an impermeable surface and covered.

Property owners/associations shall implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control at these sites.

97. Fire sprinkler test water shall discharge to onsite vegetated areas, or, alternatively shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards.

98. Air conditioning condensate shall drain to landscaping, or alternatively may be connected to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards.

Noise & Vibration
Noise
Construction

99. Noise Control Plan. The applicant must prepare and implement a noise control plan.

Said plan must incorporate the noise reduction measures identified in the Noise and Vibration study prepared for the project, and the City standard construction noise COAs required for all projects.
100. Noise Coordinator. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contactor shall designate a “Construction Noise Coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Construction Noise Coordinator shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The telephone number for the Construction Noise Coordinator must be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contactor shall notify adjacent residents of the construction schedule in writing and provide them with the contact information of the Construction Noise Coordinator. 101. Notice. The applicantshall notify property owners within 300 feet ofthe projectsite two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities on site. A schedule of construction activities, contact phone number for the Noise Coordinator, and a copy of the noise control plan shall be included with this notice. 147

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

102. Grading & Building Noise. The applicant must ensure that the following preventative and monitoring measures are enforced during grading and building operations:
a) Limit construction activity to the hours listed in the City Noise Ordinance. (8:00 am to 5:00 pm on weekdays, 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, no construction activity on Sundays and holidays). Exceptions to these hours may be approved by the Building Official though the standard City process. b) Schedule highest noise-generating activity and construction activity away from noise- sensitive land uses.
c) Equip internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good condition.
d) Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
e) Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses. f) Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment where feasible and available.
103. Engine Noise. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers, which are maintained in good condition. 104. Equipment Noise. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment. If the applicant demonstrates that the use of quiet air compressors and other stationary equipment is not feasible, moveable sound barriers or portable sound huts must be used for noise mitigation.

Operation
105. The Project Noise Consultant shall conduct an acoustic analysis of all mechanical and HVAC equipment proposed with the final building permit plans. The results of the analysis and design recommendations to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance shall be summarized by the Consultant in a letter submitted with the building permit plans. The consultant’s recommendations shall be incorporated into the building plans, prior to issuance of a building permit.

Interior Noise
106. Noise Impacted locations. All new development that would be exposed to noise greater than the “normally acceptable” noise level range, and residential and other noisesensitive land uses within the 65 dB contours, as shown in [BVSP] Figure 6-6d are 148

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

required to reduce interior noise through design, sound insulation, or other measures to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 dBA. At minimum, the following is required: A detailed acoustical analysis of the project must be completed by a qualified acoustical consultant to define the measures required such that the interior noise level requirements are satisfied.
107. Priorto issuance of aBuilding Permit, the project noise consultant must certify in writing that the submitted Building Plansinclude all required noise reduction recommendations specified in the detailed acoustical analysis (i.e., construction methods, increased insulation, noise baffling, etc.) to reduce interior noise levels below the City and State level of 45 dB.

Construction Vibration
108. After obtaining permission from the subject property owners, the applicant must conduct preconstruction photo surveys of foundation/building wall cracks in adjacent structures, and install vibration monitors at any sensitive receptor sites identified in the project Vibration Assessment. The applicant must submit a copy of the photo survey and written confirmation from the Project Acoustic Consultant to the Planning and Building Departments that all required monitors have been installed and inspected, and that they meet the consultant’s specifications, prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
109. The applicant must designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.
110. Neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the project site must be noticed of the construction activities and construction schedule (including estimated dates of various construction phases) at least two weeks prior to the start of construction. 111. The applicant must ensure that the preventative and monitoring measures identified in the Vibration Assessment are enforced during grading and building operations. The applicant must demonstrate that all project construction personnel have been made aware of these measures, prior to issuance of a grading or building permits. On-site identification of any buffer distances between construction (i.e., vibratory rollers, excavators, backhoes, etc.) and adjacent structures that are specified in the Vibration Assessment must occur prior to grading operations.
112. Vibration monitors shall be placed at the sensitive receptors to monitor construction activities and make sure the project thresholds are met. Real-time alerts must be sent to the Contractor in case of near threshold vibration levels or in case of threshold exceedances. In case of exceedances, work must stop, and the source of the exceedance must be identified, and the required mitigation measure should be incorporated. 149

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

113. Building structures near the project must be periodically checked for cracks, and any cracks must be monitored. If minor cracks are reported or existing cracks propagate, vibration project action levels must be restricted.
114. Whenever possible, construction or equipment activity generating relatively high levels of vibration must not occur at the same time and shall be spaced as far apart in time as possible from one another. In general, the most severe activities must be reserved for the middle of the day (noon). If activities must occur simultaneously, they shall be performed as far away from one-another as possible within the construction zone. 115. All deliveries of material and equipment must occur during daytime hours, including queueing of construction vehicles outside the site. Vehicles delivering materials and equipment must be operated in strict conformance with regulations established by the United States Department of Transportation and all State and Local requirements. All materials and equipment must be stored on-site and within the confines of the construction barricades.
116. Stationary and portable construction equipment must be located at positions where the noise/vibration impact to nearby noise/vibration-sensitive receptors is minimal. At times where the equipment cannot be positioned at a minimal noise/vibration impacting location, mitigation devicesshall be implemented, as determined by the ProjectAcoustic Consultant or designated Vibration Monitor.
117. After construction activities are complete, the applicant must conduct a postconstruction photo survey of previously surveyed buildings for foundation /building wall cracks. The post construction survey, and a summary letter of any resulting actions taken (repairs or restitutions) must be provided to the Community Development Department, prior to final building permit inspection.

Transportation & Traffic
Transportation
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
118. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Belmont’s TDM programs by submitting a completed TDM application form (available on the City website) which will be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall implement the TDM program as described in the approved TDM Plan. The applicant shall submit an annual TDM compliance report and pay a TDM review fee, as specified in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. In addition, the following is required:
a) The Applicant, using the adopted TDM program, shall provide a tally of how many points and under which categories the project will be achieving TDM measures.
150

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

b) The applicant shall submit an annual TDM compliance report and pay a TDM review fee, as specified in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. c) The TDM program shall be evaluated annually to assess the actual level of trip reduction achieved at the site and to identify any adjustments to the program necessary to ensure the TDM measures are successful. Consistent with common traffic engineering data collection principles, trip generation shall be monitored annually by means of AM and PM commute hour driveway counts. The counts shall be conducted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM one day per year on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) during the fall when school isin session.

Mechanical tube counts, hand counts, or video counts may be used. The peak 60-minute period should be calculated for each two-hour traffic count period. d) An annual employee survey should be conducted to determine transportation mode choice (i.e., drive alone, carpool, bus, Caltrain, etc.). The site TDM coordinator shall work with an independent consultant to obtain traffic count data, implement the annual commuter surveys and document the results in a TDM monitoring report.
e) The annual monitoring report shall be submitted to the Public Works Director or citywide TMA by the TDM coordinator. The data shall be reviewed by the City to assess whether the goal of a 15% trip reduction is being met. f) In addition to the annual monitoring reports, a five-year review shall be conducted to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the TDM measures. If the city determines that the trip reduction goal is not being achieved, additional TDM measures may be implemented. Modifications to the TDM plan may include additional programs or services listed in the City of Belmont’s TDM program or otherwise available for achieving vehicle trip reductions. g) The annual TDM monitoring report shall describe any planned modifications to the TDM program intended to ensure compliance with the trip reduction targets established for this project.

Construction Traffic
119. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a construction management plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Public Works Department in consultation with the Community Development Department and Police Department. For properties located at or in close proximity to the City borders, the plan shall be routed to adjacent jurisdictions. The CMP shall include a response to construction-related conditions and requirements identified by reviewing City departments, and outside agencies for inclusion in the Plan. The plan shall include at least the following items:
151

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

a) Schedule
A project construction schedule shall be provided that includes the approximate date and expected time frame for each stage of construction. At minimum, the schedule shall include:
• Excavation & Shoring (as applicable)
• Below Grade & Foundation Construction
• Above Grade Construction & Framing
• Exterior & Interior Finish Work
• Public Frontage Improvements
• Offsite & Utility Improvements
b) Site & Logistics Plan
Site and logistics plan(s) shall be provided for each phase of project construction. Said plan(s) shall include:
• Location of Construction Fencing & Access Control for The Site • Proposed Circulation Pattern, including Access & Egress, for Each Phase of Construction
• Location of Dewatering Tanks, Construction Trailer,
Temporary Power Pole, & Restrooms
• Erosion & Dust Control Plans
• Security & Lighting Plans
• Location of Construction Staging Areas for Materials, Equipment, & Vehicles
• Crane Plane (Location, Height, & Radius), as applicable • Construction Worker Parking
c) Traffic Control Plan
Routes for construction-related traffic (hauling, deliveries, works, etc.) shall be identified in consultation with the Department of Public Works. Grading, hauling, and construction delivery traffic shall be timed to avoid peak hour school and work commute traffic. The CMP shall identify the maximum size of construction equipment/trucks during construction, expected temporary street closure, the use of flag personnel during construction, and the location of construction worker parking/car-pooling. Comprehensive 152

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

traffic control measures shall be identified, including: any required detour signage, lane closures, and sidewalk closures. A 24 Hour Written notice must be given to the Public Works and Police Departments prior to lane closures.

Trained flag persons shall be positioned at both ends of blocked traffic lanes to ensure safe movement of vehicles, and pedestrians. The proposed traffic control plan may require review by a traffic engineer, to ensure an adequate intersection/driveway turning radius would be provided for large vehicles, and/or when other large projects are in construction at the same time. d) Noticing
The CMP shall include notice to property owners within 300 feet of the project site two weeks prior to grading, and identification of haul route(s) and staging area for the project. The notice shall also include a process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity, including identification of an on-site complaint manager. 24-hour advance written notice shall also be provided to adjacent property owners, adjacent businesses, and Public Works and Police Department personnel prior to all major deliveries, detours, and lane closures.
e) Road Conditions
Documentation of road pavement conditions shall be provided to the Public Works Department for all routes that will be used by construction vehicles, both before and after project construction. Roads found to have been damaged by construction vehicles shall be repaired as required by current City pavement restoration standards, or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
f) Response to CMP Conditions
A response shall be provided to CMP conditions from other City departments, and outside agencies.

Encroachment Permits
120. The property owner/applicant shall apply for and obtain temporary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works for work in the City public right-of-way, easements or property in which the City holds an interest, including driveway, sidewalk, sewer connections, sewer clean-outs, curb drains, storm drain connections, placement of a debris box, etc.
121. The property owner/applicant shall apply for and obtain a permanent encroachment agreement (PEA) from the Department of Public Works, with approval by the City Council, for a structure, retaining wall, awning, or other features constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest. This 153

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

PEA shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder’s office prior to project construction.

Emergency Access
122. Street widening, improvements, and dedications shall be in accordance with City Standards and specifications as required by the Department of Public Works. 123. Streets, sidewalks and curbs in need of repair within and bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in accordance with the Department of Public Works approved standards. Photographs or video of before condition are recommended.
124. A commercial driveway approach shall be installed in accordance with the Department of Public Works approved standards.

General Fees
The applicant/developer must pay all applicable regulatory, connection, and impact fees, in accordance with Government Code Section 65589.5(o), and as specified by each respective City Ordinance or the City's Master Fee Schedule, as follows:

Traffic Improvements
125. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit construction drawings, and applicable review fees for the Transportation Impact Fee identified below for review and approval by the Public Works Department. The applicant shall construct the following improvements prior to certificate of occupancy.

Public Art
126. The City has a development standard that requires non-residential and mixed use development involving 10,000 square feet or more of new floor area to devote an amount not less than 1% of building development costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the development site. For projects that do not include public art, developers can meet this obligation by either: 1) providing an in-lieu contribution (payment) to the City for acquisition and placement of public art in the city; or 2) by acquiring and installing freely accessible art on city property or in the public right of way. The calculated In-Lieu fee is $141,050 for the Phase 1 Project. Fees must be paid prior to issuance of Building Permit. Phase 2 project costs will be determined upon the Master Revenue Fee schedule in effect at the date of submittal.

Building Permit/Plan Check
127. Building Permit & Plan Check Fees – based on building valuation. The current fees 154

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

may be calculated using the adopted FY 2025-26 fee schedule located on the Finance page of the City’s website. Fees will be adjusted to the most current adopted fee schedule in effect at the time of payment. Plan check fees must be paid at the time of building permit application. Building permit fees must be paid prior to building permit issuance.
128. General Plan Maintenance Fee - 0.75% of Building Valuation. Must be paid prior to building permit issuance.
129. Sewer Connection Fees. Fees will be adjusted to the most current adopted fee schedule in effect at the time of payment. The fee must be paid prior to building permit issuance for the Phase 1 Project.

Transportation Impact Fees
130. The applicant shall pay all required Transportation Impact Fees (TIF), as identified in the City’s adopted Ordinance, and most current fee schedule. The calculated fee is $150,960.44 for the Phase 1 Project. Fees must be paid prior to issuance of Building Permit. Phase 2 project costs will be determined upon the Master Revenue Fee schedule in effect at the date of submittal.

Housing Impact Fees
131. The applicant shall pay all required Housing Impact Fees, as identified in the City’s adopted Ordinance, and most current fee schedule. The calculated fee is $59,211.90 for the Phase 1 Project. Fees must be paid prior to issuance of Building Permit. Phase 2 project costs will be determined upon the Master Revenue Fee schedule in effect at the date of submittal.

Park Improvement Impact Fees
132. The applicant shall pay all required Park Improvement Impact Fees, as identified in the City’s adopted Ordinance, and most current fee schedule. The calculated fee is $9,689.22 for the Phase 1 Project. Fees must be paid prior to issuance of Building Permit. Phase 2 Project costs will be determined upon the Master Revenue Fee schedule in effect at the date of submittal.

Community Benefits Donation – McDougal Park Improvements 133. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the Phase 1 Academic Buildings Project for the campus, the school shall make a Community Benefits donation of One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to the City to be applied to McDougal Park improvements for use by the Parks and Recreation Department. 155

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

Utilities
Stormwater
134. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist, documenting the LID treatment reduction credit, a narrative of LID Feasibility/Infeasibility and a Storm Water Treatment Plan showing a minimum of 100% LID treatment unless demonstrated to be infeasible isincorporated into the storm water treatment design as shown on the City approved Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. 135. The Property Owner shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the municipality to ensure long‐term maintenance and servicing by the Property Owner of stormwater site design and treatment control [and/or HM] measures according to the approved Maintenance Plan(s). The Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded for the property and/or made part of the CC&Rs.
136. The developer shall be responsible for t he total cost of upgrading the existing drainage pipes. The costs will include design, permitting, construction, construction management, inspection and closeout activities. The contribution for the upgrade of the existing drainage pipes shall be paid to the City before the issuance of the building permit.

Sewer
137. The owner/applicant shall analyze the existing sewer system from the property boundary to the nearest pump station or main trunk line to determine its capacity to handle increased sewer flows from this development. Should any deficiency in this system be found, the owner/applicant shall improve the downstream system or contribute a proportionate share of the cost for improvements as determined by the Public Works Department.
138. Applicant shall install the sanitary sewer connection in accordance with Department of Public Works approved standards and pay the applicable sewer connection fee. Sanitary sewer to include a back flow prevention device.

New Facilities/Supply – Water
139. The applicant shall demonstrate that the final landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD), and is consistent with MPWD’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), prior to installation of landscaping. A post installation certification from MPWD is also required prior to final building permit inspection. Contact the MPWD Water Conservation Administrative Specialist at (650) 591-8941 or [email protected] for more information. 156

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

Solid Waste
140. The owner/applicant shall provide plans and materials that include details for collecting trash and recycling for the proposed development project (i.e., location of facilities, and proposed access for collection). The City’s trash and recycling hauler (Recology) shall review the plans and determines the appropriate levels service for the projects.

Recology and Public Works staff shall also determine if there is adequate access/circulation for their vehicles to pick up materials from the site. A letter shall be provided from the Recology stating that service is available to the project as designed.

Public Works will review the proposed service for impacts to the right-of-way.

II. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:

Planning Division
Conceptual Development Plan & Detailed Development Plan 138. The Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) and Detailed Development Plan (DDP) shall be constructed in two phases. The Conceptual Development Plan for Phase 1 includes the development of a new academic wing (three new classroom buildings). Phase 2 includes the construction of an athletics building and kitchen. The relative locations of all proposed Phase 1 and 2 improvements is delineated on plan Sheet AS-102 of the Detailed Development plans. The project shall be consistent with the following design standards, which are derived from the plans on file, dated January 30, 2026, and as referenced below.

A. Minimum Lot Size. 4.92 Acres (214,315 sq. ft.)
B. Permitted Uses.

1. A private school for up to 290 students, including supporting/accessory activities and uses such as a gymnasium, kitchen, and multipurpose room for the subject property.

2. Community recreational use of playgrounds, and other recreational facilities during off-school hours; the school will post signage that delineates when their school facilities are open to the community to avoid any confusion. Access for school staff and small-group activities until 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and weekend access from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the campus.

3. Allowance of twelve (12) weekend events annually involving 25 or more attendees (e.g., schoolwide gatherings, accreditation visits, graduation).

4. Permission of three (3) special Saturday evening events each year such as a musical or alumni gathering or benefit event with activities ending by 10:00 p.m.
157

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

5. Authorized dismissals on nearby neighborhood streets for up to four (4) special events per year to ease traffic congestion associated with large on-campus gatherings.

6. Coordinated and shared use of McDougal Park for limited weekend or additional weekday access including during the school’s four-week summer session. No additional exclusive use of McDougal Park is requested by the school.

C. Maximum Floor Area of buildings. 53,579 sq. ft.

D. Maximum Floor Area Ratio. 0.25
E. Minimum Setbacks and Building Separations: Pursuant to Plan Sheet C2.0, and as follows:

Criteria - Setbacks1 CDP
Standards DDP – Right Side & Rear Setback
Front 30’ No change to existing setbacks
which exceed CDP minimum.

Left Side 25’ No change to existing setbacks
which exceed CDP minimum.

Right Side 15’ Academic Building A - 42’8”
Academic Building B - 25’2”
Academic Building C - 16’9”
Rear 15’ Athletics Building + Kitchen - 18’5”
1 Setbacks as measured from property line to closest proposed building wall.

F. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to submitted Elevation Drawings dated January 30, 2026 – Sheets A-200 through A-601 (see table below). Building height measured from finished grade to the top most point of the roof above (including mechanical equipment and all other building features).

Criteria CDP Standards Proposed DDP
Height Maximum of 40 feet
Academic Building A -33’6”
Academic Building B - 34’2”
Academic Building C – 21’3”
Athletics Building + Kitchen -
32’0”
G. Off-Street Parking: 85 Parking Spaces (four of which are ADA accessible) pursuant to Section 8 (parking) of the Zoning Ordinance for School Uses. In addition, the school will add one parking space for any additional employees during the traditional school day beyond 85.
158

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

H. Landscaping/Lighting: Landscape and lighting shall comply with submitted Landscape and Lighting Drawings dated January 30, 2026 – Sheets L101 through Sheet L103, except as modified through a Detailed Development Plan or amendment thereto, and Design Review. Landscaping shall be native or locally acclimated, draught-tolerant species and consistent with all applicable state and local landscape requirements. All lighting shall be downcast on the project site and shall not create glare off-site. Parking lot and walkway lighting shall be the minimum required for safety. There shall be no floodlighting of landscape plantings, buildings, courtyards, patios, or areas between buildings.

I. Building Materials: Building materials shall be consistent with Elevation Drawing and submitted materials – Sheets A600 through A601, dated January 30, 2026 except as modified via an approved DDP for the school.

J. Circulation Plan: – Circulation shall be consistent with Sheet #2 of the Conceptual Development Plan, dated January 30, 2026, except as modified via an approved Detailed Development Plan (DDP) or amendment thereto, after review and approval by the Director of Public Works in consultation with the Police and Fire Departments.

K. Fencing: Fencing locations shall be consistent with proposed materials and standards (see table below), except as modified through a Detailed Development Plan or amendment thereto, and Design Review.

L. Roof Mounted Mechanical Equipment: Installation of roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be consistent with Elevation Drawings dated January 30, 2026 – Sheets A200 through A300 (see table below), except as modified by a Detailed Development Plan (DDP) or amendment thereto.

Criteria DDP Standards Proposed Project
Roof-mounted
Mechanical
Equipment
Screened from
Public Vantage
Points
Screened from Public Vantage
Points
M. Signage: Signage shall be consistent with drawings dated January 30, 2026 – Sheets #5 and 11 (see table below), except as modified by a Detailed Development Plan or amendment thereto.

Criteria DDP Standards Proposed Project
Fencing
Chain Link and
Wood – Maximum
of 6 feet in height
Chain Link and Wood –
Maximum of 6 feet in height
159

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

Criteria DDP Standards Proposed Project
Signage Per Master Sign
Program
Vehicular Directional
Monument Sign – 20 sq. ft.

LED Monument Signs - 60 sq.
ft.

Building Identification Signs
Informational Signage
N. Floor Area: Floor area shall be consistent with drawings dated January 30, 2026 – Sheets G-002, except as modified by a Detailed Development Plan or amendment thereto, provided that total floor area does not exceed 0.25 FAR (53,579 sq. ft.).

CDP Standards Proposed Project
Building Floor Area
Existing
a) Classroom Building 1
b) Classroom Building 2
c) Classroom Building 3
d) Multi-Purpose Building
Total - 29,677 sq. ft.

Classroom 1 - (7,346 sq. ft.)
Classroom 2 - (6,840 sq. ft.)
Classroom 3 - (6,840 sq. ft.)
Multi-Purpose Building - (8,651 sq. ft.)
New Academic Wing – Phase 1
e) Building A
f) Building B
g) Building C
Total - 11,893 sq. ft.

Building A - (6,364 sq. ft.)
Building B - (4,237 sq. ft.)
Building C - (1,292 sq. ft.)
New Athletic Building – Phase 2
h) Gymnasium
i) Support/Kitchen
Total - 11,126 sq. ft.

Gymnasium- (7,973 sq. ft.)
Kitchen - 1,400 sq. ft.; Ancillary support
space – 1,753 sq. ft.

Total Floor Area & FAR 52,696 sq. ft. (0.246)
160

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

O. Minor deviations of up to 10% of numeric standards from the Detailed Development Plan may be approved administratively by the Director of Community Development or their designee, except for the Phase 2 Athletics Building setback standards for abutting residential properties.

Operational Standard Conditions
139. The following “Student Loading Policy” shall be required to minimize school traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood.
a. No Charles Armstrong School Student shall drive to school; during school operating hours; the required parking spaces are intended for school employees or visitors.
b. Morning Drop-Off for the school begins at 7:30 AM until the start of school at 8:30 AM. School staff has assigned a traffic director to direct school traffic off Solana Drive and down to the lower parking lot. A second traffic director, in the parking lot, opens the car door and assists the student out of the vehicle. Once the student is safely away from the vehicle, the vehicle driver is directed out of the lot and back out of the campus and off of the neighborhood streets as quickly as possible. c. Afternoon Pick-Up includes staggered class dismissal times. Drivers begin arriving at approximately 2:45 PM where a staff person directs pick-up traffic to the lower driveway and into the schoolyard. At a designated time, all vehicles are halted, and the students are allowed to go to their vehicle. Homeroom teachers accompany their students to the lower schoolyard and when the first group of students are safely in their vehicles, student movement is halted, and the loaded vehicles are directed out of the lot. There are at least six (6) traffic directors always managing the pedestrian and vehicle traffic movement.
140. The applicant shall arrange for refuse/recycling pick-up to occur between Mondays through Friday, 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
141. The school shall prepare and amil a calendar of special events on a quarterly basis to all property owners within 300 feet of the school property in order to notify neighbors of upcoming school events.
142. The school shall conduct a minimum of one open house meeting annually in order to foster neighbor communication.
143. A report, verifying continued conditions of approval compliance, shall be generated by the school and submitted to the Director of Community Development on an annual basis after one (1) year of Certificate of Occupancy issuance of the Phase 1 Project Scope. After three annual reports after the Certificate of Occupancy of the Phase 1 Project Scope, Community Development Director may amend the report to be required only once every five (5) years.
161

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

General Conditions
144. The developer is hereby notified, as required by Government Code §66020, that the approved plans, the conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule found at www.belmont.gov constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90-day period has begun in which Developer may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code §66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. 145. Indemnification. Land Owner hereby agrees to and shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, any City agencies and their respective elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, volunteers, and representatives (collectively, for the purposes of this Performance Standard, "City") from any and all loss, liability, fines, penalties, forfeitures, costs, and damages (whether in contract, tort, or strict liability, including but not limited to personal injury, death at any time, and property damage) and from any and all claims, demands, and actions in law or equity (including attorneys' fees and litigation expenses) directly or indirectly arising or alleged to have arisen out of or in any way related to: (a) the approval of the Development Agreement or the City Approvals; (b) any development or use of the Property under the Development Agreement or the City Approvals; and (c) any actions or inactions by the Land owner or its contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in connection with the construction or improvement of the Property and the Project; excepting to the extent arising from the intentional acts or willful misconduct of City, its elected and appointed representatives, officers, agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors.
146. This indemnification and hold harmless agreement applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this Performance Standard, regardless of whether or not City prepared, supplied, or approved plans or specifications for the Property, but does not apply to damages and claims for damages caused by City with respect to public improvements and facilities after City has accepted responsibility for them. 147. Fees. The applicant/developer agrees to pay all fees including plan check, building permit, General Plan Maintenance, Business License, and Tree Removal as specified by each respective City Ordinance or the City's Master Fee Schedule.

Building Permit Submittal
148. Construction Staging and Storage areas. The applicant shall provide a written plan for construction staging and storage areas. This information shall be submitted in conjunction with application for a building permit for City review and approval. 162

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

149. Tree Removal Permit. All protected trees removed for the project shall be replaced onsite at a 1:1 ratio using preferred species trees or in-lieu fees shall be paid at 1:1 ratio in the amount identified on the City's adopted Fee Schedule at the time of building permit issuance.
150. Prior to issuing a permit for grubbing, demolition, tree removal, grading, or construction, the following must occur:

Pruning:

Any pre-project pruning of trees on or adjacent to the subject property shall be performed only by or under direct site supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and shall conform to the most recent edition of ANSI A300 Part I: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance, Standard Practices, Pruning. Tree Care Companies performing work on the subject property shall contact the City Arborist (CCA) prior to commencement of any work. The CCA will request a receipt for all tree care related work to verify compliance with this pruning recommendation.

Tree Protection Zone (TPZ):

The applicant shall install tree protection measures for the project as recommended by a certified arborist. The arborist shall inspect and verify, in writing, that appropriate measures have been installed prior to beginning construction. The protective measures must not be temporarily moved during construction. No materials, tools, excavated soil, liquids, substances, etc. are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, inside the TPZ. 151. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project plans must be reviewed and approved by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD). Contact the Water Administrative Specialist at (650) 591-8941 or [email protected] for more information.

Please be advised that any alterations to the landscaping after MPWD approval may require subsequent review by MPWD.
152. After the City permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the property owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with Community Development Department and Public Works Department staff, among other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all subcontractors who are responsible for grading and erosion and sedimentation protection controls.
153. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Geotechnical Engineer of Record ("GEOR") shall review the geotechnical aspects of the completed project civil and architectural drawings and provide a professional certification letter to the City. In addition, the GEOR shall be consulted by the project structural engineer ("SE") during the design process, provide assistance as needed in determination of design pier lengths, and review the completed structural plans and calculations for conformance to the GEOR's geotechnical recommendations. The GEOR shall also provide supplemental recommendations as necessary and provide a professional certification letter to the City 163

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

to that effect. The aforementioned letters may be required to be peer-reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of a building permit. 154. The GEOR shall be retained to observe the geotechnical and foundation aspects of the construction. The GEOR shall observe pier foundation excavations and based upon their observations, confirm that adequate embedment has been achieved in supporting materials judged to be competent supporting material. The GEOR should provide written documentation in a final construction report to the City for the following activities:
a. Earthwork operations, including subgrade preparation, earthwork construction, and site drainage installations as applicable.
b. Recording of test locations and results of field and laboratory compaction tests where testing is determined to be appropriate by the project geotechnical engineer. c. Building foundations, including observation of foundation supporting materials and confirmation of individual foundation embedment and/or supporting materials with respect to the project geotechnical engineer’s recommendations. d. Site drainage, including finish grading around the residence and discharge of collected surface and subsurface water to appropriate discharge facilities.

The aforementioned final construction report may be required to be peer-reviewed by the City’s geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of a Planning final.

Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
155. Demolition waste shall either be used on-site or separated and trucked to certified recyclers in conformance with CalGreen standards. All solid waste generated on-site shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal and State regulations related to solid waste.

Phase 2 Athletics Building Community Access
156. In the six months prior to Charles Armstrong School occupying the Athletics Building (Phase 2), the City and Charles Armstrong School will conduct a meeting to review Armstrong’s expected Athletics Building use and the availability for some City/Community rental of the gym outside of the hours Armstrong requires. The discussion will also facilitate the process for potential required amendments of the Detailed Development Plan associated with Phase 2 to address said joint use. Subsequent Annual Reviews regarding school use and Phase 2 Athletics Building Belmont rental will also occur annually in June, once the Athletics Building is completed. 164

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

III. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT:

Building Permit Submittal
157. The building permit submittal shall be in conformance with the approved project plans (PA2024-0050).
158. The applicant shall obtain all required permits.
159. The Project shall comply with the buildings standards in the California Building Standards Code, as adopted and amended by the City of Belmont.
160. A minimum of 65% of the construction waste generated by this project shall be recycled or salvaged for use. Documentation shall be provided before the final inspection.

Sample forms found in A Guide to the California Green Building Standards Code (Residential) located at www.hcd.ca.gov/CALGreen.html may be used to assist in documenting compliance, CALGreen Section 4.408.
161. Provide on the plans the existing and proposed locations of the electric and gas meters, subpanels, water heater and furnace.
162. A soils and engineering geology report for all new or substantially altered foundations is required per BCC Section 7-12 and 2013 CBC Section 1803. Provide such a report and a letter from the geotechnical engineer confirming that the foundation plan has been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the plans.
163. Provide a record of survey.
164. Amend the plans to show the location of all transformers, fire standpipes, and back flow preventers. Provide on the plans the existing and proposed location of the main electrical service, all subpanels, gas meter, furnace and water heater. 165. After the City permits are approved but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with Building and Public Works Department staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all subcontractors who are responsible for grading and erosion and sedimentation protection controls.

During Construction
166. All construction and related activities which require a City permit shall be allowed only during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturdays. No construction activity or related activities shall be allowed outside of the aforementioned hours or on Sundays and the following holidays: New Year’s Day, 165

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

President’s Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. All gasoline powered construction equipment shall be equipped with an operating muffler or baffling system as originally provided by the manufacturer, and no modification to these systems is permitted.
167. Post hours of operation and phone numbers for noise complaints. 168. Investigate opportunities for salvaging material for reuse. 169. Every building, or structure, shall be provided with an address. Numerals shall be located where clearly visible from the street or roadway upon which it fronts. Residential Structures shall have numerals a minimum of 4 inches in height and of stroke. Commercial Structures shall have numerals a minimum of 6 inches in height and inch stroke. Numerals shall be of contrasting color to their background and illuminated at night. Numerals shall be white in color where located upon glazing.

IV. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE BELMONT FIRE DEPARTMENT:
170. A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Automatic Fire Extinguishing System. The application shall be made by either a Registered Engineer or by the Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor who will be performing the work. This application shall include any Fixed Fire Protection System.

A valid Permit and Approved Plans shall be at the jobsite at all times. 171. A separate application and permit are required for the installation of any underground fire service lines. Application shall be made by a Registered Engineer or by either a General Engineering Contractor or a Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor, who will be performing the work.
172. Building plans shall include general notes provided on the Cover Sheet as follows:

A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Automatic Fire Extinguishing System. The application shall be made by either a Registered Engineer or by the Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor who will be performing the work. This shall include any Fixed Fire Protection System. A valid Permit and Approved Plans shall be at the jobsite at all times. 173. Prior to application for a Fire Sprinkler Permit, the applicant shall submit plans to MidPeninsula Water District for their review and approval. Contact MPWD at 650-591- 8941.
174. A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Fire Alarm, or Water-flow Monitoring System. This shall include the interconnection of any Fixed Fire Protection System to an Alarm System where provided. A valid Permit and Approved Plans shall be at the jobsite at all times. 166

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

175. A separate application and permit are required for the installation of any underground fire service lines. Application shall be made by a Registered Engineer or by either a General Engineering Contractor or a Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor, who will be performing the work.
176. Every building, or structure, shall be provided with an address. Numerals shall be located where clearly visible from the street or roadway upon which it fronts.

Residential Structures shall have numerals a minimum of 4 inches in height and of ½ stroke. Commercial Structures shall have numerals a minimum of 6 inches in height and ¾ inch stroke. Numerals shall be of contrasting color to their background and illuminated at night. Numerals shall be white in color where located upon glazing. 177. A Knox Key-Lock Box is required to be installed as shown on plans. Contact Fire Prevention at 650-637-2939 to obtain an application.
178. All Fire Inspections are performed on Wednesdays between 9:00a.m.-2:00p.m., unless special arrangements are made with the Fire Inspector. Call 650-637-2939 to schedule an inspection. A minimum of 48 hours advance notice is required. In accordance with the Municipal/Regional Stormwater Permit no fire sprinkler system drain shall discharge into any Storm Drain System. The system shall discharge to either a landscape area large enough to contain the outflow, or to the Sanitary Sewer by means of an indirect connection. The location of the Fire Sprinkler System drain shall be shown on plans submitted for a building permit.

V. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE BELMONT PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT:
179. The Project landscape plan shall include both fire resistive planting including slope stabilizers that are native and fire resistive along the urban/wildland interface. Nonnatives shall be a sterile variety and as such not invasive and not planted along the wildland/urban interface.

VI. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:

Prior to Building Permit Issuance
180. The plans shall show the installation of a trash full capture system(s) from a list of certified trash full capture systems by the State Water Resources Control Board. The list of certified trash full capture systems can be viewed from the Water Board’s webpage at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/trash_imple mentation/2025/full-cptre-for-public.pdf.
181. In conjunction with the Building Permit plan submittal, the Applicant shall provide an updated title report dated within the previous six (6) months, including functional hyperlinks to each listed exception. The permit plan submittal shall include a separate 167

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

plan sheet identifying the location and description of all title exceptions affecting the project site. The Applicant is advised that, because a current title report was not provided during entitlement processing, existing title exceptions may be identified that could require modifications to the approved site layout. 182. The project is subject to the review and approval a drainage capacity analysis which, at a minimum, must address the following:
i. Supports the sizing of the on-site storm drain system and connections to the public storm system.
ii. Impacts to capacity of the existing storm drain main and if any hydromodification is needed on-site to mimic pre-existing site peak flow. iii. Addresses impacts of the proposed “Re-route of Public Storm Water” around the new school facilities. Applicant is advised that the City Engineer, at their sole discretion, may require modifications to the approved storm drain re-route configuration.

The Applicant is advised that if any deficiencies in the existing City storm drain system are identified that would be affected by increased runoff from the project site, the Applicant shall be required to either improve the affected downstream facilities at their sole expense or contribute a proportionate share of the cost of such improvements, as determined by the Public Works Director.
183. The project is subject to the review and approval a Stormwater Management Plan that illustrates compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3 Order No. R2-2022-0018 (MRP 3.0) and San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program’s (SMCWPPP) C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance.

The Stormwater Management Plan shall include, at a minimum:
i. C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist.
ii. Exhibit(s) showing drainage areas and locations of Low Impact Development (LID) treatment measures.
iii. Project watershed.
iv. Total project site area and total area of land disturbed. v. Total new and/or replaced impervious area.
vi. Treatment measures and hydraulic sizing calculations. Applicant shall note that all stormwater treatment measures shown on the improvement plans shall provide sufficient elevation and dimensional information to be field verified during construction by the City Inspector.
vii. A listing of source control and site design measures to be implemented at the site. All site design and source control measures checked “yes” in the C.3 Regulated Project Checklist’s Sections II.B and II.C shall be strictly adhered to. Source control measures shall be clearly labeled on the improvement plans.
viii. Projects shall comply with all requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Provision C.3 (MRP 3.0) and San Mateo 168

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program’s (SMCWPPP) C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ix. The Project is subject to an existing Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures and Hydromodification Management Controls, dated February 25, 2015 (San Mateo County Record Document #2015-027138) for six existing stormwater biotreatment planters. The Stormwater Management Plan shall show the existing six (6) stormwater biotreatment control measures, the associated pipe conveyance system for the treatment control measures, and the proposed revisions to the existing stormwater biotreatment control measures. The following information shall also be shown:

1. The pre-development/existing stormwater biotreatment control measures, conveyance piping, and the drainage management areas.

2. Identification of the project’s intent and proposed modifications to the existing stormwater biotreatment control measures, conveyance piping, and the drainage management areas (e.g. remain in place, relocate, modify, etc.).

3. Provide calculations for the modified existing stormwater biotreatment measures to confirm that the existing DMAs comply with Provision C.3 sizing requirements.

4. Provide a revised C.3/C.6 checklist to account for the modifications to the existing biotreatment control measures.

The Applicant shall be fully responsible for complying with all applicable MRP 3.0 requirements and is advised that modifications to the approved site layout may be required to achieve compliance.
184. The project is subject to the review and approval an existing sewer system capacity analysis to determine whether adequate capacity exists in the City’s sewer main to accommodate the increased flows generated by the project. The analysis shall be accompanied by existing CCTV footage of the sewer main from the project’s point of connection to the sewer main in Chula Vista Drive. If deficiencies in the existing City sewer system are identified through the capacity analysis or CCTV condition assessment, the Applicant shall be required to design and construct improvements to the affected downstream facilities at the Applicant’s sole expense. 185. The Applicant shall obtain final approval from San Mateo Consolidated for the locations of all fire hydrants, fire department connections (FDCs), and the underground fire service lines. The Applicant is advised that, to ensure compliance with City Building and Fire Code requirements, modifications to the approved site layout may be required.

186. The Applicant shall provide approval from the project geotechnical engineer for the overall improvement plans. This approval shall specifically address the placement of 169

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

stormwater structures and storm drain mains adjacent to, or in some cases directly against, building structures and foundations.
187. The Applicant shall clarify the disposition of the nature trail improvements that are shown on the Landscaping Plans and located southeast of the proposed plaza area. If the Applicant is proposing the nature trail, the Applicant plans shall provide updated grading, drainage, and stormwater control plans for the nature trail improvements. 188. The project is required to submit irrigation system layout plans to support the planting within the stormwater biotreatment planters for City review and approval. 189. The project shall update the Stormwater Control Plan to incorporate the building and site improvements that are between the eastern side of the proposed academic buildings and the proposed easterly perimeter concrete v-ditches. 190. The project shall provide detailed roofing plans for the City’s review and approval. The roofing plans shall provide sufficient details to confirm the project’s proposed DMA delineation on the stormwater control plan.
191. The Applicant shall provide plan provisions/notes for the proposed reuse of the existing 24” City storm drain pipe located between the northeast corner of the new gymnasium and the southwest corner of the existing lower classroom building. The reuse of the existing 22” storm drain is subject to City review of the pipe’s CCTV inspection to confirm the condition and pipe meet current City Standards. If the storm drain pipe reuse is not approved by the City, the segment shall be replaced in accordance with City Standards.
192. The project shall provide system details of the proposed on-site sanitary sewer pump station for City review and approval. The on-site sewer pump station plans shall provide sufficient details to demonstrate that the pump station has adequate overflow gravity facilities, backup power, and other improvements to mitigate sewer overflows from the site. The sewer pump station shall be subject to Public Works and Building review and approval.
193. If applicable, the project shall provide the location(s) of the buildings’ electric transformers.
194. The following Public Works’ comments shall be resolved by the project prior to Building Permit issuance:
a. The plans shall be updated to label the public and private wet utility systems. b. The project shall provide additional topographic survey finished grade elevation information for the existing northern parking lot that is proposed for DMA #4; the elevation information shall be reviewed by the City to confirm that the proposed area will drain to the proposed IMP #4 biotreatment area. c. Assess the potential capacity impacts in the drainage report for the proposed rerouted storm drain main. Note that adding multiple 90-degree bends and 170

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

longer/flatter pipe segments can reduce capacity. Perform a capacity study to confirm adequacy.
d. Indicate whether the City’s public storm drain main is located within a dedicated easement. If so, and if the City approves the re-routing, the existing easement would need to be vacated and a new easement recorded. Applicant shall work with City staff to determine the allowable easement width.
e. If the proposed public storm drain pipe alignment is allowed within the hillside area, the project may be required to provide additional grading and surface improvements to ensure the City can access and maintain the public storm drain pipe.
f. The Applicant shall provide an updated sewer capacity analysis with the modeling application result data and narrative on the existing capacity of the downstream City sewer main that the project will connect to.
g. Provide CCTV footage of the existing sanitary sewer main proposed for reuse to verify its condition. Additionally, clarify the location where the existing sanitary sewer lateral ultimately connects to the main line.
h. Revise the plans to show the extents and connection points to the existing service lateral(s) of the existing sewer piping for the existing Upper and Middle Classroom buildings.
i. Provide a project stormwater management report outlining the overall treatment strategy for the project site and explaining how the project will comply with NPDES Municipal Regional Permit requirements. The report shall also include discussions on the modifications to the existing stormwater treatment measures and the proposed in-lieu treatment of DMA #4 for DMA #3.
j. The plans show two existing 12” storm drain pipes between the existing classroom buildings. Revise the plans to identify the existing storm drain piping’ extents, the disposition of the existing piping (e.g. will the piping remain or be relocated out of the proposed building footprints), and the system invert elevation information.

Prior to Building Permit Final
195. The Project is subject to an existing Maintenance Agreement for Stormwater Treatment Measures and Hydromodification Management Controls, dated February 25, 2015 (San Mateo County Record Document #2015-027138) for six existing stormwater biotreatment planters. An update or supplemental Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for new treatment measures shall be recorded prior to Building Permit issuance.

The appropriate form of recordation shall be determined by the City Engineer. 196. The Applicant shall dedicate a Storm Drain Easement over all City-owned storm drain facilities located within the project site. The final alignment and width of the easement shall be determined by the City Engineer.
197. The Applicant shall quitclaim any existing easements which are necessary to be removed to support the Project.
171

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
1405 Solana Drive – Charles Armstrong School
February 10, 2026

198. The Applicant shall dedicate Emergency Vehicle Access Easement(s) (EVAE) over the parking lot and rear courtyard areas for fire vehicles/equipment and in accordance with San Mateo Consolidated approval of the project’s Fire Access Plan. The EVAE dedication instrument shall be submitted to City for review and approval. 199. The Applicant shall submit a letter from Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD), confirming MPWD review and approval of the project’s on-site domestic water system and its configuration.
200. As part of the Construction Management Plan, the Applicant shall include the phasing intent for the construction of the proposed stormwater treatment control measures and storm drain system conveyance improvements, in conjunction with the project’s buildings and site improvement scheduling. The phasing shall include any modifications to the existing stormwater treatment control measures. If the project intends to be phased for future construction of the stormwater treatment control measures, each phase of the development shall be compliant with Provision C.3 of the MRP.

VII. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF THE BELMONT POLICE DEPARTMENT:
201. All activities shall be subject to the requirements of the Belmont Noise Ordinance. 202. No debris boxes or building materials shall be stored on the street unless permitted. 203. Any burglar alarm shall be registered with the PD per BCC 18-50 et. seq. 204. The applicant shall provide a security plan to the Police Department plan for the construction period, prior to issuance of a building permit. Said plan shall, at minimum, include: lighting, surveillance, physical security of property, and securing of any tools, equipment and/or materials left on site. The Police Department shall also be provided 24-hour emergency contact information for the contractor and owner. Route emergency contact information to PD Attn: Sgt. Thompson or email to [email protected]. 205. No Trespassing signs, per 602 PC, required to be posted around property to discourage unauthorized entry and aid in criminal prosecutions for trespassing/theft. 206. Ensure PD has access to any secured emergency access easements/gates/pathways.

Certification of Approved Final Conditions:

Carlos de Melo, Community Development Director Date
172
300 FOOT RADIUS MAP
1405 SOLANA DRIVE,

BELMONT
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 US Feet
1526 1522
Escondido Way
1512
1516
·"'
1230
NOTE: This is neither a plat nor a survey. It is furnished merely as a convenience to aid in locating the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of any reliance hereon. 1160
1210
1220
1512
1508
Legend
- Street Surfaces
[ Parcels
- Focus Property
Parcels within 300 feet
Parcels within 500 feet
1150
1200
1206
1520
1516
oesvio Way
1504 1508 1512
1301
173
500 FOOT RADIUS MAP
1405 SOLANA DRIVE,

BELMONT
0 80 160 240 320 400 480 US Feet
1526 1522
Escondido Way
1512
1516
·"'
1230
NOTE: This is neither a plat nor a survey. It is furnished merely as a convenience to aid in locating the land indicated hereon with reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by reason of any reliance hereon. 1160
1210
1220
1512
1508
Legend
- Street Surfaces
[ Parcels
- Focus Property
Parcels within 300 feet
Parcels within 500 feet
1150
1200
1206
1520
1516
oesvio Way
1504 1508 1512
1301
174
717 Market Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
650-373-1200
www.panoramaenv.com
City of Belmont
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
Categorical Exemption Evaluation
City of Belmont Communty Development Department
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
December 19, 2025
175
176
www.panoramaenv.com
City of Belmont
Community Development Department
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
Evaluation for Applicability of a Categorical
Exemption under California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15314,
Minor Additions to Schools
December 19, 2025
Prepared for:

City of Belmont Community Development Department
Carlos De Melo, Director
Prepared by:

Panorama Environmental, Inc.
717 Market Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
415-336-1776
[email protected]
177

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 i
Table of Contents
1 Evaluation for Applicability of Categorical Exemption Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15314, Minor Additions to Schools......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Findings for a CEQA Exemption Under Section 15314........................................................................................ 1-1 Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions.................................................................................................................. 1-1 Findings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1-5 2 Project Description for Categorical Exemption Evaluation CEQA Guidelines Section 15314 (Minor Additions to Schools)...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Site Description....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Planned Development Zoning...................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Project Components ...................................................................................................................................... 2-5

2.5 Project Construction.................................................................................................................................... 2-13

2.6 Project Operations....................................................................................................................................... 2-16

2.7 City of Belmont Standard Conditions of Approval ................................................................................. 2-17 3 General Plan Conformity Analysis............................................................................................................. 3-1 Project Description Attachment A........................................................................................................................A-1 Air Quality Health Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................................A-1 Project Description Attachment B........................................................................................................................B-1 Arborist Report...........................................................................................................................................................B-1 Project Description Attachment C ........................................................................................................................C-1 California Natural Diversity Database Search Results......................................................................................C-1 Project Description Attachment D........................................................................................................................D-1 Archaeological Resources Assessment Report .................................................................................................D-1 Project Description Attachment E......................................................................................................................... E-1 Geotechnical Investigation ..................................................................................................................................... E-1 Project Description Attachment F......................................................................................................................... F-1 Noise and Vibration Study....................................................................................................................................... F-1 178

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 ii
Tables
Table 2-1 Construction Phasing and Schedule..................................................................................... 2-13 Table 2-2 Average Truck Trips and Workers per Day ......................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-3 Anticipated Construction Equipment..................................................................................... 2-14 Table 2-4 City of Belmont Conditions of Approval ................................................................................ 2-18 Table 3-1 Project Consistency with the Goals and Policies of the Belmont General Plan and Belmont Climate Action Plan .................................................................................................... 3-1 Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity............................................................................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Site Overview ......................................... 2-4 Figure 3 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - New Academic Wing and Athletics Building Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 4 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Renderings of the New Academic Wing and Athletics Building...................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 5 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Cross Section Views of the New Academic Wing and Athletics Building.................................................................................. 2-9 Figure 6 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 2-11 Figure 7 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Proposed Parking and Circulation Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 2-12 179
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 iii
This page is intentionally left blank.
180
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 1-1
1 Evaluation for Applicability of Categorical Exemption Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15314, Minor Additions to Schools Project: Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
Project Proponent/Property Owner: Charles Armstong School Lead Agency: City of Belmont Community Development Department Findings for a CEQA Exemption Under Section 15314
Per Section 21084 of the Public Resources Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines includes a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15314, Minor Additions to Schools, or Class 14, consists of projects characterized as minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds meeting the conditions described below:
“the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than twenty-five (25) percent or ten (10) classrooms, whichever is less.”
Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions
Section 15300.2 Exceptions of the CEQA Guidelines states a project is not eligible for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA if the project meets the definition of any of the following exceptions. As discussed below and in the supporting documentation there is no substantial evidence that any exceptions apply, pursuant to Section 15300.02 of the CEQA Guidelines. a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may, in a particularly sensitive environment, be significant.

Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.
• The project is a Class 14 project and is therefore not subject to this location exception.
b. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
181
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 1-2
• The proposed expansion would be constructed entirely within the existing Charles Armstrong School campus, redeveloping portions of existing hardscape and landscaped areas. The project would require a new Conceptual Development Plan (CDP), new Detailed Development Plan (DDP), and new Conditional Use Permit for the parcel, which is zoned Planned Development (PD). Although additional infill development may occur in the surrounding area, the amount of remaining undeveloped land within this portion of Belmont and the adjacent City of San Carlos is limited. Future development would be constrained by existing zoning, General Plan land use designations, and site-specific limitations. Any similar projects that may be proposed in the future would be subject to the City’s standard conditions of approval and, where necessary, project-level mitigation measures to ensure that cumulative environmental impacts remain less than significant. • Table 2-4 in the attached Project Description summarizes findings from the project’s technical analyses, including the Air Quality Health Risk Assessment, Arborist Report, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Search, Archaeological Resources Assessment Report, Geotechnical Investigation, and Noise and Vibration Study. These studies collectively demonstrate that the proposed school expansion would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact in any environmental resource area. The analyses confirm that implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval would avoid or minimize potential effects such that cumulative impacts would remain less than significant. • Although the project site contains vegetation capable of supporting certain common and special-status wildlife species (such as the pallid bat, Alameda song sparrow, and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat), the project would not result in substantial cumulative effects on biological resources. Implementation of the City’s standard biological resources conditions of approval, together with the tree-protection and oakreplacement measures identified in the project Arborist Report and preconstruction biological surveys for nesting birds, bats, and woodrats, would ensure that sensitive species are avoided or protected during construction.
• The Air Quality Health Risk Assessment determined that both construction- and operation-related emissions would be below the Bay Area Air District’s (BAAD’s) significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants and cumulative health risks. Accordingly, the project’s contribution to cumulative air-quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative air-quality effects would be less than significant.
• The Noise and Vibration Study determined that construction activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels at nearby residential 182
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 1-3
properties; however, all work would occur during the City’s allowable construction hours. With implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval, which limit construction hours, require use of properly muffled equipment, restrict unnecessary idling, employ “quiet” stationary equipment, and provide for a construction noise coordinator, construction-related noise and vibration would not result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels and would remain less than significant.
• The study further found that operational noise associated with the project, including the minor increase in traffic and pick-up/drop-off activity from the approximately 10 percent enrollment increase, general outdoor school activity, and new stationary noise sources such as heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, would not substantially increase existing ambient noise levels and would comply with the applicable standards of the Cities of Belmont and San Carlos.

Modeled noise levels for HVAC equipment would be below daytime and nighttime noise limits with the exception of a minor exceedance which would be avoided through limiting nighttime operation of multiple units and use of sound-absorptive materials or rated sound enclosures. With adherence to the City’s standard conditions of approval, the project would not expose nearby receptors to noise in excess of applicable standards, and noise impacts would be less than significant. • The approximate 10 percent increase in student enrollment and associated Armstrong School staff expansion would generate a minor increase in daily and peak-hour vehicle trips on Solana Drive and adjacent local streets. The transportation analysis concluded that this incremental increase would not substantially affect intersection operations, roadway capacity, or pedestrian and bicycle circulation in the project area.

Ongoing implementation of the school’s Transportation Demand Management program, including staggered pick-up and drop-off times, carpool coordination, and on-campus staff parking requirements, would further minimize traffic during peak periods. As a result, the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable transportation impacts, and cumulative transportation effects would be less than significant.
c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. • The technical analyses prepared for the project evaluated potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed expansion. No significant impacts were identified. Where applicable, the project incorporates the City’s standard conditions of approval to further minimize potential effects. These include 183
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 1-4
requirements for use of Tier 4-rated construction equipment, implementation of dust-control measures, and use of acoustically rated enclosures or sound barriers for mechanical equipment. All recommended practices identified in the project’s technical studies are consistent with existing City requirements for air quality, noise, and other environmental resource areas. No additional measures beyond these standard conditions would be required, and there is no evidence that the project would result in a significant effect due to unusual circumstances. • Furthermore, the project does not differ from the general circumstances of projects typically covered by the Class 14 categorical exemption. Minor school expansions are common within established urban settings and are generally located on existing school campuses surrounded by residential development and served by existing infrastructure. The Charles Armstrong School campus is situated in a developed neighborhood with residential uses on all sides and direct access to public utilities and roadways. Portions of the campus are currently used for outdoor learning and recreation. Overflow parking would accommodate the proposed buildings without extending development beyond the existing campus boundary. Trees proposed for removal would be replaced in accordance with the City’s Tree Ordinance and the recommendations of the Arborist Report, and all retained trees would be protected during construction.

Given these factors, there is no reasonable possibility that the project would result in a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
d. Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
• The project site is not located on or near a State-designated scenic highway. The proposed expansion would occur entirely within the existing campus and would not remove or alter any historic buildings or other scenic resources. All construction activities would occur within the campus boundary or along immediately adjacent local roadways.

Although oak trees would be removed, these trees would be replaced in accordance with the City’s Tree Ordinance and the recommendations of the Arborist Report. Trees to be retained would be protected in place throughout construction in compliance with measures identified in the Arborist Report and the City’s standard conditions of approval.

Therefore, the project would not result in damage to scenic resources within a State scenic highway corridor.
184
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 1-5
e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
• Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly referred to as the “Cortese List,” identifies properties that are known or suspected to contain hazardous materials releases. The list is maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency and compiled from data provided by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board, and local agencies to support CEQA compliance regarding hazardous materials sites.
• The Charles Armstrong School campus is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5. Although several hazardous materials sites are identified within approximately 1,000 feet of the project area, none are located on or directly adjacent to the campus. The project would not disturb any known contaminated soils or groundwater and would not be adversely affected by nearby listed sites. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant environmental impact related to hazardous materials.
f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. A historical resource encompasses historic architecture, archaeological resources, and tribal cultural resources. • The proposed expansion would not require demolition or alteration of any existing buildings on the Charles Armstrong School campus. An Archaeological Resources Assessment Report was completed to evaluate potential impacts associated with proposed excavation and ground disturbance. The investigation determined that no historical, archaeological, or tribal cultural resources are present within the project site. As a precaution, archaeological monitoring will be conducted during ground-disturbing activities in accordance with project-specific conditions of approval to ensure that any unanticipated discoveries are appropriately managed. With these measures in place, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical, archaeological, or tribal cultural resource.

Findings
Based on the site plans, project description, and technical documentation submitted by the applicant, the City of Belmont has determined that the Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15314, Minor Additions to Schools (Class 14).
185
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Categorical Exemption Evaluation ● December 19, 2025 1-6
The proposed school expansion meets the criteria for a Class 14 project because it would increase student enrollment by approximately 10 percent, below the 25 percent threshold, and would add no more than ten classrooms. The project would occur entirely within the existing developed school campus and would not extend development onto new or previously undeveloped lands.

As demonstrated in the accompanying evaluation and supporting technical reports, the project would not result in significant environmental effects, and none of the exceptions to categorical exemptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. With implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval, including measures related to air quality, biological resources, noise, and cultural resources, all potential impacts would remain less than significant.

The City has reviewed this categorical exemption evaluation, the attached Project Description, and the supporting technical studies, and finds that the project qualifies for exemption from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15314. No exceptions to the use of a Class 14 categorical exemption have been identified.

A Notice of Exemption will be filed with the San Mateo County Clerk’s Office in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.
186
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-1
2 Project Description for Categorical Exemption Evaluation CEQA Guidelines Section 15314 (Minor Additions to Schools)

2.1 Introduction
Charles Armstrong School (Armstrong) is a private, independent school in Belmont, California.

The school specializes in serving students with dyslexia and related learning differences.

Armstrong submitted a Complex Project Application to the City of Belmont (City) Community Development Department on August 8, 2024, to expand and modernize its educational facilities.

The Armstrong Expansion Project (project) would involve constructing buildings in two phases:
an approximately 11,900-square-foot Academic Wing (two buildings with a connecting roof and a small stand-alone building) and an approximately 11,100-square-foot Athletics Building. The expansion is intended to support the school’s educational mission and long-term operational needs by providing modern classroom space, creative learning environments, and improved athletics / multi-purpose facilities. Additional site improvements would include a new landscaped plaza connecting the buildings, stormwater management systems, utility infrastructure, and slope stabilization. The new buildings would be fully electric and powered by an upgraded campus-wide electrical service.

Armstrong has operated at 1405 Solana Drive in Belmont since 1984 and is governed under Planned Development (PD) Zoning, Conceptual & Detailed Development Plans (CDP & DDP), and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CDP, DDP, and CUP govern the school’s operational characteristics, including enrollment caps, allowable building square footage, and site use hours. The school has historically operated below its current 260-student CUP limit and has not added any new permanent facilities since the initial entitlements were granted. The current project proposes a new Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) and Detailed Development Plan (DDP) and ancillary entitlements including, but not limited to, a CUP for the associated DDP1, Design Review, Grading Plan, and Tree Removal Permit. The project is part of the school’s 15- year Campus Plan, which would modernize and expand campus infrastructure and address certain operating restrictions.

2.2 Project Location and Site Description
The project site is at 1405 Solana Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Number 045-122-190) in Belmont, in San Mateo County, California, as shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The 4.9-acre (213,250 square feet) school campus currently is occupied by three single-story school buildings near the center of the site and an auditorium building (total of 29,700 square feet), surrounded by drive aisles, a parking lot, a basketball court, and outdoor activity areas.

The site is bordered by Solana Drive and single-family residences to the north, single-family residences to the east, single-family residences within the jurisdiction of the City of San Carlos 1 The new CDP-DDP-CUP requires that the existing and proposed use(s) remain in substantial conformance with the adopted General Plan.
187
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-2
to the south, and, to the west, single family residences along Chula Vista Drive, the City of Belmont’s McDougal Park, and the San Carlos Charter Learning Center. The site topography slopes downward from the northeast to the southeast, with an elevation difference of approximately 40 feet. The northeast portion of the project site is steeply sloped and densely populated by oaks and other trees.

The nearest cross street is Chula Vista Drive. Two curb cuts along Solana Drive provide access to the school. The westernmost driveway serves the striped visitor parking area and half of the faculty and staff parking, while the easternmost driveway provides access to the remaining faculty and staff parking. San Mateo County Transit Route 60 runs along Chula Vista Drive with bus stops within 0.2 mile of the school at Solana Drive and at Fernwood Way.

2.3 Planned Development Zoning
The project site currently has a zoning designation of Planned Development (PD) and a General Plan land use designation of Institutional. The PD zoning district is intended to accommodate a variety of land uses, through flexible site planning and customized development standards.

This designation is appropriate for uses such as private educational institutions that may not align precisely with standard zoning but are consistent with the broader goals and policies of the City’s General Plan.

The entitlement process for projects in a PD district is governed by Section 12 of the Belmont Zoning Ordinance. To authorize the proposed Armstrong expansion, amendments to the existing PD entitlements are required. These include establishing a new Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) and a Detailed Development Plan (DDP) for the school, which may be reviewed concurrently by the City’s Planning Commission and City Council. Together, the CDP and DDP establish both the broad development framework (land uses, building sizes and locations, circulation, parking, landscaping, and phasing), operational standards for the school (days and hours of allowed use and activity), and the detailed design elements (architecture, elevations, grading, utilities, lighting, and open space).

CDP’s require public hearings, a Planning Commission recommendation, and final approval by the City Council. DDPs are normally approved by the Planning Commission but may be elevated for concurrent review by the City Council when combined with CDP review. A principal finding for approval of a CDP is that it is consistent with the objectives of the City’s Zoning Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the General Plan.

The proposed project seeks a new CDP and DDP, and if approved, would accommodate the proposed Academic Wing (three buildings in Phase 1 projected for construction in 2026-2027), an Athletics Building in Phase 2 (projected for construction in 2031-2032), and associated plaza and landscaping, slope stabilization, stormwater facilities, and new operational conditions for the school. These concurrent actions and the approved CUP would ensure that the City has comprehensive authority to evaluate the project’s conceptual framework, detailed design, and operational standards for the school together.
188
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-3
Figure 1 Project Vicinity
189
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-4
Figure 2 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Site Overview 190
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-5
In addition, the project would also require the following entitlements:
• CUP & DDP to authorize an increase in enrollment (from 260 students to 290 students), extended campus hours, weekend events, and allowances for special dismissals.
• Design Review for new construction and associated site improvements. • Grading Plan approval for earthwork, drainage, and slope stabilization work. • Tree Removal Permit for removal of protected trees, consistent with the City’s Tree Ordinance and replacement/mitigation standards.

The DDP must provide specific information regarding grading, topography, building placement, site coverage, parking, landscaping, utility infrastructure, and architectural design.

The DDP serves as the basis for City review, ensuring that the project meets applicable design and performance standards. Section 12.8 requires that open space and average density be shown on a detailed development plan. Furthermore, Section 12.6 requires establishment of tailored development standards for PD-zoned properties. These standards address the following at minimum:
• Minimum building site
• Minimum lot dimensions
• Maximum building site coverage by buildings and structures • Minimum yards
• Maximum building or structure heights
• Maximum height of fences and walls
• Signs
• Off-street parking
For the project, the final detailed development plan set as approved by the City would specify the minimum development standards per the requirements of the DDP. Together, these entitlements provide the framework for City review and approval of the project, ensuring consistency with Belmont’s Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and General Plan objectives.

2.4 Project Components

2.4.1 Academic Wing
As currently proposed, the Academic Wing would consist of three structures encompassing a total of approximately 11,893 gross square feet (GSF). The Academic Wing’s three buildings are shown on Figure 3 as Area A (6,364 GSF), Area B (4,237 GSF), and Area C (1,292 GSF). The buildings would range from 20 to 35 feet in height and would be integrated with the site’s sloped topography through multiple finished floor elevations. The Area A and B buildings would be two-story structures, and the Area C Building would be a single-story structure. The Academic Wing buildings would be designed specifically to support students with dyslexia and related learning differences through inclusion of both specialized and general education spaces.

As shown, the Academic Wing would include ten classroom spaces: six general education 191
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-6
classrooms, a science lab, a music classroom designed for acoustic isolation, a maker’s space, and a dedicated art studio (with an adjacent kiln room). Additional support spaces would include faculty offices, multiple storage rooms, restrooms, a multi-purpose room, and dedicated electrical and information technology (IT) server rooms. A central Learning Court would be covered and would connect the Area A and Area B building spaces to encourage student circulation and interdisciplinary project work.

The mechanical systems for the Academic Wing buildings would be all-electric variable refrigerant flow systems. Outdoor condensing units would be ground-mounted on the east side of the Area A (three units), Area B (three units), and Area C buildings (one unit) and screened from both campus and residential views. These heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems would include mechanical ventilation to ensure fresh air circulation under closed-window conditions. No additional enclosures for the condensing units are proposed because of their ground-level location and lack of visibility. No emergency diesel generators are proposed for the Academic Wing. Renderings and cross sections of the new Academic Wing buildings are shown on Figure 4 and Figure 5.

2.4.2 Athletics Building
The Athletics Building would be a one-story, approximately 11,126 GSF structure as shown on Figure 3. The Athletics Building would be approximately 35 feet tall. It would house a 7,973- square foot gymnasium with a regulation-size indoor court for physical education and athletics and bleacher seating for approximately 188 people. his building would contain a 1,400 squarefoot commercial kitchen to support daily food service, faculty offices, restrooms, laundry facilities, and dedicated electrical and janitorial closets. The Athletics Building’s HVAC system would include rooftop-mounted electric heat pumps and a make-up air unit for the kitchen. The HVAC equipment would be screened from view by a 9-foot-tall parapet wall, shielding views of the equipment from the south. The Athletics Building would also have a mechanical ventilation system to control the indoor air quality. No emergency diesel generators are proposed for this building. Renderings and cross sections of the new Athletics Building are shown on Figure 4 and Figure 5.
192
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-7
Figure 3 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - New Academic Wing and Athletics Building Site Plan 193
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-8
Figure 4 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Renderings of the New Academic Wing and Athletics Building 194
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-9
Figure 5 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Cross Section Views of the New Academic Wing and Athletics Building 195
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-10

2.4.3 Other Site Improvements
Other site improvements would include construction of a new hardscaped plaza with a shade canopy between the Academic Wing’s Area A building and the Athletics Building, to serve as a central outdoor gathering and circulation space. Additional project elements would include new landscaping including trees and stormwater treatment features, trenching for new utility connections, and limited slope stabilization along the eastern and southern edges of the project site where new buildings and/or outdoors spaces are proposed. The project would continue to be served by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) for domestic and fire water, the City of Belmont and Silicon Valley Clean Water for sanitary sewer and stormwater, AT&T and Comcast for telecommunications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for electricity, and Recology for solid waste. The project’s site grading and drainage plan shown on Figure 6 indicate proposed alignments and locations for utilities and stormwater detention features.

2.4.4 Site Circulation and Parking
The proposed expansion would not alter the school’s existing drop-off and pick-up circulation routes, and no changes are proposed to public park access or waste and recycling pickup. The existing parking area would be maintained and expanded slightly to provide 85 total automobile spaces, which would be an increase of two spaces. The parking area would include four Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible spaces and long-term bicycle parking, consistent with applicable City requirements. No new driveways or curb cuts are proposed. The project’s parking plan is shown on Figure 7.

2.4.5 Landscaping and Lighting
Landscaping improvements would include installation of drought-tolerant and native plant species throughout the site, particularly in the new plaza and stormwater treatment areas.

Based on the preliminary Arborist Report (see Attachment B), there are 148 trees on the project site including the proposed expansion area of which 88 are protected under Belmont City Code, Chapter 25 (Belmont Tree Ordinance). Tree preservation feasibility was evaluated based on each tree's health, structure, species tolerance to construction impacts, and proximity to proposed improvements. Trees were categorized for preservation suitability as high (35 trees), moderate (70 trees), or low (42 trees). Removal generally is proposed for trees in poor condition, located within or near building footprints, or considered unsafe for retention in active use areas.

Based on the current site plan, a total of 87 trees would be preserved, including 49 protected trees, while 61 trees would be removed, 39 of which are protected. Of the protected trees to be removed, 33 are native Coast Live Oak trees. The project would be required to secure a tree removal permit from the City of Belmont for the removal of the 39 protected trees.2 2 City of Belmont, Belmont City Code, Chapter 25, Trees. Available at:
https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16085/636483430137770000. Accessed September 2025.
196
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-11
Figure 6 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan 197
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-12
Figure 7 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Proposed Parking and Circulation Plan 198
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-13
According to City regulations, the project’s proposed tree removal activities would require the replacement of 39 trees onsite. The project would also have the option to pay in-lieu fees for any trees that cannot be replaced on site.

The project would include new site lighting that would comply with the City’s lighting standards and dark-sky regulations. Pedestrian-scale lighting would be provided along pathways and in the new plaza area for safety during school hours.

2.5 Project Construction

2.5.1 Construction Phasing and Schedule
Both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of project construction are expected to last approximately 15 months.

Table 2-1 summarizes the preliminary construction phasing, major elements in each phase, and durations. Phase 2 reflects a preliminary timeline informed by current capital planning for the Athletics Building.

Table 2-1 Construction Phasing and Schedule
Construction
Phase Project Component Construction Element Estimated Start Date Estimated
End Date
Phase 1
Academic Wing
(Building A, B, and C
areas)
Site Preparation / Mobilization May 26, 2026 June 5, 2026 Grading June 8, 2026 July 3, 2026
Site Utilities June 1, 2026 July 10, 2026
Building Construction July 6, 2026 August 13, 2027
Site Hardscape and Landscape May 31, 2027 August 13, 2027 Phase 2 Athletics Building
Site Preparation / Mobilization May 27, 2031 June 6, 2031 Grading June 9, 2031 July 3, 2031
Site Utilities June 2, 2031 July 11, 2031
Building Construction July 7, 2031 August 13, 2032
Site Hardscape and Landscape May 31, 2032 August 13, 2032

2.5.2 Works Hours, Truck Trips, and Personnel
As a City condition of approval, the project shall submit a construction schedule and monitoring plan for City engineer review and approval prior to the start of any construction.

Per Section 15-102(d) of the Belmont City Code, all project construction activities that require a City building permit would take place Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with some work (except grading) on Saturdays between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Construction activities would not occur on Sundays or on holidays. No nighttime construction activities are expected.
199
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-14
Table 2-2 summarizes the estimated number of trucks and workers associated with each construction phase and element. The average daily truck traffic is expected to range from approximately 1 to 5 trucks per day, with the highest volume during the grading operations.

Worker presence on site would range from 4 to 21 individuals per day, depending on the activity, with peak labor demand during building construction.

Table 2-2 Average Truck Trips and Workers per Day
Construction
Phase Project Component Construction Elements Average Trucks per Day Average Workers
per Day
Phase 1
Academic Wing
(Building A, B, and C
areas)
Site Preparation /
Mobilization 2 4
Grading 3.50 6
Site Utilities 0.25 12
Building Construction 2 21
Site Hardscape and
Landscape 2 8
Phase 2 Athletics Building
Site Preparation /
Mobilization 2 4
Grading 5 6
Site Utilities 0.25 12
Building Construction 2 21
Site Hardscape and
Landscape 2 8

2.5.3 Construction Equipment
Table 2-3 summarizes the anticipated construction equipment by phase and project component.

Table 2-3 Anticipated Construction Equipment
Construction
Phase Project Component Construction Elements Equipment Number of Units Hours /
Day
Phase 1 Academic Wing
(Building A, B, and C areas)
Site Preparation /
Mobilization
Backhoe/Loader 1 8
Concrete Saw 1 8
Grading
Excavator a 1 8
Backhoe/Loader 1 8
Small Dozer 1 8
Roller/Compactor 1 8
Site Utilities
Backhoe 2 8
Concrete Saw 1 8
Jumping Jack 1 8
Gradall/Forklift 1 8
200
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-15
Construction
Phase Project Component Construction Elements Equipment Number of Units Hours /
Day
Building
Construction
Crane 1 8
Concrete Pump 1 4
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Backhoe/Loader 1 8
Mini-Excavator 1 8
Skidsteer 1 8
Phase 2 Athletics Building
Site Preparation /
Mobilization
Backhoe/Loader 1 8
Concrete Saw 1 8
Grading
Excavator a 1 8
Backhoe/Loader 1 8
Small Dozer 1 8
Roller/Compactor 1 8
Site Utilities
Backhoe 2 8
Concrete Saw 1 8
Jumping Jack 1 8
Building
Construction
Gradall/forklift 1 8
Crane 1 8
Concrete Pump 1 4
Site Hardscape
and Landscape
Backhoe/Loader 1 8
Mini-Excavator 1 8
Skidsteer 1 8
Note:
a With hydraulic ram attachment if needed for any rock excavation

2.5.4 Construction Staging and Safety Measures
All construction staging activities would occur entirely within the project site boundaries. Use of the public right-of-way (ROW) for staging or equipment laydown is not anticipated.

Construction equipment and materials would be delivered to the site at two designated access routes:
• via the main drive aisle on Solana Drive, with vehicles proceeding along the westside access road to reach the southern portion of the campus; and • via the upper parking lot entrance on Solana Drive to reach the northern portion of the campus.

These designated access routes would support phased delivery and minimize disruptions to surrounding roadways.

The project site would be enclosed with a secure chain link perimeter fence for clear and consistent separation between active construction areas and the rest of the campus. Two gated 201
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-16
access points would be used: one at the north end (via the north parking lot), and one at the south end (via the lower blacktop area). Both gates would be locked outside construction hours.

During work hours, access would be managed at check-in points to limit entry to construction personnel only. Truck access would be coordinated and controlled by flaggers and posted signage for safe ingress and egress from Solana Drive.

2.5.5 Excavation and Building Construction
The maximum excavation depth for the project would be approximately 14.5 feet, for installation of a storm drain east of Academic Wing’s Area A building. Estimated earthwork volumes would include 1,100 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 300 CY of fill for the Academic Wing (Phase 1), and 150 CY of cut and 750 CY of fill for the Athletics Building (Phase 2). The combined grading would result in a net export of approximately 200 CY of soil. All demolition activities would occur within the fenced construction site, except for limited utility tie-in work.

Because of the extent of the new infrastructure, selective asphalt removal, trenching, backfilling, and surface patching would occur outside the primary construction perimeter, where connections to existing utility lines would be required. Project grading would follow an erosion control plan that includes but is not limited to performing clearing and earth-moving activities only in dry weather, preventing the discharge of potential pollutants to storm drains and water courses using inlet protection measures and silt fencing, stabilization of the hillside using straw wattles, and year-round dust control.

2.5.6 Construction Waste, Electricity, and Water Use
Construction-phase utilities and waste management work would be coordinated to minimize the potential environmental impacts and meet compliance with local and state requirements.

Electrical service to the campus would be upgraded in summer 2026 and would provide all temporary power needed during construction. Water for construction activities, such as dust suppression and concrete work, would be supplied from the nearest fire hydrant via a dedicated construction meter. Construction contractors would be required to implement a waste management plan that would identify opportunities for on-site re-use and outline procedures for the recycling and off-site disposal of debris. Waste would be collected daily and sorted into appropriate landfill and recycling bins, and regular pickup schedules would be maintained for site cleanliness and safety. All disposal activities would follow the practices of the local waste service provider and comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

2.6 Project Operations
Following construction, the school would continue operating as an independent day school, serving students with dyslexia and related learning differences. The proposed project would increase the school’s enrollment capacity from 260 to 290 students. The average daily attendance is approximately 230-240 students. At the proposed 290-student level, Armstrong expects to employ 11 new staff, allocated to faculty roles. Administrative and support staff levels are expected to remain unchanged.
202
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-17
The school hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The proposed CDP-DDP-CUP would expand certain aspects of campus operations as follows:
• Extend access for staff and small-group activities in the existing and proposed buildings until 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and allow weekend access to the existing and proposed buildings from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• Allow up to 12 weekend events annually involving 25 or more attendees (e.g., schoolwide gatherings, accreditation visits, graduation). • Permit three special Saturday evening events each year such as a musical or alumni gathering or benefit event with activities ending by 10:00 p.m. • Authorize dismissals on nearby neighborhood streets for up to four special events per year to ease traffic congestion associated with large on-campus gatherings.
• Coordinate shared use of McDougal Park for limited weekend or additional weekday access including during the school’s four-week summer session. • Explore the use of portable classrooms during the Phase 1 component of the construction plan.

All proposed operational changes would be subject to City approval as part of the adopted CDP-DDP-CUP.

2.7 City of Belmont Standard Conditions of Approval
The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) listed in Table 2-4 are applicable to development projects in the City of Belmont and would be incorporated into the project, in compliance with City regulations, to avoid or minimize potential impacts on the surrounding environment and community. For purposes of the CEQA review, these COAs would be treated as part of the project and not as mitigation measures.
203
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-18
Table 2-4 City of Belmont Conditions of Approval
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Aesthetics The project sponsor is required to submit the final set of plans, including lighting plans, pursuant to City of Belmont Zoning Code, Section 12.5, Detailed Development Plan. The final set of detailed development plans would go through the City’s site plan and design review process ensuring compliance with the following standard COAs.

1. All exterior lighting shall employ the use of cut-off fixtures to restrict the direction of the light in accordance with City standards.

Lighting should be the minimum required for safety but not result in undue glare off site. To ensure consistency with city standards for lighting and compliance with the submitted photometric plan, a final lighting review shall occur after installation of project lighting and before final Building Permit inspection.

2. Installation of any roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be consistent with the final set of detailed development plans.

3. Except as modified by these conditions of approval, or as required by subsequent project review, the Building Permit Plans shall be consistent with final set of detailed development plans.

4. The applicant shall demonstrate that the project is consistent with the maximum floor area and height approved for the project, prior to final building permit inspection. As-built floor plans and a roof height elevation from an engineer or surveyor that includes any roof top equipment and screens shall be provided.

5. Ground Equipment Screening. All exterior trash, recycling, and storage utility boxes, wood service poles, and electric and gas meters must be screened from visibility from the surrounding public vantage points (right-of-way, public trails, open space, and parks). Said screening must incorporate the same architectural design, colors, and materials as the main building on site.

Air Quality The project sponsor is required to implement General Plan Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 and BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines best management practices to control fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction. Due to the proximity of sensitive receptors, a site-specific health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared in accordance with General Plan Mitigation Measure AQ-6. An Air Quality Health Risk Assessment was conducted for the Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project, Baseline Environmental Consulting, November 10, 2025 (see Attachment A). The HRA evaluated diesel particulate matter (DPM) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from project construction at nearby sensitive receptors, including adjacent residences and onsite students. The HRA modeling assumed that the construction contractor would implement best management practices to control fugitive dust and exhaust emissions required in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines3, the City’s General Plan EIR mitigation measures listed below (i.e., Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Tier 4 Engines on Construction Equipment, Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel, Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Low-VOC Coatings during Construction, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices, and other air-quality-related conditions of approval listed below. The modeling found that the maximum incremental cancer risk, chronic hazard index, and annual average PM2.5 concentrations were all well below Bay Area Air Quality 3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, 2023. Chapter 5, Table 5-2. Available at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/?sc_itemid=CDA5FAE5-BBDC-4337-A10C-5648BCD2D71F. Accessed September 2025. 204
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-19
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds of significance. Cumulative risk from the project, nearby stationary sources, and mobile sources would also be below thresholds. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in significant health risk impacts to sensitive receptors.

Construction and Operations

1. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on an EPA-approved Tier 4 or newer engine. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment where Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulations will result in the percentage of Tier 4 engines increasing over the next several years.

2. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall operate on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable). Renewable diesel is currently commercially available in San Francisco Bay Area.

3. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-3, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) emissions by ensuring that low-VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) coatings that have a VOC content of 10 grams/liter (g/L) or less are used during construction. The project applicant will submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.

4. Pursuant to GP EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-4, the applicant shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive dust by implementing BAAQMD’s basic control measures at all construction and staging areas.

The following measures are based on BAAQMD’s current [2017] CEQA guidelines. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and un- paved access roads) will be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite will be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 205
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-20
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval f. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the District will also be visible to ensure compliance.

6. The applicant must require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by implementing following measures during construction-related activities:
a. Idling times must be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage must be provided for construction workers at all access points. b. All construction equipment must be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

All equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

7. The applicant must require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that paints and solvents have a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior surfaces and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces.

Dust Control

1. The owner/applicant must submit a dust control plan for approval by the Department of Public Works. To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. The application of water must be monitored to prevent runoff into the storm drain system. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way must be controlled. The measures must also include:
a. Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. All sidewalks shall be kept clear of dust and debris unless the sidewalk is closed as part of a City approved traffic control plan. e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. f. Entry and exit from the site will use rock or rumble strips to prevent tracking. g. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
h. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. i. Install sandbags or other erosion-control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 206
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-21
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval j. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. k. Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break-up of pavement. l. Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. m. Use dust-proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. n. Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. o. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation. p. Diesel-powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than 5 minutes and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules.
q. Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. r. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. s. Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Greenhouse Gas The project sponsor is required to implement the following standard COAs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the maximum extent feasible.

1. A minimum of 10% of the construction materials must be acquired (sourced) within 100 miles of the planning area.

Documentation must be provided before the final building permit inspection.

2. A minimum of 65% of the construction waste generated by this project must be recycled or salvaged for use. Documentation must be provided before the final building permit inspection. Sample forms located at www.hcd.ca.gov/CALGreen.html may be used to assist in documenting compliance.

3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide documentation (i.e., construction contracts or signed agreements) demonstrating that all contractors and subcontractors agree to operate all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of work on renewable diesel (such as Diesel high performance renewable).

Biological Resources The General Plan EIR identifies policies to mitigate direct and indirect environmental impacts of individual development projects to sensitive habitats and species in the planning area. The City requires the submittal of a biological report for development on properties that are either found to contain sensitive resources or are adjacent to properties that contain sensitive resources, as shown in General Plan EIR Figures 4.3-1 through 4.3-5. Additionally, General Plan policies require compliance with the City's adopted Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 25 of the City Code). The Tree Ordinance provides a process and standards for 207
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-22
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval review of projects that may impact or remove protected trees. Environmental impacts are considered mitigated for projects that adhere to this policy.

An Arborist Report was prepared to assess the project’s potential impact to trees on and adjacent to the site, and to provide protective measures to either prevent impacts or mitigate impacts to less than significance (see Attachment B-- Preliminary Arborist Report, Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA, June 2024 [HortScience/Bartlett Consulting]). Due to the proposed removal of 61 trees including 39 protected trees, of which 33 are Coast Live Oak trees, the applicant would be required to provide 78 on-site replacement trees---72 for the Coast Live Oaks that would be removed and 6 for the protected trees that would be removed. The City requires adherence to the tree protection measures identified in the Arborist Report as a standard condition of project approval.

Tree Protection

1. The applicant shall implement the Tree Protection Guidelines identified in the project Arborist Report; the project arborist must review the final building and grading plans, and shall confirm in writing any changes to the design recommendations. The guidelines must be included on a plan sheet submitted with the building permit application.

2. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit written confirmation from the Project Arborist that all tree protection measures and pre-construction treatments have been installed and inspected, and that they meet the arborist’s specifications.

3. Any approved grading, construction, demolition, or other work within the tree protection zone must be monitored by the project arborist.

4. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist.

5. If unplanned or unapproved tree injuries or tree removals occur during project construction, the applicant shall contact City Planning Staff. Additional permits may be required.

6. After completion of exterior construction work and before final building permit inspection, the applicant shall submit a final written report/letter from the Project Arborist. Said report/letter must provide an evaluation of the construction impacts on the subject tree’s health or structural stability and must identify any additional provisions that may be required to these address impacts. The applicant is responsible to implement these recommendations. A final report may be required on the effectiveness of the measures.

Migratory Birds & Bats
Nesting migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code.

Several species of bats that inhabit the Bay Area are listed as a California Species of Special Concern (CSSC). Tree removal has the potential to disturb nesting migratory birds and bats. Thus, all applications that include tree removal are required to implement the following measures as standard conditions of project approval:
208
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-23
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Nesting Birds

1. To minimize potential impacts on nesting birds, the applicant shall either: 1) avoid construction activities (i.e., tree pruning, tree removal, tree protection work, demolition, grading, and construction) during the active nesting season (between February 1 and August 31); or 2) Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and provide appropriate buffer zones if construction has the potential to impact nesting birds to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during project implementation.

2. Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist or ornithologist in order to ensure that no bird nests will be disturbed during project implementation. This survey will be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the biologist will inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for bird nests. If an active bird nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Service (CDFW), will determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest.

Bats

1. A qualified biologist shall visually inspect trees to be removed for bat roosts within 7 days prior to their removal. The biologist will look for signs of bats including sightings of live or dead bats, bat calls or squeaking, the smell of bats, bat droppings, grease stains, or urine stains around openings in trees or structures, or flies around such openings. Trees with multiple hollows, crevices, forked branches, woodpecker holes, or loose and flaking bark have the highest chance of occupation and shall be inspected the most carefully.

2. If signs of bats are detected, CDFW should be contacted about how to proceed. Echo-location surveys may be needed to verify the presence of bats or an exclusion zone around the occupied tree may be recommended until bats leave the roost. Due to restrictions of the California Health Department, direct contact by workers with any bat is not allowed. The qualified bat biologist shall be contacted immediately if a bat roost is discovered during project construction.

San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat (see Attachment C4)
The San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat (SFDW) occurs in a variety of habitats throughout the Bay Area. The SFDW is listed as a California Species of Special Concern (CSSC). Clearing, grading, and other construction activities have the potential to disturb Dusky-footed Woodrats. Thus, the City requires the submittal of a biological report for development on properties that are either found to contain wood rats, or are adjacent to properties that have a high likelihood to contain woodrats (i.e., woodlands, riparian, annual grass, coastal scrub, and chaparral habitats delineated in General Plan EIR Figures 4.3-1 through 4.3-5. In addition, the following standard COAs are required for all applications that include clearing, grading, and other construction activities where there is a high likelihood of SFDW occurrence:
4 See Attachment C for San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search results. 209
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-24
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Woodrats

1. Pre-Construction Survey. No more than thirty days prior to site disturbances (i.e., clearing, grubbing, grading or tree removal), a qualified biologist must survey for SFDW nests within and adjacent to the limits of these activities (impact area). All nests (active or inactive) must be mapped and flagged in the field. If no stick nests are detected, no further surveys are required, unless recommended by the biologist. The biologist must submit the results of the survey to the Community Development Department prior to any site disturbances.

2. Construction Worker Education. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a qualified biologist has conducted worker environmental awareness training for all project construction personnel. The training must include a description of the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (SFDW) and how to recognize and avoid SFDW stick houses. Workers must be instructed to remain within the designated work area at all times and to minimize the area of vegetation removal and ground disturbance to the minimum necessary for the project.

3. Avoidance / Buffer Plan. Woodrat houses within 50 feet of the construction activities area must not be physically disturbed and must be protected with the maximum feasible dispersal buffer, as determined by a qualified biologist. The buffer areas must be clearly marked with flagging. The buffer areas must be left in a natural, vegetated state and no construction activities or staging of equipment may take place within the buffer areas. The applicant must demonstrate that the buffer areas are in place and inspected by a qualified biologist prior to grading, grubbing, or tree removal activities.

4. Unexpected Woodrats. In the event that unexpected woodrat nests are encountered during construction activities, all construction activity in the area of the find shall be halted, and the Community Development Director shall be notified; a qualified biologist must examine the find and make appropriate recommendations for buffer installation (avoidance measures) or relocation of woodrat nests with approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The applicant must demonstrate that the buffer is in place or the woodrats have been properly relocated, prior to resuming activities in the area of the find.

5. Relocation Plan. If woodrat nests are to be relocated, then a woodrat relocation plan must be prepared and submitted to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for approval. Relocations must be performed under the direct supervision of a qualified biologist approved for this project by the CDFW. 210
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-25
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Oak Woodlands
The City requires the submittal of a biological report and an arborist report for development projects that contain oak woodland resources. The arborist report is required to assess the project’s potential impacts to trees on and adjacent to the site (depending on the scope of the project) and to provide protective measures to either prevent impacts or mitigate impacts to less than significant. The City requires adherence to the tree protection measures identified in the Arborist Report as a standard condition of project approval. In addition, the City requires the following mitigation measure as a standard COA for projects that remove three or more oak trees in an oak woodland:

Oak Woodland Habitat

1. The loss of oak woodland habitat must be mitigated through onsite plantings of coast live oaks (Quercus Agrifolia) trees at a minimum 15-gallon size. The project applicant must prepare a Planting Plan to address oak woodland planting as mitigation. The project applicant must replace removed oak trees at the following ratios:
• 5:1 replacement for impacted oak trees greater than 25 inches in diameter • 2:1 replacement for impacted oak trees smaller than 25 inches in diameter The replacement trees must be monitored for a period of five years and must be able to survive the last two years of the minimum five-year monitoring period without supplemental irrigation. If at any time the applicant identifies additional trees that need to be removed, the applicant must first get written approval from the City of Belmont and applicant must revise the final Planting Plan to include additional tree plantings in accordance with the above mentioned ratios.

In circumstances when oak trees plantings cannot be replanted onsite, as determined by a qualified arborist or forester, the applicant may also mitigate by contributing to the City’s in-lieu fee program fund (at the replacement ratios identified above) in accordance with the City’s current Master Fee Schedule.

Cultural Resources As conditions of project approval, the City requires applicants to: a) review records for development proposed in areas that are considered archaeologically or paleontologically sensitive; b) prepare a report that determines the potential effects of development and construction on archaeological or paleontological resources, as required by CEQA; c) conduct pre-construction surveys and monitoring during any ground disturbance for all development in areas of historical and archaeological sensitivity; and d) implement appropriate measures to avoid the identified impacts, i.e., halting construction when resources are uncovered, evaluating the find, and implementing avoidance measures and/or mitigation plans, as required by CEQA.

The maximum excavation depth at the site would be up to 15 feet, however, the majority of the excavation for the building foundations would be between 3 and 10 feet. As discussed in the Archaeological Resources Assessment Report for the Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project (see Attachment D), a records search through CHRIS/NWIC, a NAHC Sacred Lands File review, and a literature review found no previously recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites within the project site or a

0.25-mile radius. The project area has low archaeological sensitivity due to prior grading in the 1950s and shallow bedrock. No Native American villages, traditional use areas, or historic-era features were identified. The report concludes that no subsurface 211
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-26
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval testing or archaeological monitoring is warranted, but recommends standard procedures if unanticipated cultural materials or human remains are encountered during construction.

The following standard City COAs are required:

Archaeological Resources

1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate that construction crews have proper training for the discovery, handling, and retention methods for paleontological, archeological, and/or cultural resources found at the project site. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include chert, or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, dark, friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials.

Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures, and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits or bottle dumps.

2. In the event that paleontological, archaeological, and/or cultural resources are encountered during construction activities, all construction activity in the area of the find shall be halted, and the Community Development Director shall be notified; an archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. A plan for the mitigation of impacts to the resources will be prepared and submitted to the City of Belmont for approval. Additional CEQA review may be required depending upon the evaluation of the find.

Human Remains
If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on a project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
a. The San Mateo County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and
b. If the remains are of Native American origin
i. The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98; or ii. The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant, or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission.

Geology and Soils The Belmont City Code requires a soils and engineering geology report for all new or substantially altered foundations (BCC 7-12, IBC 106.1 & 1804.3). The City Code also established a peer review process for geotechnical reports by a consulting engineering geologist working for the City. This process occurs as part of entitlement review. The project applicant submitted a Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Improvements at Charles Armstrong School at 1405 Solano Drive, Belmont CA, dated August 2, 2024 (see Attachment E). After a project has been cleared through geotechnical peer review, the following standard City COAs are required for all projects:
212
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-27
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Geotechnical

1. Geotechnical Plan Review - Before submittal to the City, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, building set-backs, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls, and access driveway/garage) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The consultant shall ensure that the geotechnical design recommendations comply with the most current seismic design parameters of the California Building Code. The results of the geotechnical plan review and updated geotechnical design recommendations shall be summarized by the project’s Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

2. Geotechnical Field Inspection –The geotechnical consultant must inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections must include site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project must be described by the geotechnical consultant in a certification letter and submitted to the City Engineer prior granting final occupancy.

Grading and Erosion Control

1. Prior to any grading or clearing being performed on-site, the owner/applicant shall submit a grading plan prepared by a California-registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Grading Ordinance, Chapter 9, Section 3 of the City Code, with a grading permit application, for approval by the Department of Public Works and Building Division. The plan must incorporate the following restrictions:
a. All soils stockpiled on the site during construction must be covered or otherwise protected from wind and water erosion. b. During construction, erosion and sedimentation control plans must be implemented to retain sediments on-site. c. Site grading and finished construction must be designed and executed in such a manner as to avoid diverting runoff onto other properties.
d. Restrictions and recommendation of the Geologic and Soils report as approved by the City’s Geologist.

2. Grading shall neither be initiated nor continued between November 15 and April 15. Grading shall be done between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Director of Public Works, or a designee. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction shall be implemented to protect water quality.

3. The applicant must obtain a General Construction Permit from Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to beginning the grading.

4. A letter from the geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed) and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include site preparations and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the replacement of steel and concrete. The geotechnical consultant shall observe all excavations during project grading to verify anticipated geologic conditions and to check for any 213
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-28
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval apparent indications of temporary excavation instability. In addition, the geotechnical consultant shall observe installation of construction shoring measures. A final geotechnical inspection shall be performed of completed drainage improvements to verify conformance with geotechnical standards.

5. The results of these inspections as the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval.

6. The applicant must submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system. The plan shall include the following items:
a. A site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography, and slopes; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal area; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourses or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas. b. Erosion and sediment controls to be used during construction, selected as appropriate from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Erosion and P.O. Box 791, Oakland, CA 94604-0791. c. Methods and procedures to stabilize denuded areas and install and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established. d. Provision for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, fiber rolls, silt fence, check dams, storm drain inlet protection, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stockpiles and/or other measures.
e. Provisions for installing vegetative cover in disturbed areas, including areas to be seeded, planted, and/or mulched, and types of vegetation proposed.
f. Provision for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff around the project site (e.g., swales and dikes).
g. Notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetation and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; types of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation.

Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
The proposed expansion would require a limited amount of demolition for site preparation, grading, and excavation but no building demolition. Based upon the review of the Cortese List, the Geotechnical Report, and time lapse photos on the City’s website, contaminated soils where excavation is proposed is not anticipated. Therefore, City COAs related to hazardous materials are not applicable to the project. City COAs related to standard fire hazards establish entitlement and permitting process requirements.

The San Mateo Consolidated Fire District reviews development project for conformance with all applicable fire codes. Projects 214
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-29
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval that meet a specified threshold are required to include fire sprinklers, and all project sites must be readily identifiable (addressed) such that they can be located by first responders. Standard conditions of approval are as follows:

Standard Fire Hazards

1. A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Automatic Fire Extinguishing System. The application shall be made by either a Registered Engineer or by the Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor who will be performing the work. This application shall include any Fixed Fire Protection System. A valid Permit and Approved Plans shall be at the jobsite at all times.

2. Prior to application for a Fire Sprinkler Permit, the applicant shall submit plans to the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) for their review and approval. Contact MPWD at 650-591-8941 to coordinate review of the project.

3. A separate application and permit are required for the installation or alteration of any Fire Alarm or Water-flow Monitoring System. This application shall include the interconnection of any Fixed Fire Protection System to an Alarm System where provided. A valid Permit and Approved Plans shall be at the jobsite at all times.

4. A separate application and permit are required for the installation of any underground fire service lines. The application shall be made by a Registered Engineer or by either a General Engineering Contractor or a Licensed Fire Sprinkler Contractor, who will be performing the work.

5. Every building or structure shall be provided with an address. Numerals shall be placed where clearly visible from the street or roadway upon which it fronts. Residential structures shall have numerals that are a minimum of 4 inches in height and of stroke.

Commercial structures shall have numerals that are a minimum of 6 inches in height and inch stroke. Numerals shall be in a contrasting color to their background and illuminated at night. Numerals shall be white in color when located upon glazing.

6. A Knox Key-Lock Box is required to be installed as shown on plans. Please contact Fire Prevention at 650-522-7940 to obtain an application.

7. Fire inspections are available Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. Call 650-522-7940 a minimum of 48 hours in advance to place an inspection request.

8. On plans submitted for a Building Permit, show the location of all required Smoke Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Alarms, in accordance with CRC Sections 314 & 315.

9. In accordance with the Municipal/Regional Storm water Permit, no fire sprinkler system drain shall discharge into any Storm Drain System. The system shall discharge to either a landscape area large enough to contain the outflow, or to the Sanitary Sewer by means of an indirect connection. Indicate the location of the Fire Sprinkler System drain on plans submitted for a building permit.

10.Address Identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters. Said numbers shall be either internally or externally illuminated in all new construction and in all alterations greater than 50% of the original 215
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-30
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval structure. Numbers shall be as follows: Minimum of one-half inch (1/2”) stroke by six inches (6”) high. When the structure is thirty-six (36) to fifty (50) feet from the street or fire department access a minimum of one-half inch (1/2”) stroke by nine inches (9”) high is required. When the structure is more than fifty (50) feet from the street or fire apparatus access, a minimum of oneinch (1”) stroke by twelve inches (12”) high is required.

Hydrology and Water
Quality
The proposed expansion will require a limited amount of demolition for site preparation, grading, and excavation. Based upon the review of the site plan two separate stormwater detention facilities would be implemented. The following standard COAs would be required.

1. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the City Grading Ordinance, Chapter 9 of the City Code. Soil or other construction materials shall not be stockpiled in the public right-of-way unless an encroachment permit is obtained from the Department of Public Works. Grading shall neither be initiated nor continued between November 15 and April 15. Grading shall be done between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Director of Public Works. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction shall be implemented to protect water quality.

Construction - BMPs

2. Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits, the applicant must submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be used to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system.

The plan shall include the following items:
a. A site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slopes; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal area; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourses or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas. b. Erosion and sediment controls to be used during construction, selected as appropriate from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Erosion and P.O. Box 791, Oakland, CA 94604-0791. c. Methods and procedures to stabilize denuded areas and install and maintain temporary erosion and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established. d. Provision for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site, such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, fiber rolls, silt fence, check dams, storm drain inlet protection, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stockpiles and/or other measures.
e. Provisions for installing vegetative cover in disturbed areas, including areas to be seeded, planted, and/or mulched, and types of vegetation proposed.
f. Provision for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff around the project site (e.g., swales and dikes).
216
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-31
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval g. Notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; types of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation.

3. During grading and building operations, the owner/applicant shall ensure that applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) are followed to prevent discharge of soil or any construction material into the gutter, storm drain system, or creek.

4. The owner/applicant shall ensure that all construction personnel follow standard BMPs for stormwater quality protection during construction of project. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Store, handle, and dispose construction materials and wastes properly, so as to prevent their contact with stormwater. b. Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediment, and non- stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses. c. Use sediment controls, filtration, or settling to remove sediment from dewatering effluent. d. Do not clean, fuel, or maintain vehicles on-site, except in a designated area in which runoff is contained and treated. e. Delineate clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses with field markers or fencing.
f. Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate. g. Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather (April 15 through November 14). h. Limit and time applications of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff. i. Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. j. Do not track dirt or other materials off-site; clean offsite paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods.

5. If construction is not complete by the start of the wet season (November 15 through April 15), prior to November 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation as appropriate to the site and status of construction. Winterization of disturbed soils through temporary or permanent seeding, mulching, matting, tarping or other winterization requirements shall include inspecting/maintaining/cleaning all soil erosion and sedimentation controls prior to, during, and immediately after each storm event; stabilizing physical means; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels, and other chemicals.

Plans to include proposed measures to prevent erosion and polluted runoff from all site conditions. As site conditions warrant, the Department of Public Works may direct the developer to implement additional winterization requirements. 217
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-32
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Operational – COAs & BMPS

6. All plans shall conform to the requirements of the City National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit and the San Mateo Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (STOPPP). The project plans shall include permanent storm water quality protection measures. The project plans shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to the uses to be conducted on-site to effectively prohibit the discharge of pollutants with storm water run-off. A Maintenance and Operation Agreement shall be prepared by the applicant incorporating the conditions of this section.

7. The property owner shall install, operate, and maintain all permanent stormwater quality protection measures included in the approved project plan using qualified personnel. The property owner/applicant must keep a maintenance and inspection schedule and record to ensure that the treatment control measures continue to operate effectively for the life of the project.

Records must be provided to the Department of Public Works, on an annual basis, on or before June 30 of each year.

8. A Maintenance Plan for every stormwater treatment control, and/or Hydro Modification measure or applicable site design measure, inclusive of maintenance and inspection checklists and Maintenance Inspection Report Forms, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. A copy of the final, approved Maintenance Plan(s) shall be made a part of the Maintenance Agreement. A copy of the final, approved Maintenance Plan(s) shall also be on file with the Public Works Department.

9. The developer shall provide to the first residents/occupants/tenants practical information materials (as furnished by the City) on good housekeeping for hazardous products, proper use and disposal of hazardous products, and prohibited discharge practices.

10.Efficient irrigation systems shall be used throughout all landscaped areas in accordance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.

11.All landscaping shall be maintained and shall be designed with efficient irrigation systems to reduce runoff, promote surface filtration, and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

12.The property owner/association shall implement a trash management and litter control program including emptying trash receptacles in common areas, noting trash disposal violations by homeowners or business, and notifying violators.

13.The phrase “No Dumping-Drains to Bay” or equal phrase shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets by stenciling, branding, plaque, or casting.

14.The property owner shall install trash capture devices in storm drain systems that lead directly to the off-site storm drain system or outfall. Devices shall be approved by the Director of Public Works or a designee. Trash capture devices are required on site consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board definition of Full Capture System. All on-site trash capture devices shall be cleaned routinely and maintained by the Owner per the Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement.
218
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-33
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval

15.All on-site drain facilities must be inspected twice a year and cleaned immediately prior to the rainy season (prior to October 15) and once again during the rainy season. Results of inspection and cleaning shall be reported to the Department of Public Works on an annual basis on or before June 30 of each year.

16.Streets and parking lots must be swept immediately prior to and once during the storm season. Records of street cleaning shall be reported to the Department of Public Works on an annual basis on or before June 30 of each year.

17.Trash enclosures and dumpster areas must be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage. Drains within the trash enclosure will be connected to the sanitary sewer system.

18.No wastewater (including equipment cleaning wash water, vehicle wash water, cooling water, air conditioner condensate, and floor cleaning wash water) shall be discharged to the storm drain system, the street, or gutter.

19.New buildings such as food service facilities and/or multi-family residential complexes or subdivisions shall provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters and recycling containers. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area and to contain litter and trash, so that it is not dispersed by the wind or runoff during waste removal.

20.Interior level parking garage floor drains, and any other interior floor drains, shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards. A permit is required for discharge to the sanitary sewer.

21.Swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, and fountains shall have a connection to the sanitary sewer, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards. This connection could be a drain in the pool to the sanitary sewer or a cleanout located close enough to the pool so that a hose can readily direct the pool discharge into the sanitary sewer cleanout.

22.Boiler drain lines, roof top equipment with drain lines, and/or equipment for washing and/or steam cleaning activities shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards.

23.Roof drains shall drain away from the building and be directed to landscaping or a stormwater treatment measure.

24.The developer shall provide to the first residents/occupants/tenants practical information materials (as furnished by the City) on good housekeeping for hazardous products, proper use and disposal of hazardous products, and prohibited discharge practices.

25.The property owner/association shall implement a trash management and litter control program including emptying trash receptacles in common areas, noting trash disposal violations by homeowners or business, and notifying violators.

26.Outdoor storage areas for oils, fuels, solvents, coolant, and other chemicals shall be designed to provide secondary containment such as berms and roof covers. Process equipment sited outdoors shall be placed on an impermeable surface and covered. Property owners/associations shall implement a regular program of sweeping and litter control at these sites.

27. Fire sprinkler test water shall discharge to onsite vegetated areas, or, alternatively, shall be discharged to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards.

28.Air conditioning condensate shall drain to landscaping, or, alternatively, may be connected to the sanitary sewer system, subject to the local sanitary sewer agency’s authority and standards. 219
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-34
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Noise The General Plan includes policies to limit the exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise, groundborne vibration, and operational noise. The City requires that applicants for individual development projects evaluate potential noise and vibration impacts and develop appropriate measures to avoid or reduce these impacts through preparation of “project/location specific” study. The project site is not located within an area defined as a Noise Impacted Location based on traffic noise contours. A sitespecific noise and vibration study was prepared as supporting documentation for a CEQA categorical exemption (see Attachment F–Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project Noise and Vibration Study [Panorama Environmental Consulting, December 19, 2025)
The Noise and Vibration Study evaluated potential construction and operational impacts on nearby sensitive receptors, including adjacent residences and on-campus students and staff. Modeled construction noise levels would reach up to approximately 80 dBA Leq at 50 feet during grading and excavation but would attenuate to below 65 dBA Leq at 200 feet, comparable to normal conversational levels. With implementation of the City’s standard construction-related COAs including work-hour limits, mufflers on internal-combustion equipment, use of “quiet” air compressors, temporary barriers where feasible, and designation of a Construction Noise Coordinator, construction noise and vibration impacts would be less than significant.

The Noise and Vibration Study relied on calculated noise levels prepared by the project sponsor’s acoustical consultant (see Appendix B of the Noise and Vibration Study) to evaluate potential operational noise from a preliminary list of HVAC equipment for the four HVAC system clusters. Modeled noise levels from all equipment operating at full capacity were estimated between 43 and 50 dBA Leq at the nearest property lines, below the Belmont and San Carlos residential noise limits (50 dBA daytime and 45 dBA nighttime standards). In addition, the project would relocate outdoor activity areas away from the southern and eastern property lines and move athletic activities indoors, further reducing existing offsite activity noise. Accordingly, operational and stationary noise impacts would be less than significant.

Construction

1. Noise Control Plan. The applicant must prepare and implement a noise control plan. Said plan must incorporate the noise reduction measures identified in the Noise and Vibration study prepared for the project, and the City standard construction noise COAs required for all projects.

2. Noise Coordinator. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contractor shall designate a “Construction Noise Coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The Construction Noise Coordinator shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The telephone number for the Construction Noise Coordinator must be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Prior to construction activities, the project applicant or contractor shall notify adjacent residents of the construction schedule in writing and provide them with the contact information of the Construction Noise Coordinator.

3. Notice. The applicant shall notify property owners within 300 feet of the project site two weeks prior to the initiation of construction activities on site. A schedule of construction activities, contact phone number for the Noise Coordinator, and a copy of the noise control plan shall be included with this notice. 220
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-35
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval

4. Grading & Building Noise. The applicant must ensure that the following preventative and monitoring measures are enforced during grading and building operations:
a. Limit construction activity to the hours listed in the City Noise Ordinance. (8:00 am to 5:00 pm on weekdays, 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays, no construction activity on Sundays and holidays). Exceptions to these hours may be approved by the Building Official though the standard City process.
b. Schedule highest noise-generating activity and construction activity away from noise-sensitive land uses. c. Equip internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers which are maintained in good condition.
d. Prohibit and post signs prohibiting unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and portable generators as far as practicable from noise-sensitive land uses.
f. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment where feasible and available.

5. Noise Barrier Standards. When noise barriers are required or proposed, their design and placement must be reviewed and approved by the project noise consultant, prior to issuance of grading or building permits. These barriers must be installed prior to grading and excavation activities, and must be inspected by the project noise consultant to ensure that it has been properly constructed/installed. The barrier must remain in place for the duration of grading and excavation activities, unless approved for removal by the noise consultant to allow work at that location.

6. Engine Noise. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of internal combustion engine-driven equipment with original factory (or equivalent) intake and exhaust mufflers, which are maintained in good condition.

7. Equipment Noise. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the applicant must demonstrate that a condition of contract of all contractors and subcontractors requires the use of “quiet” air compressors and other stationary equipment. If the applicant demonstrates that the use of quiet air compressors and other stationary equipment is not feasible, moveable sound barriers or portable sound huts must be used for noise mitigation.

Operation

8. The Project Noise Consultant shall conduct a noise analysis of all mechanical and HVAC equipment proposed with the final building permit plans. The results of the analysis and design recommendations to ensure compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance shall be summarized by the Consultant in a letter submitted with the building permit plans. The consultant’s recommendations shall be incorporated into the building plans, prior to issuance of a building permit.

Construction Vibration

1. After obtaining permission from the subject property owners, the applicant must conduct preconstruction photo surveys of foundation/building wall cracks in adjacent structures, and install vibration monitors at any sensitive receptor sites identified in 221
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-36
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval the project Vibration Assessment. The applicant must submit a copy of the photo survey and written confirmation from the Project Acoustic Consultant that all required monitors have been installed and inspected, and that they meet the consultant’s specifications, prior to issuance of grading or building permits.

2. The applicant must designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.

3. Neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the project site must be notified of the construction activities and construction schedule (including estimated dates of various construction phases) at least 2 weeks prior to the start of construction.

4. The applicant must ensure that the preventative and monitoring measures identified in the Vibration Assessment are enforced during grading and building operations. The applicant must demonstrate that all project construction personnel have been made aware of these measures, prior to issuance of a grading or building permits. On-site identification of any buffer distances between construction (i.e., vibratory rollers, excavators, backhoes, etc.) and adjacent structures that are specified in the Vibration Assessment must occur prior to grading operations.

5. Vibration monitors shall be placed at the sensitive receptors to monitor construction activities and make sure the project thresholds are met. Real-time alerts must be sent to the Contractor in case of near threshold vibration levels or in case of threshold exceedances. In case of exceedances, work must stop, and the source of the exceedance must be identified, and the required mitigation measure should be incorporated.

6. Building structures near the project must be periodically checked for cracks, and any cracks must be monitored. If minor cracks are reported or existing cracks propagate, vibration project action levels must be restricted.

7. Whenever possible, construction or equipment activity generating relatively high levels of vibration must not occur at the same time and shall be spaced as far apart in time as possible from one another. In general, the most severe activities must be reserved for the middle of the day (noon). If activities must occur simultaneously, they shall be performed as far away from one another as possible within the construction zone.

8. All deliveries of material and equipment must occur during daytime hours, including queueing of construction vehicles outside the site. Vehicles delivering materials and equipment must be operated in strict conformance with regulations established by the United States Department of Transportation and all State and Local requirements. All materials and equipment must be stored onsite and within the confines of the construction barricades.

9. Stationary and portable construction equipment must be located at positions where the noise/vibration impact to nearby noise/vibration-sensitive receptors is minimal. At times where the equipment cannot be positioned at a minimal noise/vibration impacting location, mitigation devices shall be implemented, as determined by the Project Acoustic Consultant or designated Vibration Monitor.

10.After construction activities are complete, the applicant must conduct a post-construction photo survey of previously surveyed buildings for foundation/building wall cracks. The post construction survey, and a summary letter of any resulting actions taken (repairs or restitutions) must be provided to the Community Development Department, prior to final building permit inspection. 222
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-37
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Transportation/Traffic The proposed expansion would result in an approximately 10 percent increase in student capacity (from 260 to 290 students) and an incremental increase in Armstrong employees (11 full-time equivalent people). The limited increase in the student body population and the Armstrong staff increase would result in new trips. As part of the City’s standard requirements for private schools, the applicant will complete the City of Belmont Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Checklist to document existing and proposed trip-reduction measures. The school will continue to implement its Drop-Off/Pick-Up Management Plan, which staggers student arrival and dismissal times and directs vehicle circulation through the campus to minimize neighborhood congestion. The campus also benefits from proximity to existing SamTrans Route 60 bus stops within 0.2 mile of the site along Chula Vista Drive, which provides an alternative travel mode for staff and visitors. The following standard City COAs would be required for construction and operations.

TDM

1. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with both the County of San Mateo (CCAG) and the City of Belmont’s TDM programs by submitting a completed TDM application form (available on the City website) which will be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall implement the TDM program as described in the approved TDM Plan. The applicant shall submit an annual TDM compliance report and pay a TDM review fee, as specified in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. In addition, the following is required:
a. The Applicant, using the adopted TDM program, shall provide a tally of how many points and under which categories the project will be achieving TDM measures.
b. The Applicant shall implement the TDM measures identified in the final approved Traffic Impact Analysis. The applicant shall submit an annual TDM compliance report and pay a TDM review fee, as specified in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. c. The TDM program shall be evaluated annually to assess the actual level of trip reduction achieved at the site and to identify any adjustments to the program necessary to ensure the TDM measures are successful. Consistent with common traffic engineering data collection principles, trip generation shall be monitored annually by means of AM and PM commute hour driveway counts. The counts shall be conducted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM one day per year on a typical weekday (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) during the fall when school is in session. Mechanical tube counts, hand counts, or video counts may be used. The peak 60-minute period should be calculated for each two-hour traffic count period.
d. An annual resident survey should be conducted to determine transportation mode choice (i.e., driving alone, carpool, bus, Caltrain). The site TDM coordinator shall work with an independent consultant to obtain traffic count data, implement the annual commuter surveys, and document the results in a TDM monitoring report. e. The annual monitoring report shall be submitted to the Public Works Director or citywide TMA by the TDM coordinator. The City shall review the data to assess whether the goal of a 15% trip reduction is being met. f. In addition to the annual monitoring reports, a 5-year review shall be conducted to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the TDM measures. If the city determines that the trip reduction goal is not being achieved, additional TDM measures may be 223
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-38
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval implemented. Modifications to the TDM plan may include additional programs or services listed in the City of Belmont’s TDM program or otherwise available for achieving vehicle trip reductions. g. The annual TDM monitoring report shall describe any planned modifications to the TDM program intended to ensure compliance with the trip reduction targets established for this project.

Construction Traffic

2. Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a construction management plan (CMP) for review and approval by the Public Works Department in consultation with the Community Development Department and Police Department. For properties located at or in close proximity to the City borders, the plan shall be routed to adjacent jurisdictions.

The CMP shall include a response to construction-related conditions and requirements identified by reviewing City departments and outside agencies for inclusion in the Plan. The plan shall include at least the following items:
a. Schedule
A project construction schedule shall be provided that includes the approximate date and expected time frame for each stage of construction. At minimum, the schedule shall include:
• Excavation & Shoring (as applicable)
• Below Grade & Foundation Construction
• Above Grade Construction & Framing
• Exterior & Interior Finish Work
• Public Frontage Improvements
• Offsite & Utility Improvements
b. Site and Logistics Plan
Site and logistics plan(s) shall be provided for each phase of project construction. Said plan(s) shall include:
• Location of Construction Fencing & Access Control for The Site • Proposed Circulation Pattern, including Access & Egress, for Each Phase of Construction • Location of Dewatering Tanks, Construction Trailer, Temporary Power Pole, & Restrooms • Erosion & Dust Control Plans
• Security & Lighting Plans
• Location of Construction Staging Areas for Materials, Equipment, & Vehicles • Crane Plane (Location, Height, & Radius), as applicable c. Traffic Control Plan: Routes for construction-related traffic (hauling, deliveries, works) shall be identified in consultation with the Department of Public Works. Grading, hauling, and construction delivery traffic shall be timed to avoid peak hour 224
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-39
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval school and work commute traffic. The CMP shall identify the maximum size of construction equipment/trucks during construction, expected temporary street closure, the use of flag personnel during construction, and the location of construction worker parking/car-pooling. Comprehensive traffic control measures shall be identified inclusive of any required detour signage, lane closures, and sidewalk closures. A 24-hour written notice must be given to the Public Works and Police Departments prior to lane closures. Trained flag persons shall be positioned at both ends of blocked traffic lanes to ensure safe movement of vehicles, and pedestrians. The proposed traffic control plan may require review by a traffic engineer, to ensure an adequate intersection/driveway turning radius would be provided for large vehicles, and/or when other large projects are in construction at the same time. d. Noticing: The CMP shall include notice to property owners within 300 feet of the project site two weeks prior to grading identifying haul route(s) and staging area for the project. The notice shall also include a process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity, including identification of an on-site complaint manager. 24-hour advance written notice shall also be provided to adjacent property owners, adjacent businesses, and Public Works and Police Department personnel prior to all major deliveries, detours, and lane closures. e. Road Conditions: Documentation of road pavement conditions shall be provided to the Public Works Department for all routes that will be used by construction vehicles, both before and after project construction. Roads found to have been damaged by construction vehicles shall be repaired as required by current City pavement restoration standards, or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer.
f. Response to CMP Conditions: A response shall be provided to CMP conditions from other City departments, and outside agencies.

Utilities Construction of the proposed project would include extension of various utilities and interconnection of various existing and new onsite stormwater detention facilities. The project’s stormwater management plan incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) measures consistent with the City’s NPDES permit (Provision C.3), including bio-retention areas, pervious paving, and onsite detention basins to capture and treat runoff before discharge. Final stormwater connection plans would be reviewed and approved by the City of Belmont Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading and building permits, consistent with the City’s standard COAs. The proposed expansion would result in an approximately 40-person increase (students and Armstrong employees) to the daily on-site population. The limited increase in the daily on-site population would result in increased demand on stormwater services. The following standard COAs would be required for construction and operations:

1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist documenting the LID treatment reduction credit, a narrative of LID Feasibility/Infeasibility, and a Storm Water Treatment Plan showing a minimum of 100% LID treatment unless demonstrated to be infeasible is incorporated into the storm water treatment design as shown on the City approved Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer.

2. The Property Owner shall enter into a Maintenance Agreement with the municipality to ensure long‐term maintenance and servicing by the Property Owner of stormwater site design and treatment control [and/or HM] measures according to the 225
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-40
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval approved Maintenance Plan(s). The Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded for the property and/or made part of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs).

3. The developer shall be responsible for an agreed upon percentage of the total cost of upgrading the existing drainage pipes.

The costs will include design, permitting, construction, construction management, inspection and closeout activities. The agreed-upon percentage contribution for the upgrade of the existing drainage pipes shall be paid to the City before the issuance of the building permit.

Water Services Construction of the proposed project would result in an approximately 40-person increase (students and Armstrong employees) in the daily on-site population. This limited increase in demand on water services would be accommodated by existing providers. The Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) issued an “Intent to Serve” letter confirming adequate supply and infrastructure capacity.

The City and MPWD also require applicants to provide a drought-tolerant landscape plan in accordance with the current MPWD water efficiency in landscape ordinance (WELO). A standard COA for drought-tolerant landscaping is as follows:

1. The applicant shall demonstrate that the final landscape plan has been reviewed and approved by the Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD), and is consistent with MPWD’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO), prior to installation of landscaping. A post installation certification from MPWD is also required prior to final building permit inspection. Contact the MPWD Water Conservation Administrative Specialist at (650) 591-8941 or [email protected] for more information.

Solid Waste The General Plan EIR indicates that implementation of the General Plan and Belmont Village Specific Plan (BVSP) would result in in additional population and increased solid waste generation within the city. AB 939 requires local governments to divert 50 percent of their community’s solid waste, and the recent goal that has been set by CalRecycle of 75 percent recycling, composting, or source reduction of solid waste by 2020. These disposal targets for Belmont were met for both residential and employment disposal for the years 2013-2015.

Given the city’s ability to meet its diversion targets, as well as the remaining capacity in area landfills, meeting the collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal needs of the projected population anticipated in the General Plan/BVSP is not expected to exceed existing permitted solid waste disposal capacity. In addition, the General Plan/BVSP and CAP contain policies for new development that require participation in all recycling, hazardous waste reduction, and solid waste diversion programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.

The City requires applicants to provide plans and materials that include details for collecting trash and recycling for proposed development projects (i.e., location of facilities and proposed access for collection). The City’s trash and recycling hauler (Recology) reviews the plans and determines the appropriate service levels for the projects. Recology and Public Works staff also determine if there is adequate access/circulation for their vehicles to pick up materials from the site. A letter shall be provided from Recology stating that service is available to the project as designed. Public Works will review the proposed service for impacts to the right-of-way.
226
City of Belmont
Planning Application #PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final Project Description● December 19, 2025 2-41
Environmental Topic City of Belmont Conditions of Approval Construction of the proposed project would result in the generation of solid waste. As described previously and under the standard COAs for Greenhouse Gas, the applicant would be required to recycle or salvage for use a minimum of 50% of the construction waste generated by this project and provide documentation before the final building permit inspection.

The proposed expansion would result in an approximately 40-person increase (students and Armstrong employees) increase to the daily on-site population. Armstrong would expand and update its existing campus-wide recycling program and trash pickup service to include the new buildings. The limited increase in the daily on-site population would result in increased solid waste generation that would be accommodated by existing permitted solid waste disposal capacity. 227
City of Belmont
Planning Application # PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final General Plan Conformity Analysis ● December 19, 2025 3-1
3 General Plan Conformity Analysis
In determining General Plan consistency for the project, applicable goals and policies of the City’s General Plan must be considered by decision-makers. The goals and policies of applicable area plans also must be considered because they are ancillary long-range plans that connect to and support the General Plan; however, there are no area plans applicable to the project site.

The applicable goals and policies of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) must also be considered. A key factor when evaluating policy consistency is whether the project would substantially further or advance the goals and policies of the applicable plans.

A General Plan consistency analysis for the project is presented in Table 3-1. Based on this analysis, the project would be consistent with the General Plan because it would substantially further or advance the General Plan’s goals and policies. The project also would be consistent with the CAP’s goals and policies.

Table 3-1 Project Consistency with the Goals and Policies of the Belmont General Plan and Belmont Climate Action Plan
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
City of Belmont General Plan
Land Use Goal 2.1: Promote a diversity of
compatible land uses throughout the city, to
enable people to live close to job locations,
adequate and convenient commercial services,
and public services and facilities such as transit,
parks, and schools.

Consistent. The project would enhance a long-standing
community-serving educational use in an established
residential neighborhood. The school’s expansion would
strengthen local access to specialized educational services without introducing land use conflicts or disrupting the existing neighborhood fabric.

Land Use Goal 2.2: Support the creation and
enhancement of “complete neighborhoods” in
Belmont, with well-integrated single-family and
multi-family residential development, pedestrian
and bicycle-friendly environments, and activity
nodes featuring schools, parks, and
neighborhood commercial areas.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Land Use Goal 2.1.

Land Use Policy 2.3-4: Focus new development
in or directly adjacent to already-developed
areas, where it can be served by existing public
services and infrastructure.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Land Use Goal 2.1.

Land Use & Design Policy 2.13.1-4 &
Conservation Element Policy 5.3.6: Minimize light
and glare from new development; Avoid light
pollution and unnecessary glare by requiring
development projects to use design features and
shielding methods that cast outdoor light
downward and minimize glare and to install the
minimum amount of outdoor lighting necessary
for safety and security.

Consistent. The project would include lighting for building entries, walkways, and gathering spaces that would be fully shielded and directed downward. No pole-mounted or highwattage floodlights are proposed. Lighting would be limited to that necessary for safe circulation and site security, consistent with the City’s dark-sky goals. Final fixture selection and photometric design would be in compliance with the City’s lighting standards.
228
City of Belmont
Planning Application # PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final General Plan Conformity Analysis ● December 19, 2025 3-2
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
Circulation / Mobility, and Complete Streets
Goal 3.1: Provide for the safe and efficient
movement of people and vehicles within and
through the community that fosters accessibility
and connectivity; accommodates a mixture of
automobiles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians;
and encourages higher transit ridership.

Consistent. The project would maintain and enhance
internal circulation for pedestrians and vehicles, including Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant access routes, drop-off/pick-up staging, and designated parking areas. The small enrollment increase (from 260 to 290) would not
generate significant new trips, and the Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) practices—such as staggered
dismissal and carpool coordination—would reduce potential traffic impacts. The campus is near existing transit
corridors, and the project design/scale would accommodate multimodal access without altering public street
infrastructure.

Circulation / Mobility, and Complete Streets
Goal 3.8: Provide a balanced and well-managed
parking supply that accommodates demand
while maximizing efficiency.

Consistent. The project would increase the existing on-site parking supply of 83 by two spaces to 85 spaces across the upper and lower lots. With a projected staffing increase of approximately 11 persons and all staff being required to park on campus, the parking demand would remain within
capacity because of staggered schedules and part-time
staffing. Armstrong also would implement carpooling
strategies and formalize this protocol in its TDM Plan. No on-street parking demand or oversupply is expected to
occur.

Conservation and Biological Resources Goal 5.3:

Protect and restore biological and ecological
resources in Belmont, including sensitive wildlife
species and their habitats.

Consistent. The project would be entirely within a previously developed school campus and would not impact any
sensitive biological resources or wildlife habitats. Although 61 trees would be removed (including 39 protected trees, 33 of which are coast live oaks), the project would comply with the City’s protected tree replacement standards by providing 33 new oak trees onsite and 6 other preferred species replacement trees, or through in-lieu fees if all replacements cannot be accommodated. As noted below,
pre-construction nesting bird surveys would be conducted as required by the City through its standard conditions of approval. The project landscape plan would incorporate
native and drought-tolerant species, supporting urban
biodiversity and long-term ecological value on site. No riparian zones or undeveloped habitat areas would be
disturbed.

Conservation and Biological Resources
Policy 5.3-3: To the greatest extent feasible,
ensure that development does not disturb
sensitive habitat and special status species by
requiring appropriate and feasible mitigation
measures.

Consistent. The project site is fully developed and urbanized, with no identified sensitive habitats. However, there is the potential for nesting birds and bats (specifically the Alameda Sparrow and the Pallid Bat) and the San Francisco Duskyfooted Woodrat which are special-status species.

Preconstruction surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist at the appropriate times prior to construction in accordance with the City standard COAs. If special-status species are encountered, protective measures would be
implemented as identified and determined by the qualified 229
City of Belmont
Planning Application # PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final General Plan Conformity Analysis ● December 19, 2025 3-3
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
biologist. In addition, the project design would incorporate best practices, such as native plantings, tree protection measures, and erosion control BMPs that would align with the intent of this policy.

Conservation and Biological Resources
Policy 5.3-5: In design and construction, require
use of best practices that preserve natural
resources, such as soil, trees, native plants, and
permeable surfaces.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Conservation and Biological Resources Goal 5.3.

Conservation and Biological Resources
Policy 5.3-7: Encourage the planting of native
trees, shrubs, and grasslands in order to
preserve the visual integrity of the landscape,
provide habitat conditions suitable for native
vegetation, and ensure the maximum number
and variety of well-adapted plants are
maintained.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Conservation and Biological Resources Goal 5.3.

Conservation and Water Quality Policy 5.5-3:

Require development projects to incorporate
structural and non- structural best management
practices (BMPs) to mitigate or reduce the
projected increases in pollutant loads, in
accordance with the NPDES permit guidelines.

Consistent. The project would include Low Impact
Development-based stormwater infrastructure, designed in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Special Provision C.3 requirements. Bioretention areas and on-site treatment systems would improve runoff quality and reduce peak flow, consistent with City and
regional water quality objectives.

Conservation and Water Quality Policy 5.5-5:

Implement water pollution prevention methods to
the maximum extent practicable, supplemented
by pollutant source controls and treatment.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Conservation and Water Quality Policy 5.5-3.

Conservation and Water Supply 5.6: Preserve
water resources and provide for long-range
community water needs by adopting best
management practices for water use and
conservation.

Consistent. The project would include a drought-tolerant landscape plan, in accordance with the current MidPeninsula Water District (MPWD) water efficiency in the landscape ordinance (WELO). The project applicant has
secured an “Intent to Serve” letter from MPWD, and the
project would be required to meet all applicable CALGreen (indoor water efficiency) standards at the time of building permit issuance.

Water Supply Policy 5.6-4: Set appropriate
conditions of approval for each new
development proposal to ensure that the
necessary water supply facilities and water
resources are in place prior to occupancy.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Conservation and Water Supply Policy 5.6.
230
City of Belmont
Planning Application # PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final General Plan Conformity Analysis ● December 19, 2025 3-4
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
Conservation and Water Policy 5.6-5: Continue
the City’s Water Conservation Strategy to reduce
water use, control water cost, and promote
environmental sustainability in municipal
buildings, parks, landscaped areas, and athletic
fields, as feasible and appropriate.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Conservation and Water Supply Policy 5.6.

Air Quality Policy 5.10-3: Ensure that
construction and grading activities minimize
short-term impacts to air quality by employing
appropriate mitigation measures and best
practices.

Consistent. In addition to the implementation of the City’s standard COAs for construction air quality emissions
minimization such as the use of equipment with Tier 4
engines, as developed through the General Plan EIR, the applicant and their construction contractor would
implement Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) best practices for dust control, including regular watering of exposed soils, vehicle washdowns, and
covering of haul trucks. Diesel equipment would meet the California Air Resource Board’s emissions standards. These measures would minimize short-term emissions, furthering City and regional compliance efforts to ensure that regional thresholds are not exceeded.

Air Quality Policy 5.11-2: Support the Climate
Action Plan’s goals and implement the CAP’s
reduction measures and strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.

Consistent. The project would support the City’s CAP goals by avoiding fossil fuel use, by including efficient mechanical systems, and by using low-energy fixtures. The new
buildings would maximize daylighting and natural ventilation.

A new electrical service would power the entire campus.

Safety Goal 6.1: Minimize risks of property
damage and personal injury posed by geologic
and seismic hazards.

Consistent. A comprehensive geotechnical investigation
was prepared for the project and reviewed by the City, and no considerable geologic hazards were found on site (see Project Description Attachment E). The investigation report provides detailed recommendations for grading, drainage, slope stabilization, and foundation design. These
recommendations would be implemented, including slab-ongrade and shallow mat foundations, over-excavation of fill areas, and minor shoring. No pile driving or deep
foundations are proposed. Thus, the project would meet City standards for seismic and slope safety and minimize the risk of geotechnical hazards.

Safety Policy 6.1-1: Continue to maintain and
enforce appropriate standards to ensure new
development is designed to meet current safety
codes and requirements associated with seismic
activity. Require public and private development
to be located, designed, and constructed to
minimize the risk of loss of life and injury in the
event of a major earthquake or other natural
disaster.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Safety Goal 6.1. 231
City of Belmont
Planning Application # PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final General Plan Conformity Analysis ● December 19, 2025 3-5
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
Safety Policy 6.1-2: Continue to regulate
development, including remodeling or structural
rehabilitation, to ensure adequate mitigation of
safety hazards on sites having a history or threat
of seismic dangers, erosion, landslides, or shrink
swell.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Safety Goal 6.1.

Safety Policy 6.1-4: Continue to require
geotechnical site analysis for proposed
development on sites as specified in the
Municipal Code, prior to allowing site
development.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Safety Goal 6.1.

Safety Policy 6.1-5: Geotechnical studies shall
identify any geologic hazards affecting the
proposed project site, any necessary mitigation
measures, and a statement of the site’s
suitability for the proposed development and
whether or not it will be safe from geologic
hazard for its expected life. The study shall
identify net developable areas, if any, based on
landslide or ground shaking potential or erosion
risk. Impacts from the development, such as
those resulting from increased water runoff,
shall also be determined. Such studies must be
signed by a licensed Certified Engineering
Geologist or Geotechnical Engineer and are
subject to review and approval by City staff
and/or contracted employees.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Safety Goal 6.1.

Safety Policy 6.1-6: Require any geotechnical
studies to include the study of expansive and
creeping soils, as well as analysis of erosion,
seismic, and other geotechnical hazards, and
make recommendations, as warranted.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Safety Goal 6.1.

Safety Policy 6.1-8: Ensure consideration of
seismic and geologic hazards at the earliest
possible point in the development process,
preferably before comprehensive engineering
work has commenced.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Safety Goal 6.1.

Safety Goal 6.3: Protect soils, surface water, and
groundwater from contamination from hazardous
materials.

Consistent. The project has not proposed the use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation.

Construction activities would comply with all applicable stormwater pollution prevention measures, including best management practices for erosion control, materials
handling, and spill prevention. No existing or historical hazardous waste concerns have been identified on site, and excavation would be monitored for any unexpected
conditions.
232
City of Belmont
Planning Application # PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final General Plan Conformity Analysis ● December 19, 2025 3-6
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
Safety Goal 6.5: Ensure that utilities that are
essential to contemporary life are available and
adequate to meet the demands of the Belmont
community while also ensuring the utilities
maintain and enhance Belmont’s physical
diversity, visual qualities, and small-town
characteristics.

Consistent. The project would connect to all essential
utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electrical, internet). A new electrical service would be installed to support the allelectric design. An “Intent to Serve” letter has been secured from MPWD. No natural gas infrastructure is proposed.

Safety Policy 6.5-5: Require all new development
to be connected to the City’s sewer system. Consistent. Refer to the determination in Safety Goal 6.5.

Noise Goal 7.1: Strive to achieve an acceptable
noise environment for the environmental, health,
and safety needs of present and future residents
of Belmont.

Consistent. Construction noise would occur during Cityapproved project hours, and the project would not require nighttime work. No operational noise exceedances are
anticipated; mechanical systems would be screened and
compliant with City thresholds. Ventilation systems would allow indoor use with the windows closed.

Noise Policy 7.1-2: Use the Community Noise
Level Exposure Standards, as review criteria for
new land uses. Require all new development that
would be exposed to noise greater than the
“normally acceptable” noise level range to
reduce interior noise through design, sound
insulation, or other measures.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Noise Goal 7.1.

Noise Policy 7.1-3: Require noise-reducing
mitigation to meet allowable outdoor and indoor
noise exposure standards in [General Plan] Table
7-2. Noise mitigation measures that may be
approved to achieve these noise level targets
include but are not limited to the following:
• Construct façades with substantial weight and
insulation;
• Use sound-rated windows for primary sleeping
and activity areas;
• Use sound-rated doors for all exterior entries at
primary sleeping and activity areas;
• Use minimum setbacks and exterior barriers;
• Use acoustic baffling of vents for chimneys,
attic and gable ends; and,
• Install a mechanical ventilation system that
provides fresh air under closed window
conditions.

Alternative acoustical designs that achieve the
prescribed noise level reduction may be
approved, provided a qualified Acoustical
Consultant submits information demonstrating
that the required reductions to meet the specific
Consistent. The project would be designed with durable, well-insulated façades, and sound-rated windows and doors consistent with City standards for noise control. Mechanical ventilation systems would provide fresh air under closedwindow conditions, maintaining interior noise levels below 45 dBA Ldn. These design features would achieve
compliance with the allowable interior and exterior noise exposure standards identified in General Plan Table 7-2.

A qualified acoustical consultant prepared a projectspecific mechanical equipment noise study based on a preliminary list of HVAC equipment, which indicates that the proposed design and construction methods would achieve
compliance with the City’s interior and exterior noise
standards. If any alternative acoustical designs or materials are proposed during building permit review, they would be reviewed and approved by the qualified acoustical
consultant to ensure compliance with City standards for stationary noise sources.
233
City of Belmont
Planning Application # PA2024-0050
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project ● Final General Plan Conformity Analysis ● December 19, 2025 3-7
Goal or Policy Determination and Discussion
targets for outdoor activity areas and interior
spaces can be achieved and maintained.

Noise Policy: 7.1.8: Continue to enforce
applicable Federal and State Noise Insulation
Standards (CCR, Title 24) and noise
requirements.

Consistent. The project would comply with all applicable State Building Code (Title 24) noise insulation standards for educational facilities. The project’s design incorporates acoustical materials and mechanical ventilation that meet the minimum insulation performance standards for sensitive uses such as classrooms and activity areas.

Noise Policy: 7.1.10: Require developers of new
development anticipated to generate a
substantial amount of vibration during
construction to implement mitigation practices to
reduce vibration, which can include: operating
heavy equipment as far as practical from
residential uses; using smaller bulldozers
(operating weight less than 20,000 pounds) when
grading must occur within approximately 50 feet
of residential uses or other vibration sensitive
uses; and using quiet pile driving technology
when feasible.

Consistent. No pile-driving or other high-vibration activities are proposed. Construction would primarily involve standard building and grading equipment, operated at distances
greater than 50 feet from nearby residences. Equipment
would be staged as far from property lines as feasible, and smaller, lower-impact machinery would be used for fine
grading and finishing work. These practices would ensure compliance with City standards and avoid substantial
vibration effects on adjacent sensitive uses.

Noise Policy Goal 7.2: Protect noise-sensitive
land uses, such as schools, hospitals, and senior
care facilities, from encroachment of and
exposure to excessive levels of noise.

Consistent. Refer to the determination in Noise Goal 7.1.

City of Belmont Climate Action Plan
CAP Goal 3.1.1: Increase municipal, residential,
and commercial energy efficiency, renewable
energy, efficient water use, and green building.

Consistent. The project would be all-electrically powered and meet CALGreen and WELO standards. It would include
on-site recycling and composting as well as droughttolerant landscaping, Construction waste would be diverted in accordance with Recology guidelines.

CAP Goal 3.2.1: Reduce emissions from
transportation through efficient land use,
alternate modes of transportation, and
operational innovations.

Consistent. The project would support this goal by
maintaining a neighborhood-serving school in close
proximity to housing and transit. The project would also formalize an existing TDM program that includes staggered drop-off and dismissal times, carpool coordination, and onsite staff parking restrictions. Implementation of these operational practices would reduce single-occupancy
vehicle trips and lower transportation-related emissions, in alignment with CAP objectives.

CAP Goal 3.3.1: Reduce solid waste generated
and sent to landfills.

Consistent. Armstrong maintains a waste diversion program, and the project would include adequate space for recycling and compost collection.
234
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619

MEMORANDUM
Date: November 10, 2025 Job No.: 24232-04
To: Carlos De Melo, City of Belmont Community Development Director Jeremy Ruiz, City of Belmont Assistant Planner
Peter Mye, Senior Project Manager, Panorama Environmental, Inc From: Yilin Tian, Project Environmental Engineer, Baseline Environmental Consulting Subject: Final Air Quality Health Risk Assessment for the Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
The Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project (project) would occur in two phases and result in the construction of four new buildings on the existing school campus at 1405 Solana Drive in Belmont, California. Phase 1 (2026–2027) would include three new academic buildings as part of an Academic Wing totaling approximately 11,900 square feet, along with a new landscaped plaza, building connections, stormwater management systems, utility infrastructure, slope stabilization, and landscaping. Phase 2 (2031–2032) would include a new 11,100-square-foot Athletics Building with associated site improvements.

The Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Belmont General Plan Update concluded that build out of the Plan Area, which includes the project site, would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from new sources of toxic air contaminants (TACs), and requires future projects located within 1,000 feet of receptors to perform a construction health risk assessment (HRA) under Mitigation Measure AQ-6 (AQ-6) and the City’s conditions of approval.

In accordance with Mitigation Measure AQ-6, this HRA evaluates the potential health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors exposed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions from project construction. The health risks to nearby sensitive receptors were evaluated in accordance with guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)1 and the Bay Area Air District (BAAD). 2 PROJECT ANALYSIS
During construction, the project would generate emissions of DPM and PM2.5 from the exhaust of diesel-powered engines; these emissions are a complex mixture of soot, ash particulates, 1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. May. 2 Bay Area Air District (BAAD), 2023. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. April. 235
Memorandum
November 10, 2025

Armstrong PD AttA_Air Quality Health Risk Assessment.docx metallic abrasion particles, volatile organic compounds, and other components that can penetrate deeply into the lungs and contribute to a range of health problems. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified DPM from diesel-powered engines as a TAC based on its potential to cause cancer and other adverse health effects.3 The BAAD also recommends that construction emissions of PM2.5, in addition to TACs, be considered in health risk assessments of air pollution due to its correlation with diesel exhaust and strong evidence for adverse health effects.

Health Risk Screening Thresholds
For risk assessment purposes, exposure to TACs may result in cancer and noncancer health impacts. Cancer risk is expressed as the incremental probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a direct result of exposures to potential carcinogens from anthropogenic sources. The estimated cancer risk is a unitless probability, often expressed as chances in a million. A hazard index (HI) is used to assess noncancer health impacts for different exposure scenarios (chronic and acute). The HI is based on the ratio of the potential exposures to a chemical by the levels at which no adverse effects are expected.

The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of BAAD. BAAD has adopted thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in the evaluation and mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA.4 BAAD’s recommend health risk thresholds are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: BAAD Health Risk Screening Thresholds
Impact Analysis Pollutant Screening Thresholds
Local Community Risks and
Hazards
(Operation and/or
Construction)
PM2.5 (project) 0.3 μg/m3 (annual average)
TACs (project) Cancer risk increase > 10 in one million Chronic hazard index > 1.0
PM2.5 (cumulative) 0.8 μg/m3 (annual average)
TACs (cumulative) Cancer risk > 100 in one million
Chronic hazard index > 10.0
Notes: TACs = Toxic air contaminants; PM2.5 = Fine particulate matter; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.

Source: BAAD, 2023. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. April.

Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are areas where individuals are more susceptible to the adverse effects of poor air quality. Sensitive receptors include, but are not limited to, hospitals, schools, daycare 3 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1998. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking; Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant, June. 4 Bay Area Air District (BAAD), 2023. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. April. 236
Memorandum
November 10, 2025

Armstrong PD AttA_Air Quality Health Risk Assessment.docx facilities, parks, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. Residential areas are also considered sensitive receptors because people are often at home for extended periods, thereby increasing the duration of exposure to potential air contaminants.

Existing sensitive receptors near the project site include single-family residences adjacent to the north, east, and south of the project site. The San Carlos Charter Learning Center, Mariposa Upper Elementary School, and Tierra Linda Middle School are located about 185 feet, 380 feet, and 650 feet to the southwest of the project site, respectively.

BAAD also recommends evaluating health risks to offsite worker receptors, which are not considered sensitive receptors. Since the project site is surrounded by sensitive receptors such as residences and schools, offsite worker receptors located further away are not evaluated in the analysis.

Toxic Air Contaminant and PM2.5 Emissions from Construction Project construction would generate DPM and PM2.5 emissions from the exhaust of off-road diesel construction equipment, and fugitive PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. BAAD recommends using the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2022.1) to estimate air pollutant emissions from construction of a project.

CalEEMod uses widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data for a variety of land use projects that can be used if site-specific information is not available. The primary input data used to estimate emissions associated with construction of the project were provided by the project applicant and contain information on construction duration, off-road construction equipment inventory and usage, and construction truck and worker commute trips.

Project construction is subject to several mitigation measures from the Program EIR, including Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Tier 4 Engines on Construction Equipment, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel, which would reduce exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 emissions during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ 2 require all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities to use Tier 4 or newer engines approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and renewable diesel, respectively. This analysis conservatively assumes that off-road diesel equipment subject to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would use Tier 4 interim engines instead of cleaner Tier 4 final engines. For Mitigation Measure AQ-2, since CalEEMod does not have data to quantify mitigation of Tier 4 interim engines, the reduction in exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 emissions achieved by using renewable diesel was not quantified in this analysis. In addition, project construction is subject to Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices, which will reduce fugitive dust emissions.
237
Memorandum
November 10, 2025

Armstrong PD AttA_Air Quality Health Risk Assessment.docx A summary of the assumptions for estimating construction emissions is provided in Table 2.

Construction information provided by the project applicant and a copy of the CalEEMod report for the proposed project, which summarizes the input parameters, assumptions, and findings, is included as Attachment A.

Table 2: CalEEMod Construction Assumptions
Input Category Construction Assumptions and Changes to Default Data Construction Phase The project will be constructed in two phases. Construction of Phase 1 (Academic Wing) would commence on May 26, 2026, and last about 15 months through August 13, 2027. Construction of Phase 2 (Athletics Building) would commence on May 27, 2031, and last about 15 months through August 13, 2032.

Construction Equipment The construction equipment list was modified according to site-specific construction information provided by the project applicant (Attachment A).

Material Movement Assumed 800 cubic yards of soil export for Phase 1 and 600 cubic yards of material import for Phase 2.

Demolition Approximately 4,000 square feet (SF), 8,200 SF, and 3,010 SF of asphalt, concrete, and playground surfaces would be demolished, respectively, which would generate about 367 tons of demolition debris.1
Construction: Trips and VMT Construction truck trips and worker commute trips were provided by the applicant. Truck trips generated by material import/export and demolition debris off-haul were added to the provided truck trips to be conservative.

Notes: Default CalEEMod data was used for all other parameters not described. 1 Asphalt demo assumption:(Area of pavement)(Depth of pavement)(Density asphalt) = (15.2 KSF)(0.33 ft)(0.0725 tons/ft^3) =367 tons.

Demolition debris was included in Phase 1.

Source: Attachment A.

Health Risk Assessment
Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminant and PM2.5 Emissions during Construction In accordance with guidance from BAAD and OEHHA, an assessment was conducted to evaluate potential health risks to sensitive receptors exposed to DPM and PM2.5 emissions during project construction. The acute HI for DPM was not calculated because an acute reference exposure level has not been approved by OEHHA and CARB, and BAAD does not recommend analysis of acute non-cancer health hazards from construction activity.

The annual average concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 during construction were estimated within 1,000 feet of the project using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s AERMOD air dispersion model. For this analysis, emissions of exhaust coarse particulate matter (PM10) were used as a surrogate for DPM, which is a conservative assumption because more than 90 percent of DPM is less than 1 micron in diameter. For modeling purposes, daily emissions from 238
Memorandum
November 10, 2025

Armstrong PD AttA_Air Quality Health Risk Assessment.docx construction were assumed to occur during the City of Belmont’s permitted construction hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The exhaust and fugitive dust emissions from off-road equipment were represented in the AERMOD model as area sources encompassing the Phase 1 and Phase 2 building footprints. Exhaust and fugitive dust emission rates for off-road equipment were based on the actual hours of work and averaged over the entire duration of construction. During non-work hours, the emission rates were assumed to be zero. The input parameters and assumptions used for estimating the dispersion of DPM and PM2.5 from off-road diesel construction equipment are included in Attachment B.

A uniform grid of receptors spaced 20 meters apart was created for ground level receptors at a standard breathing height of 1.5 meters to develop isopleths (i.e., concentration contours) around the project site that illustrate the air dispersion pattern from the emissions sources. In addition, discrete receptors were created for ground level receptors at heights of 1.5 meters to calculate concentrations at the maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) and the onsite maximally exposed individual Student (Onsite MEIS). The AERMOD model input parameters included 1 year of BAAD meteorological data from the San Carlos Met Site (Site ID 6901) located about 1.8 miles to the northeast of the project site.

The air dispersion model was used to estimate annual average concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 from project construction emissions at nearby receptors. Based on the results of the air dispersion model (Attachment B), potential health risks were evaluated for the following receptors (Figure 1):
• The MEIR on the ground floor of a single-family residence located adjacent to the east of the project site; and
• The Onsite MEIS at the Middle Classroom Building on the project site west of Phase 1 and north of Phase 2.

The MEIR is located closer to the project site than the offsite student receptors and offsite workers. Since residential receptors have a longer exposure duration, larger age sensitivity factor, and higher exposure frequency than students and workers, the offsite student and worker receptors are not evaluated in this analysis.

The project would be constructed in two phases, with each phase requiring approximately 15 months of construction. Phase 2 is anticipated to begin about four years after the completion of Phase 1 but could start earlier. For the MEIR, the incremental increase in cancer risk was conservatively assessed for an infant starting from birth that would be exposed to annual average DPM concentrations over the entire duration of project construction (30 months). This exposure scenario represents the most sensitive individual who could be exposed to adverse air quality conditions in the vicinity of the project site. For the Onsite MEIS, it was conservatively assumed that the school would be in session and a student 2 to 16 years 239
Memorandum
November 10, 2025

Armstrong PD AttA_Air Quality Health Risk Assessment.docx of age would attend the Charles Armstrong School during the entire project construction duration.

Estimates of the health risks at the MEIR and Onsite MEIS from exposure to DPM and PM2.5 concentrations during project construction are summarized and compared to the BAAD’s thresholds of significance in Table 3. At the MEIR and Onsite MEIS, the estimated excess cancer risks and chronic HIs for DPM and annual average PM2.5 concentrations from construction emissions were below the thresholds of significance.

Table 3: Health Risks during Project Construction
Emissions Scenario Receptor
Diesel Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Annual Average
Concentration (µg/m3) Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic Hazard
Index
Off-Road Construction
Equipment
MEIR 2.1 0.002 0.04
Onsite MEIS 0.02 <0.001 0.21
Thresholds of Significance 10 1.0 0.3
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: Attachment B
Cumulative Exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants and PM2.5 Emissions In addition to a project’s individual TAC and PM2.5 emissions during construction, the potential cumulative health risks to sensitive receptors from existing TACs and PM2.5 were evaluated.

Cumulative health risks were estimated at the MEIR to represent the worst-case-exposure scenario for sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Based on the BAAD’s permitted stationary source risk map,5 there is one existing stationary source within 1,000 feet of the MEIR (Figure 1): Mid Peninsula Water District (13796).

Preliminary health risk screening values at the MEIR associated with the stationary source were determined using the 2022 permitted stationary source inventory data and the BAAD Health Risk Calculator with Distance Multipliers (Beta Version 5.0). At the time of preparation of this analysis, there were no reasonably foreseeable future projects identified within 1,000 feet of the project that would introduce a new source of TACs and/or PM2.5 emissions. 5 Bay Area Air District (BAAD), 2024. Stationary Source Screening Map. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b9f4b805fb9d89a3.

Accessed October 15, 2025.
240
Memorandum
November 10, 2025

Armstrong PD AttA_Air Quality Health Risk Assessment.docx Preliminary health risk screening values at the MEIR from exposure to mobile sources of TACs and PM2.5 were estimated based on the BAAD’s Mobile Source Screening Map,6 which provides health risk estimates reflective of 2022 conditions for residents living near major roadways, and reflective of 2024 conditions for residents living near rail lines and rail yards.

Estimates of the cumulative health risks at the MEIR for the project are summarized and compared to the BAAD’s cumulative thresholds of significance in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, the cumulative cancer risk, chronic HI, and annual average PM2.5 concentration at the MEIR were below the BAAD’s cumulative thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose existing sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of TACs and PM2.5 that would be considered cumulatively considerable.

Table 4: Cumulative Health Risks
Source Source Type Ref
Diesel Particulate Matter PM2.5 Annual
Average
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazard Index
Project
Off-Road Construction Equipment Diesel Exhaust 2.1 <0.01 0.04 Existing Stationary Sources
Mid Peninsula Water District
(13796) Generator 1,2 0.1 <0.01 0.00
Existing Mobile Sources
Major Roadway Mobile 3 1.6 0.01 0.08
Cumulative Health Risks 3.7 <0.1 0.1
Thresholds of Significance 100 10.0 0.8
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Notes: µg/m3=micrograms per cubic meter; HI=hazard index; Ref=reference Health risk screening values derived using the following BAAD tool and methodology references:
1) BAAD's Health Risk Calculator (Beta Version 5.0)
2) BAAD's Health Risk Calculator (Beta Version 5.0): Diesel Internal Combustion Engine Distance Multiplier Tool. 3) BAAD Beta version Mobile Source Screening Map for Roadway, Rail, and Railyard.

Source: Attachment B
6 Bay Area Air District (BAAD), 2024. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Mobile Source Screening Map, Beta Version. Available at:
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/sidebar/index.html?appid=c5f9b1a40326409a89076bdc0d95e429.

Accessed October 15, 2025.
241
Memorandum
November 10, 2025

Armstrong PD AttA_Air Quality Health Risk Assessment.docx

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the potential health risk impacts related to emissions from off-road construction equipment, construction of the project would not result in a substantial increase in the exposure of sensitive receptors to DPM and PM2.5. 242
FIGURE
243

244

ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Results
245
Construction Schedule and Construction Vehicle Trip Activity Construction
Phase Project Components Construction Elements
Estimated Start
Date Estimated End Date
Estimated
Duration
(Work Days)
Average
Trucks per
Day
Average
Workers per
Day
One-Way Truck
Trips per Day
One-Way Worker
Commute Trips per
Day
Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Site Preparation / Mobilization May 26, 2026 June 5, 2026 9 2 4 4 8 Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Grading June 8, 2026 July 3, 2026 19 3.50 6 7 12 Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Site Utilities June 1, 2026 July 10, 2026 29 0.25 12 0.5 24 Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Building Construction July 6, 2026 August 13, 2027 280 2 21 4 42 Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Site Hardscape & Landscape May 31, 2027 August 13, 2027 53 2 8 4 16 Phase 2 Athletic Building Site Preparation / Mobilization May 27, 2031 June 6, 2031 9 2 4 4 8 Phase 2 Athletic Building Grading June 9, 2031 July 3, 2031 19 5 6 10 12 Phase 2 Athletic Building Site Utilities June 2, 2031 July 11, 2031 29 0.25 12 0.5 24 Phase 2 Athletic Building Building Construction July 7, 2031 August 13, 2032 280 2 21 4 42 Phase 2 Athletic Building Site Hardscape & Landscape May 31, 2032 August 13, 2032 53 2 8 4 16 Notes: It was conservatively assumed that the average daily truck volumes provided by the applicant represent round trips.

Construction Off-Road Equipment Activity
Construction
Phase Project Components Site Preparaton / Mobilization Equipment CalEEMod Equipment Type Number of
Units Horse Power Tier Rating Hours/Day Utilization
Adjusted
Hours/Day
Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Site Preparation / Mobilization Backhoe/Loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 100 4 8 100% 8 Concrete Saw Concrete/Indstrial Saws 1 30 4 8 100% 8
Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Grading Excavator* Excavators 1 300 4 8 50% 4 Backhoe/Loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 100 4 8 75% 6 Small Dozer Rubber Tired Dozers 1 100 4 8 50% 4
Roller/CompactorRollers 1 75 4 8 25% 2
Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Site Utilities Backhoe Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 100 4 8 75% 6 Concrete Saw Concrete/Indstrial Saws 1 30 4 8 10% 0.8
Jumping Jack Plate Compactors 1 10 4 8 75% 6
Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Building Construction Gradall/forklift Forklifts 1 125 4 8 100% 8 Crane Cranes 1 400 4 8 10% 0.8
Concrete Pump Other Construction Equipment 1 300 4 4 20% 0.8 Phase 1 Academic Buildings (A, B & C) Site Hardscape & Landscape Backhoe/Loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 100 4 8 75% 6 Mini-Excavator Excavators 1 60 4 8 75% 6
Skidsteer Skid Steer Loaders 1 75 4 8 50% 4
Phase 2 Athletic Building Site Preparation / Mobilization Backhoe/Loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 100 4 8 100% 8 Concrete Saw Concrete/Indstrial Saws 1 30 4 8 100% 8
Phase 2 Athletic Building Grading Excavator* Excavators 1 300 4 8 50% 4 Backhoe/Loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 100 4 8 75% 6 Small Dozer Rubber Tired Dozers 1 100 4 8 50% 4
Roller/CompactorRollers 1 75 4 8 25% 2
Phase 2 Athletic Building Site Utilities Backhoe Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 100 4 8 75% 6 Concrete Saw Concrete/Indstrial Saws 1 30 4 8 10% 0.8
Jumping Jack Plate Compactors 1 10 4 8 75% 6
Phase 2 Athletic Building Building Construction Gradall/forklift Forklifts 1 125 4 8 100% 8 Crane Cranes 1 400 4 8 10% 0.8
Concrete Pump Other Construction Equipment 1 300 4 4 20% 0.8 Phase 2 Athletic Building Site Hardscape & Landscape Backhoe/Loader Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 100 4 8 75% 6 Mini-Excavator Excavators 1 60 4 8 75% 6
Skidsteer Skid Steer Loaders 1 75 4 8 50% 4
*with hydraulic ram attachment if needed for any rock excavation 246
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 1 / 24
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.9. Site Hardscape & Landscape (2027) - Unmitigated

3.11. Site Utilities (2026) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
247
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 2 / 24

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation
248
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 3 / 24

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
249
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 4 / 24

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Construction Start Date 5/26/2026
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 4.70
Precipitation (days) 3.20
Location 1405 Solana Dr, Belmont, CA 94002, USA
County San Mateo
City Belmont
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1245
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.30

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Junior High School 11.9 1000sqft 0.27 11,900 0.00 0.00 — Academic Building 250
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 5 / 24

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.41 0.31 6.93 11.6 0.02 0.08 1.70 1.74 0.08 0.76 0.80 — 2,461 2,461 0.19 0.16 2.57 2,498 2027 2.70 2.63 4.72 8.66 0.01 0.06 0.60 0.66 0.05 0.15 0.20 — 1,970 1,970 0.12 0.09 2.17 2,002 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.23 0.16 2.15 4.23 0.01 0.01 0.44 0.45 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,141 1,141 0.08 0.07 0.04 1,165 2027 0.21 0.16 2.11 4.16 0.01 0.01 0.44 0.45 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,126 1,126 0.07 0.06 0.04 1,146 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.11 0.08 1.27 2.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.27 0.28 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 587 587 0.04 0.04 0.33 599 2027 0.45 0.42 1.25 2.34 < 0.005 0.01 0.20 0.22 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 584 584 0.04 0.03 0.32 594 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 97.1 97.1 0.01 0.01 0.06 99.1 2027 0.08 0.08 0.23 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 96.7 96.7 0.01 0.01 0.05 98.4

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 251 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 6 / 24
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.09 3.16 4.00 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 565 565 0.02 < 0.005 — 567 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.61 0.61 — 0.09 0.09 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
252
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 7 / 24
Off-Roa < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.31 2.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.32 d
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 64.5 64.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 64.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.16 0.02 1.38 0.98 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 922 922 0.14 0.15 1.78 971 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 22.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 23.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.77 3.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.96

3.3. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 253
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 8 / 24
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.14 3.38 6.19 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,040 1,040 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.28 1.28 — 0.66 0.66 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.18 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 54.1 54.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.96 8.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.99 254
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 9 / 24
Dust — — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 96.8 96.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 97.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.09 0.01 0.80 0.57 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 538 538 0.08 0.09 1.04 567 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.78 4.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.85 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 29.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.79 0.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.80 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.64 4.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.88

3.5. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
255
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 10 / 24
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.52 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 160 160 0.01 < 0.005 — 161 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.6 26.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
256
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 11 / 24
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.08 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 339 339 0.01 < 0.005 1.01 341 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.1 55.1 0.01 0.01 0.13 57.7 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.46 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 307 307 0.05 0.05 0.59 324 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.09 0.09 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 320 320 0.01 0.01 0.03 324 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.08 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 55.1 55.1 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 57.6 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.48 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 307 307 0.05 0.05 0.02 323 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 114 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.2 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.17 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 108 108 0.02 0.02 0.09 113 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.9 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.19 3.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.34 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.8 17.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 18.8

3.7. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 257
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 12 / 24
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.62 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 189 189 0.01 < 0.005 — 190 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.06 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 333 333 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.89 334 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.9 53.9 0.01 0.01 0.12 56.4 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.44 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 300 300 0.04 0.05 0.55 316 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
258
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 13 / 24
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.08 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 314 314 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 315 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.07 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.9 53.9 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 56.3 Hauling 0.05 0.01 0.46 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 300 300 0.04 0.05 0.01 315 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 131 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.2 22.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 23.2 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.19 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 124 124 0.02 0.02 0.10 130 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 21.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.68 3.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.85 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.6

3.9. Site Hardscape & Landscape (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.09 2.40 3.83 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 549 549 0.02 < 0.005 — 551 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.34 2.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 259
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 14 / 24
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.35 0.56 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.7 79.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 80.0 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.34 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.2 13.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.2 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 127 127 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.34 127 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.03 < 0.005 0.22 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 150 150 0.02 0.02 0.27 158 260
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 15 / 24
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.4 17.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 17.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.8 21.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 22.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.89 2.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.90 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.60 3.60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.79

3.11. Site Utilities (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.08 2.28 3.78 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 570 570 0.02 < 0.005 — 572 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
261
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 16 / 24
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.3 45.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.4 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.49 7.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.52 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 178 178 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 179 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 38.4 38.4 0.01 0.01 0.07 40.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.4 13.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.05 3.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.21 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.21 2.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 262
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 17 / 24

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 263
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 18 / 24
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
264
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 19 / 24
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/26/2026 6/5/2026 5.00 9.00 — Grading Grading 6/8/2026 7/2/2026 5.00 19.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/6/2026 7/30/2027 5.00 280 — Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Paving 5/31/2027 8/11/2027 5.00 53.0 —
Site Utilities Trenching 6/1/2026 7/9/2026 5.00 29.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 100 0.37
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 30.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 148 0.41 265
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 20 / 24
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 4.00 100 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 100 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 4.00 300 0.38 Grading Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 2.00 75.0 0.38 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 0.80 400 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 125 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 0.80 300 0.42
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Pavers Diesel Average 0.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Rollers Diesel Average 0.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 100 0.37
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 60.0 0.38
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 4.00 75.0 0.37 Site Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 6.00 100 0.37
Site Utilities Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 0.80 30.0 0.73
Site Utilities Plate Compactors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.43

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
266
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 21 / 24
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 8.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 12.0 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 12.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 7.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 42.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 1.95 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Utilities — — — —
Site Utilities Worker 22.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Utilities Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Utilities Hauling 0.50 20.0 HHDT
Site Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Hardscape & Landscape — — — —
Site Hardscape & Landscape Worker 16.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Hardscape & Landscape Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Hardscape & Landscape Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Hardscape & Landscape Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles
267
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 22 / 24

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Site Hardscape & Landscape 0.00 0.00 17,850 5,950 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Site Preparation — — 0.00 367 —
Grading — 800 4.75 0.00 —
Site Hardscape & Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Junior High School 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) 268
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 23 / 24
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule is adjusted based on project-specific information.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on project-specific construction equipment list.

Construction: Demolition Surface demolition assumption:(Area of pavement)(Depth of pavement)(Density asphalt) = (15.2 KSF)(0.33 ft)(0.0725 tons/ft^3) =367 tons.
269
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 1 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 24 / 24
Construction: Trips and VMT Based on construction truck trips and worker commute trips provided by the applicant.

Conservatively assumed the truck trips as haul truck trips. The demolition debris off-haul trips were added to provided truck trips for site preparation phase. 270
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 1 / 24
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2031) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2031) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2031) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2032) - Unmitigated

3.9. Site Hardscape & Landscape (2032) - Unmitigated

3.11. Site Utilities (2031) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
271
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 2 / 24

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation
272
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 3 / 24

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
273
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 4 / 24

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Construction Start Date 5/27/2031
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 4.70
Precipitation (days) 3.20
Location 1405 Solana Dr, Belmont, CA 94002, USA
County San Mateo
City Belmont
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1245
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.30

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Junior High School 11.1 1000sqft 0.25 11,100 0.00 0.00 — Athletic Building 274
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 5 / 24

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2031 0.40 0.30 6.80 11.6 0.02 0.08 1.81 1.85 0.07 0.79 0.83 — 2,700 2,700 0.17 0.15 1.63 2,750 2032 2.65 2.60 4.52 8.24 0.01 0.05 0.60 0.66 0.05 0.15 0.20 — 1,856 1,856 0.09 0.08 1.18 1,883 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2031 0.18 0.14 1.99 3.91 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.45 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,063 1,063 0.06 0.06 0.02 1,081 2032 0.17 0.14 1.96 3.86 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.45 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 1,049 1,049 0.06 0.05 0.02 1,066 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2031 0.09 0.07 1.19 2.18 < 0.005 0.01 0.25 0.26 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 553 553 0.03 0.03 0.19 563 2032 0.43 0.41 1.19 2.21 < 0.005 0.01 0.20 0.22 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 549 549 0.03 0.03 0.17 558 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2031 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 91.6 91.6 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 93.2 2032 0.08 0.08 0.22 0.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 90.9 90.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 92.4

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2031) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 275 Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 6 / 24
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.09 3.16 4.00 0.01 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 — 565 565 0.02 < 0.005 — 567 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.9 13.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.0 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.30 2.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.31 276
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 7 / 24
Dust — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 59.6 59.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 59.9 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.35 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 264 264 0.03 0.04 0.38 278 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.39 1.39 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.51 6.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.86 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.23 0.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.23 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.08 1.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14

3.3. Grading (2031) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
277
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 8 / 24
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.14 3.38 6.19 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 1,040 1,040 0.04 0.01 — 1,044 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 1.28 1.28 — 0.66 0.66 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.18 0.32 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 54.1 54.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 54.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.07 0.07 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.96 8.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.99 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
278
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 9 / 24
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 89.5 89.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 89.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.12 0.02 1.05 0.84 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.23 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 789 789 0.10 0.13 1.15 831 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.42 4.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.43 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 41.1 41.1 0.01 0.01 0.03 43.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.73 0.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.73 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.80 6.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.16

3.5. Building Construction (2031) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
279
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 10 / 24
Off-Roa 0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 d
Equipm
ent
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.52 0.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 160 160 0.01 < 0.005 — 160 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.10 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.4 26.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.5 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 313 313 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.51 314 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 46.3 280
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 11 / 24
Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.35 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 264 264 0.03 0.04 0.38 278 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 296 296 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 297 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.2 44.2 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 46.2 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.37 0.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 264 264 0.03 0.04 0.01 278 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 103 103 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 104 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.1 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.13 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 92.0 92.0 0.01 0.02 0.06 96.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 17.1 17.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 17.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.55 2.55 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.67 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.2 15.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.0

3.7. Building Construction (2032) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 281
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 12 / 24
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 1.50 2.74 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 458 458 0.02 < 0.005 — 460 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.62 1.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 190 190 0.01 < 0.005 — 191 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 0.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.5 31.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.6 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 309 309 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 310 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.6 42.6 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 44.5 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.33 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 255 255 0.03 0.04 0.34 269 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 292 292 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 293 282
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 13 / 24
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 42.6 42.6 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 44.5 Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.35 0.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 255 255 0.03 0.04 0.01 268 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 122 122 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 122 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.7 17.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 18.4 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 106 106 0.01 0.02 0.06 111 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 20.2 20.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 20.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.92 2.92 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.05 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.5 17.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 18.4

3.9. Site Hardscape & Landscape (2032) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.09 0.09 2.40 3.83 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 545 545 0.02 < 0.005 — 547 Architect
ural
Coating
s

2.34 2.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 283
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 14 / 24
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.35 0.56 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.1 79.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 79.4 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.34 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.1 Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.06 0.06 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Paving 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 118 118 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 118 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.17 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 128 128 0.01 0.02 0.17 134 284
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 15 / 24
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 16.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.5 18.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 19.5 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.69 2.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.07 3.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.23

3.11. Site Utilities (2031) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.08 0.08 2.28 3.78 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 569 569 0.02 < 0.005 — 571 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
285
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 16 / 24
Off-Roa 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 45.2 45.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 45.4 d
Equipm
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.49 7.49 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.51 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 179 179 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.29 180 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 33.0 33.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.05 34.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.62 2.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.76 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.24 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.43 0.43 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 286
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 17 / 24

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 287
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 18 / 24
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
288
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 19 / 24
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/27/2031 6/6/2031 5.00 9.00 — Grading Grading 6/9/2031 7/3/2031 5.00 19.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/7/2031 7/30/2032 5.00 280 — Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Paving 5/31/2032 8/11/2032 5.00 53.0 —
Site Utilities Trenching 6/2/2031 7/10/2031 5.00 29.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 100 0.37
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 30.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 148 0.41 289
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 20 / 24
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 4.00 100 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 100 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 4.00 300 0.38 Grading Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 2.00 75.0 0.38 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 0.80 400 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 125 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Other Construction
Equipment
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 0.80 300 0.42
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Pavers Diesel Average 0.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Rollers Diesel Average 0.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 100 0.37
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 60.0 0.38
Site Hardscape &
Landscape
Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 4.00 75.0 0.37 Site Utilities Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 6.00 100 0.37
Site Utilities Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 0.80 30.0 0.73
Site Utilities Plate Compactors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.43

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
290
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 21 / 24
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 8.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 12.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 11.9 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 42.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 1.82 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 4.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Utilities — — — —
Site Utilities Worker 24.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Utilities Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Utilities Hauling 0.50 20.0 HHDT
Site Utilities Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Hardscape & Landscape — — — —
Site Hardscape & Landscape Worker 16.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Hardscape & Landscape Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Hardscape & Landscape Hauling 2.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Hardscape & Landscape Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles
291
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 22 / 24

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Site Hardscape & Landscape 0.00 0.00 17,850 5,950 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — — 0.00 0.00 —
Grading 600 — 4.75 0.00 —
Site Hardscape & Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Junior High School 0.00 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
292
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 23 / 24
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2031 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2032 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Construction schedule is adjusted based on project-specific information.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on project-specific construction equipment list.

Construction: Demolition Demolition was modeled in Phase 1 to be conservative. 293
Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project - Phase 2 Custom Report, 8/19/2025 24 / 24
Construction: Trips and VMT Based on construction truck trips and worker commute trips provided by the applicant.

Conservatively assumed the truck trips as haul truck trips. The material import haul trips were added to provided truck trips for grading phase.
294

ATTACHMENT B
Health Risk Assessment Results
295
Source Type Units Value
Volume Source: Off-Road Equipment Exhaust (DPM)
Average Hours/Work Day hours/day 9.0
DPM Emission Rate - Phase 1 gram/second 0.00026
DPM Emission Rate - Phase 2 gram/second 0.00026
Release Height meters 5.0
Initial Vertical Dimension meters 1.4
Fugitive PM2.5 Emission Rate - Phase 1 gram/second 0.000596 Fugitive PM2.5 Emission Rate - Phase 2 gram/second 0.000559 Release Height meters 0.0
Initial Vertical Dimension meters 1.0
Sensitive Receptor Pollutant
Annual Average
Concentration
(unit emission rate)
Annual Average
Concentration
(actual emission rate)
DPM (µg/m3
) 38.12 0.010
PM2.5 (µg/m3
) 50.23 0.04
DPM (µg/m3) 3.25 0.001
PM2.5 (µg/m3) 3.25 0.003
DPM (µg/m3) 78.21 0.021
PM2.5 (µg/m3) 318.48 0.21
DPM (µg/m3) 6.01 0.002
PM2.5 (µg/m3
) 7.02 0.004
Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
PM10 = particulate matter with aerodynamic resistance diameters equal to or less than 10 microns PM2.5 = particulate matter with aerodynamic resistance diameters equal to or less than 2.5 microns µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
SMAQMD, 2015
AERMOD Model Results
MEIR - Phase 1
Notes
Summary of AERMOD Model Parameters, Assumptions, and Results for DPM and PM2.5 Emissions from Construction AERMOD Model Parameters and Assumptions
Notes
Assumed Monday to Friday: 8 am to 5 pm
Exhaust PM10 from off-road construction equipment. Scaling factor used to convert result from AERMOD (Assumed 1 gram/second emission rate in the AERMOD model)
SMAQMD, 2015
U.S. EPA, 2022
Area Source: On-Site Fugitive PM2.5
Fugitive PM2.5 from on-site construction activities. Scaling factor used to convert result from AERMOD (Assumed 1 gram/second emission rate in the AERMOD model)
SMAQMD, 2015
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), 2015. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County . June.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2022. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD) .

MEIS - Phase 2
MEIS - Phase 1
DPM: exhaust only
PM2.5: exhaust and fugitive PM2.5
MEIR - Phase 2
24232-04 Emission Summary Page 1 of 2
296
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
SCALE:

0.05 km
1:1,930
PROJECT NO.:
24232-04
COMPANY NAME:

Baseline Environmental
Consulting
COMMENTS:

Annual concentration based on
unit emission rate.

PROJECT TITLE:

Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
Construction Off-Road Equipment Exhaust - Phase 1
SOURCES:

RECEPTORS:
447
OUTPUT TYPE:

Concentration
MAX:

98.18 ug/m^3
297
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
SCALE:

0.05 km
1:1,901
PROJECT NO.:
24232-04
COMPANY NAME:

Baseline Environmental
Consulting
COMMENTS:

Annual concentration based on
unit emission rate.

PROJECT TITLE:

Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
Construction Off-Road Equipment Fugitive Dust - Phase 1 SOURCES:

RECEPTORS:
447
OUTPUT TYPE:

Concentration
MAX:
845 ug/m^3
298
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
SCALE:

0.05 km
1:1,930
PROJECT NO.:
24232-04
COMPANY NAME:

Baseline Environmental
Consulting
COMMENTS:

Annual concentration based on
unit emission rate.

PROJECT TITLE:

Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
Construction Off-Road Equipment Exhaust - Phase 2
SOURCES:

RECEPTORS:
447
OUTPUT TYPE:

Concentration
MAX:

97.66 ug/m^3
299
AERMOD View - Lakes Environmental Software
SCALE:

0.05 km
1:1,901
PROJECT NO.:
24232-04
COMPANY NAME:

Baseline Environmental
Consulting
COMMENTS:

Annual concentration based on
unit emission rate.

PROJECT TITLE:

Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project
Construction Off-Road Equipment Fugitive Dust - Phase 2 SOURCES:

RECEPTORS:
447
OUTPUT TYPE:

Concentration
MAX:
810 ug/m^3
300
0-2 Years Old
Infant
2-16 Years Old
Child
2-16 Years Old
Student
2-16 Years Old
Student
(MEIR) (MEIR) (Onsite MEIS) (Onsite MEIS)
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2
DPM Concentration (C) µg/m3 0.010 0.001 0.021 0.002 AERMOD Annual Average Daily Breathing Rate (DBR) L/kg-day 1090 520 520 230 BAAD, 2023 Inhalation absorption factor (A) unitless 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 OEHHA, 2015 Exposure Frequency (EF) unitless 0.96 0.68 0.68 0.68 MEIR: 350 days/365 days; Onsite MEIS: 250 days/365 days in a year (OEHHA, 2015)
Dose Conversion Factor (CFD) mg-m
3 /μg-L 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 0.000001 Conversion of μg to mg and L to m3 Dose (D) mg/kg/day 0.000010 0.000000 0.000007 0.000000 C*DBR*A*EF*CFD (OEHHA, 2015) Cancer Potency Factor (CPF) (mg/kg/day)-1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Inhalation CPF for Diesel exhaust, OEHHA, 2015 Age Sensitivity Factor (ASF) unitless 10 3 3 1 OEHHA, 2015 Annual Exposure Duration (ED) years 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
The Project would be constructed in two phases, with each phase requiring approximately 15 months of construction. Phase 2 is anticipated to begin about four years after the completion of Phase 1.

Averaging Time (AT) years 70 70 70 70 70 years for residents (OEHHA, 2015) Fraction of time at home (FAH) unitless 1 1 -- -- OEHHA, 2015 Worker Adjustment Factor (WAF) unitless -- -- 3.73 3.73 Assumes the average emissions occur 9 hours/day, 5 days per week Cancer Risk Conversion Factor (CF) m
3 /L 1000000 1000000 1000000 1000000 Chances per million (OEHHA, 2015) Cancer Risk per million 2.1 0.02 1.6 0.02 MEIR: D*CPF*ASF*ED/AT*FAH*CF*IF MEIS: D*CPF*ASF*ED/AT*WAF*CF*IF
Cancer Risk - Total per million
Hazard Index for DPM Units Notes
Chronic REL µg/m3 OEHHA, 2015
Chronic Hazard Index for DPM unitless HI=C/REL (OEHHA, 2015) Notes:

DPM = diesel particulate matter
REL = reference exposure level
µg/m3
= micrograms per cubic meter
L/kg-day = liters per kilogram-day
m3/L = cubic meters per liter
(mg/kg/day)-1 = 1/milligrams per kilograms per day
MEIR = maximum exposed individual resident
MEIW = maximum exposed individual worker
Bay Area Air District (BAAD), 2023. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February.

Summary of Health Risk Assessment for DPM Emissions during Construction Health Risk Assessment Parameters and Results
Inhalation Cancer Risk Assessment
for DPM Units Notes
Construction Phase

2.1 1.6
MEIR Onsite MEIS

5.0 0.002

5.0 0.004
24232-04 Emission Summary Page 2 of 2
301
Screening Report
Area of Interest (AOI) Information
Area : 5,113,967.73 ft²
Aug 19 2025 13:45:06 Pacific Daylight Time
8/19/25, 1:45 PM about:blank
about:blank 1/2 302
Summary
Name Count Area(ft²) Length(ft)
Permitted Stationary Sources 1 N/A N/A
Permitted Stationary Sources
# Address Cancer_Ris Chronic_Ha City County
1 140 Exbourne Avenue 0.90 0.00 San Carlos San Mateo
# Details Facility_I Facility_N Latitude Longitude
1 Generator 13796 Mid Peninsula Water
District 37.51 -122.28
# NAICS NAICS_Indu NAICS_Sect NAICS_Subs PM25
1 221310 Water Supply and
Irrigation Systems Utilities Utilities 0.00
# State Zip Count
1 CA 94070 1
NOTE: A larger buffer than 1,000 may be warranted depending on proximity to significant sources. 8/19/25, 1:45 PM about:blank
about:blank 2/2 303
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report
Charles Armstrong School
Belmont, CA
PREPARED FOR:

Charles Armstrong School
1405 Solana Drive
Belmont, CA 94002
PREPARED BY:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
2550 Ninth Street, Suite 112
Berkeley, CA 94710
June 2024
304
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Preliminary Arborist Report
Charles Armstrong School
Belmont, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Protected Trees in Belmont 9
Suitability for Preservation 10
Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts & Recommendation for Action 12 Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines 13
List of Tables
Table 1. Species present and tree condition. 2
Table 2. Suitability for preservation. 11
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Plan
Preliminary Tree Disposition
305
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Arborist Report
Charles Armstrong School
Belmont, CA
Introduction and Overview
Charles Armstrong School is preparing plans to renovate their facility in Belmont, constructing new gym and music facilities at the campus. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, was asked to prepare an Arborist Report for the project for submittal to the City of Belmont.

This report provides the following information:

1. An assessment of the health, structural condition, and suitability for preservation of the trees located on and adjacent to the proposed project.

2. An assessment of the trees that would be preserved and removed based on preliminary development plans.

3. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development.

Tree Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on June 11, 2024. The assessment included all trees measuring 6 inches and larger in diameter located within and adjacent to the project area. The assessment procedure was a visual assessment from the ground, consisting of the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree species.

2. Attaching a numerically coded metal tag to the trunk of each tree.

3. Recording the tree’s location on a map.

4. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 48-inches (4 feet) above grade.

5. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, or minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormic shoots (secondary shoots that arise along the trunk and branches); extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

6. Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low.” Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.

High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.

Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.

Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas.
306
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 2 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Description of Trees
One-hundred forty-eight (148) trees representing 24 species were evaluated (Table 1). Coast live oak is native to the Belmont area, and some growing near the east property border on the slope may be indigenous to the site. Otherwise, most appeared to have been planted as part of the landscape treatment. Two off-site trees (#7 and 137) were included in the assessment. Overall, 47 trees were in good condition, 67 were in fair condition, 33 were in poor condition, and tree #11 was dead. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).

Table 1. Species present and tree condition.

Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA.

Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon - - 2 - 2
Marina madrone Arbutus 'Marina' - - - 1 1
European white birch Betula pendula - - - 3 3
Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara - - - 5 5
Japanese cedar Cryptomeria japonica - - 2 - 2
Loquat Eriobotrya japonica - - - 1 1
Lemon-scented gum Eucalyptus citriodora - - 1 1 2
Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus - 1 - - 1
Rubber tree Ficus elastica - - - 1 1
Grecian laurel Laurus nobilis - - - 1 1
Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera - - - 2 2
Brisbane box Lophostemon confertus - - 1 - 1
Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora - 1 - - 1
Mulberry Morus sp. - 1 1 1 3
Olive Olea europaea - - 1 6 7
Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis - 1 6 - 7
Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis - 6 19 1 26
Italian stone pine Pinus pinea - - - 2 2
London plane Platanus x hispanica - 1 4 2 7
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - 21 24 15 60
Southern live oak Quercus virginiana - - 1 4 5
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - - 1 - 1
Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia - 1 - - 1
Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 1 - 4 1 6
Total 1 33 67 47 148
307
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 3 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company The project area consisted of a several buildings across the school campus and associated landscaping. An associated parking lot was west of the buildings. To the east, a steep slope arose to meet the boundary line of the neighboring property. Trees were growing throughout the site, most densely concentrated on the naturalized slope.

Coast live oak was the most frequently
occurring species with 60 trees. Most oaks
grew on the naturalized hillside, with fewer
distributed throughout landscaped areas
within the campus. Fifteen (15) were in good
condition, 24 were in fair condition, and 21
were in poor condition. Condition varied with
available growing space. Many oaks were
crowded together with neighboring trees, and
had developed poor form and structure
(Photo 1). Oaks with more available growing
space were generally in better condition.

Stage of development ranged from young (6
inches in diameter) to semi-mature (22
inches in diameter).

Twenty-six (26) Aleppo pines were assessed. Pine #98
was in good condition, 19 were in fair condition, and six were in poor condition. Fair condition pines often had
several trunks arising from a single point on the trunk, forming narrow crowns within dense tree rows (Photo 2).

Many pines in poor condition had a pronounced lean or
one-sided crown. Asymmetric structure was largely due
to competition for space and light and the location of
trees on a slope. Trunk diameters ranged from 12 to 49
inches, indicating semi-mature to old development stage.

Five of six olives were in good condition. All had multiple upright stems and vigorous new growth.

Olive #101 was similarly structured, but had slightly thin foliage and wounds on the trunk.

Individual stem diameters ranged from 3 to 9 inches.

Photo 1: Coast live oak #71 was in fair
condition. The crown was dense, but entirely
one-sided.

Photo 2: Multiple upright stems arose from a single
point on the trunk on Aleppo pine #109. The tree
developed a narrow crown due to dense planting in the
tree row.
308
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 4 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Six of seven Canary Island pines were in
fair condition. The pines had limited
rooting space in small parking lot
landscape islands with root barriers
surrounding the trunks. Pine #128 was in
poor condition with a significant sweep
and epicormic sprouting along the trunk.

A triangular cable system ran between
codominant trunks of pine #127 and
between #127 and 126 (Photo 3). Trunk
diameters ranged from 15 to 26 inches,
indicating semi-mature to mature
development stages.

Six London planes were growing in
parking lot islands, and #49 grew on the
east hillside. Trees #132 and 133 were in
good condition with good structure and
vigor. Four planes were in fair condition with slightly thinner foliage and small branch dieback.

Plane #49 was in poor condition, having only a single poorly formed living branch among numerous dead branch stubs.

Six Siberian elms grew along the southeast edge of the property under high-voltage electrical lines. Elm #2 was in good condition, four were in fair condition, and #11 was dead. Trunk diameters ranged from 5 to 20 inches.

Among the remaining 18 species, none were represented by more than 5 trees. Nine species were represented by a single tree. Together, this group represented 24% of the assessed trees.

Among these trees:
• Blackwood acacias #37 and 95 were in fair condition and grew on the naturalized hillside. More than one stem arose from the base on each tree, measuring between 2 and 16 inches.
• Marina madrone #69 was in good condition. The tree had a 6inch diameter trunk. • European white birches #142 – 144 were all in good condition and appeared well irrigated. Trunks measured between 10 and 13 inches.
• Five deodar cedars were in good condition, growing in landscaping along Solana Drive. The trees were young in development with trunk diameters of 10 inches or smaller.

Photo 3: Three cables were installed in
trees #126 and 127 (left, right, yellow
lines).
309
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 5 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Japanese cedars #88 and 118 were in
fair condition. Tree #88 was semimature in development with a 26-inch diameter trunk: unusually large for the
species throughout the Bay Area (Photo
4). The tree had good form, but thin
foliage and epicormic sprouting. Cedar
#118 was in fair condition with a
wounded, sinuous trunk. Diameter
measured 9 inches.
• Loquat #145 was in good condition. It grew in an interior courtyard within the campus. The trunk measured 10 inches in diameter.
• Lemon-scented gums #124 and 125 were located at the southern corner of the site.

Tree #124 was in good condition with good structure and a raised crown for clearance from nearby high-voltage lines. Tree #125 was in fair condition with a corrected northward sweeping trunk and several stems that had been removed near the base. Trunk diameters measured 27 and 23 inches, respectively. • Blue gum #46 was in poor condition, having been repeatedly topped. Only epicormic sprouts remained. Trunk diameter measured 30 inches. • Rubber tree #146 had two 8-inch diameter trunks. The tree was vigorous and in good condition.
• Multiple stems measuring either 5 or 6 inches arose from the base of Grecian laurel #134. The tree had been sheared into a topiary form and was in good condition. • Tulip trees #87 and 104 were young in development with trunk diameters of 8 and 11 inches, respectively. Both were in excellent condition. • Brisbane box #147 was in fair condition with a north sweeping trunk and slightly thin foliage. The trunk measured 8 inches in diameter.
• Southern magnolia #131 was in poor condition. Vigor was less than average, color was abnormally yellow, and branch tips had died back throughout the crown. It appeared to be a memorial tree. The trunk diameter was 5 inches. • Three mulberries were in good (#138), fair (#90), or poor (#92) condition. Condition varied with overall vigor, with #92 displaying significant twig and small branch dieback while #138 had a dense crown. Diameters measured between 6 – 12 inches.

Photo 4: Japanese cedar #118
was in fair condition with thin,
epicormic foliage.
310
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 6 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Italian stone pine #58 was among the largest trees on-site with a 47-inch diameter trunk. It was in good condition, with several large scaffold branches attached at four feet forming a low, flat crown. Stone pine #103 was younger in development with two trunks measuring 17 and 14 inches. It was in good condition. • Four southern live oaks were in good
condition while #148 was in fair
condition (Photo 5). All were young
in development with trunks between
5 – 7 inches in diameter.
• Coast redwood #22 was in fair
condition with a narrow, suppressed
crown. The trunk was 10 inches in
diameter.
• Chinese elm #56 was in poor condition. Multiple branches arose from 5 feet and bowed to horizontal due to competition for growing space. Trunk diameter measured 13 inches.

Protected Trees in Belmont
The City of Belmont protects:
 Principal Native Trees of certain species (coast live oak and coast redwood at the subject property) with a main trunk of 10 inches or more in diameter or up to three of the largest secondary stems totaling 10 inches or more in diameter;  City Trees of any size located on City property (multi-stemmed shrubs excepted);  Large Diameter Trees having a single main trunk of 14 inches or more in diameter, or up to three of the largest secondary stems totaling 18 inches or more in diameter;  Replacement Trees: any tree, regardless of size, that has been planted as required mitigation for previous removal of another tree at the same site or elsewhere in the City;  Right-of-Way Trees.

Certain species, including blue gum and all species of palms, are exempt from these criteria.

Based on the above criteria, 88 trees are considered Protected: 45 are Large Diameter Trees, and 43 are Principal Native Trees. Four trees were exempt from Protected status due to species:
blackwood acacia #37 and 95, blue gum #46, and Siberian elm #11. A tree removal permit is required for removal of Protected trees. For each Protected Tree removed, a minimum 15-gallon tree from the City’s Preferred Species Tree List must be planted. Alternately, the applicant can arrange for payment of an “in-lieu of planting fee” if replanting is infeasible. For Protected status of individual trees, see the Tree Assessment Form (see Exhibits).

Photo 5: Southern live oak #93
was young in development and in
good condition.
311
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 7 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Suitability for Preservation
Trees that are preserved on sites where development or other improvements are planned, must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive construction impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
 Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than nonvigorous trees are.  Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Defects such as codominant or multiple stems, lean and other deviations from vertical, heavy branches and decay are problematic and may increase the potential for a tree to fail. For example, Aleppo pine #97 leaned sharply to the west while soil mounded uphill to the east. It is a poor candidate for preservation in a use area.
 Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. For instance, coast redwood, coast live oak and ginkgo are tolerant of construction impacts, particularly if properly irrigated after disturbance.

Note that coast live oaks are intolerant of irrigation in summer months and fill soil around the trunk. Japanese cedar and Aleppo pine are moderately tolerant of impacts, and performs best with irrigation after impact. Blue gum is intolerant of root impacts.  Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.
 Species invasiveness
Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.

The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (www.cal-ipc.org) lists species identified as being invasive. Belmont is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blue gum, blackwood acacia, and olive are listed as having limited invasiveness potential.

Species with limited invasiveness potential are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level.
312
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 8 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, below).

Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation.

Charles Armstrong School, Belmont, CA.

High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Thirty-five (35) trees had high suitability for preservation: Aleppo pine #98, 10 coast live oaks, five Deodar cedars, Grecian laurel #134, Italian stone pine #58, lemon-scented gum #124, London planes #132 and 133, Marina madrone #69, mulberry #138, six olives, four southern live oaks, and tulip trees #87 and 104.

Moderate Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter lifespans than those in the high category.

Seventy (70) trees had moderate suitability for preservation: 17 Aleppo pines, Brisbane box #147, five Canary Island pines, 25 coast live oaks, coast redwood #22, European white birches #142 – 144, Italian stone pine #103, Japanese cedars #88 and 118, lemon-scented gum #125, four London planes, loquat #145, mulberry #90, olive #101, rubber tree #146, five Siberian elms, and southern live oak #148.

Low Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Forty-two (42) trees had low suitability for preservation: eight Aleppo pines, blackwood acacias #37 and 95, blue gum #46, Canary Island pines #7 and 128, Chinese elm #56, 25 coast live oaks, London plane #49, mulberry #92, and southern magnolia #131.

Note: Tree #11 was excluded from this consideration since it was dead.

We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation during development. We do not generally recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. 313
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 9 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment Form was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from the proposed project were assessed using the Charles Armstrong School 50% Schematic Site Plan (Ratcliff, dated 6/14/24). Plans were preliminary in nature. As such, evaluation of impacts to trees is preliminary and should be reevaluated throughout the design process.

The plans propose improving the eastern portion of the property, adding new buildings for music and gym facilities. These areas currently contain outdoor play areas and associated landscaping, including many trees. Trees also grow near the toe of the adjacent slope to the east, commonly leaning into or towards the project area. Within the footprints of the buildings and at the edges of development, trees may not be preserved. Trees farther from the perimeter may be preserved with moderate or negligible impacts. Impacts may vary once grading plans are developed, and should be reevaluated throughout the design process.

A playground is proposed at the south end of the site. Sarah Knize, Associate Principal at Ratcliff, informed me that the structures would be constructed on existing asphalt. If trees are protected from mechanical damage and existing asphalt is preserved, I expect negligible impacts to trees in this area.

Existing conditions in the west, north, and central areas of the site are proposed to remain. Trees in these areas may be preserved with minimal impacts if they are adequately protected. Given the intensity of proposed improvements, special attention should be paid when planning equipment access and storage routes. Ensure that adequate space is given to trees to be preserved.

Because the plans are preliminary, there may be opportunities to reduce tree impacts and retain more trees. The ability to preserve trees on this site depends on: 1) selecting trees with moderate or high suitability for preservation; and 2) establishing a tree protection zone large enough to sustain tree health and stability. All plans should include surveyed tree trunk locations so that impacts can be accurately assessed, and adequate tree protection measures can be determined.

Based on my assessment of the proposed plan and evaluation of the trees, I recommend the preservation of 87 trees (49 Protected: 27 Large Diameter Trees and 22 Principal Native Trees), and the removal of 61 trees (39 Protected: 18 Large Diameter Trees and 21 Principal Native Trees). Disposition status for individual trees is shown in Preliminary Tree Disposition (Exhibits).

Among the 87 trees identified for preservation:
• Forty-eight (48) trees are in locations where existing conditions are proposed to remain. I expect negligible impacts if trees are protected.
• Eighteen (18) trees are greater than approximately 30 feet from impacts. I expect negligible impacts if trees are protected.
• Six trees (Aleppo pines #35, 36, coast live oak #39, olive #50, Canary Island pine #7, and Japanese cedar #88) appear to be within approximately 20 – 25 feet from impacts. I expect moderate impacts, but within the tree’s tolerances. • Twelve trees (Italian stone pine #103, coast live oaks #10, 14, 81 – 83, 85, and 86, olive #84, and Siberian elms #12, 13, and 15) appear to be within approximately 10 – 15 feet from impacts. Given the condition of the trees and species tolerance, I believe the trees may be preserved with moderate impacts.
314
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 10 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company • Three trees (coast live oak #123 and lemon-scented gums #124 and 125) border the new playground proposed to be constructed on existing concrete. I expect impacts to be negligible if trees are protected from mechanical damage during construction.

Among the 61 trees identified for removal:
• Twenty-five (25) trees are within the footprint of proposed improvements. • Twenty-six (26) trees are at the edge of proposed improvements. I expect impacts to exceed the tolerances of the trees.
• Nine trees are recommended for removal based on condition and low suitability for preservation. They are poor candidates for preservation at the edge of a use area. • Siberian elm #11 was dead.

Successful retention of the trees to be preserved will require adherence to the Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines.

Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.

The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases.

Specific recommendations for tree protection will be prepared when project plans are available.

Tree Protection Zone

1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be identified for each tree to be preserved. For design purposes, the TREE PROTECTION ZONE should be the dripline of each tree or the edge of existing hardscape where it will be preserved, with the following specifications:
a. Tree protection fences shall be installed to encompass the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. b. Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading. Fences shall be 6-foot-tall chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City. Posts may be installed into concrete blocks on pavement where no soil is available. c. Fences must be installed prior to beginning demolition and must remain until construction is complete.
d. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
e. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
f. Fences shall be posted with signs stating, ”TREE PROTECTION FENCE – DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST”.
315
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 11 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Design recommendations

1. Picture surveyed trunk locations on all plan sheets.

2. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved.

This is the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.

3. Consider the vertical clearance requirements near trees during design. Avoid designs that would require pruning more than 20% of a tree’s canopy.

4. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 2 inches diameter within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.

5. Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included in all plan sets. Reference to the guidelines or Arborist Report is not sufficient.

6. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.

7. As trees withdraw water from the soil, expansive soils may shrink within the root area.

Therefore, foundations, footings and pavements on expansive soils near trees should be designed to withstand differential displacement.

8. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in most cases occasional irrigation will be required. Supplemental irrigation is required for these trees before construction begins. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.

9. Make all efforts to ensure that roots no larger than 2 inches in diameter are not severed.

Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations

1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.

2. Prune trees to be preserved to provide clearance as needed for construction activities. a. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). b. The Consulting Arborist may provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition upon request.
c. Branches extending into the work area that can remain following demolition should be tied back and protected from damage, then released as soon as practical. 316
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 12 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

3. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible, tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.

Recommendations for tree protection during construction

1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.

2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.

3. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such building demolition, tree removals, and removing curb and pavement, install temporary trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattle or wood planks wrapped with orange plastic
fencing as padding around trunks. Any low branches that are within the work zone should also be protected. Remove trunk protection after demolition is completed and install protective fence at the limits of the tree protection zone. Do not retain wattling around tree trunks for more than 2 – 3 months to avoid damaging trunks from excess moisture.

4. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other
protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.

5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE at all times.

6. Any root pruning required for construction purposes must receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Consulting Arborist. Roots should be cut with a sharp saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2 inches in diameter should be avoided where possible.

7. If roots 2 inches and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Consulting Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.

8. Trees to be removed shall be felled to fall away from any TREE PROTECTION ZONE and avoid pulling and breaking of roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the Consulting Arborist may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees, or grinding the stump below ground.

9. Prior to grading or trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any root pruning required for construction purposes must receive the prior approval of, and be supervised by, the Consulting Arborist.

10. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.

11. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
317
Preliminary Arborist Report. Charles Armstrong School. Belmont, CA. Page 13 June 2024
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

12. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3 to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 30 inches.

13. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.

14. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.

15. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.

Maintenance of impacted trees
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that of pre-development.

As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.

Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.

Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.

Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.

If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Ryan Suttle, Consulting Arborist & Urban Forester
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Utility Specialist No. WE-12647BU ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #813
318
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Plan
Preliminary Tree Disposition Form
319
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
1 Canary Island pine 20 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Narrow; pruned for high voltage; sparse.
2 Siberian elm 12,12,8,8,
5 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; 2” girdling root W; low vigorous crown.
3 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal
native
3 Low Between chain link and wood fence; engulfing fence at base; topped for high voltage.
4 Coast live oak 14 Yes; principal
native
3 Low Between chain link and wood fence; ivy at base; topped for high voltage.
5 Coast live oak 19 Yes; principal
native
3 Low Between chain link and wood fence; ivy at base; topped for high voltage.
6 Coast live oak 22 Yes; principal
native
3 Low Between chain link and wood fence; ivy at base; topped for high voltage.
7 Canary Island pine 24 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Low Off-site; no tag; lateral overhangs by 2 feet; topped for high outage.
8 Aleppo pine 13 No 3 Low Under high voltage; sparse; mild twig dieback; lean N. 9 Siberian elm 20 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Codominant at 4 feet; cavity at 5 feet S; topped. 10 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal
native
4 Moderate One-sided NW; good vigor; multiple attachments at 9 feet. 11 Siberian elm 10 Exempt 0 - Dead; 7’ snag.
12 Siberian elm 18 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5 feet; low crown; epicormic sprouting; decay in S stem.
13 Siberian elm 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant at 11 feet; narrow; sapsucker damage. 14 Coast live oak 17 Yes; principal native
3 Moderate Codominant at 5 feet with seam; low domed crown; top of slope. 15 Siberian elm 17 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Codominant at 3 feet; broken branch topped.
16 Coast live oak 8 No 4 Moderate At top of slope at fence; good young tree; one-sided N; under power lines.

Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
320
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
17 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate At top of slope at fence; one-sided N; lean N; under power lines. 18 Coast live oak 9 No 4 Moderate At top of slope at fence; low crown; good young tree; under power lines.
19 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal
native
4 Moderate At top of slope at fence; low crown; good young tree; base at fence; under power lines.
20 Coast live oak 6 No 3 Moderate At top of slope at fence; low crown; completely one-sided and lean N.
21 Coast live oak 21 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate At top of slope at fence; low crown; multiple attachments at 5 feet with seam; good form; engulfing chain link S.
22 Coast redwood 10 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Codominant at 5 feet; narrow; suppressed.
23 Aleppo pine 20, 10 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Severe sweep NE; history of branch failure; codominant at base; power lines to NE and S.
24 Aleppo pine 13 No 2 Low Sweep NE with base outside dripline; codominant at 25 feet; small crown.
25 Aleppo pine 16 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Upright; narrow crowded crown; girdling root N. 26 Aleppo pine 22,16 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Dominant in stand; codominant at 3 feet; stems bowed N; top of slope; sap bleeding N.
27 Aleppo pine 23 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Dominant in stand; sinuous; narrow crown.
28 Aleppo pine 17 Yes; large
diameter tree
2 Low Lean S to high voltage; high crown; one-sided; girdling root at base on tension.
29 Aleppo pine 27 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Lean N; codominant at 20 and 22 feet; low small branch dieback; narrow.
30 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Suppressed; heavy bow W; top of slope.
31 Coast live oak 11,10,9 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 1 foot; one-sided N. 321
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
32 Coast live oak 8 No 2 Low Suppressed; lean N with base outside dripline. 33 Coast live oak 11,5 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Suppressed; lean N with base outside dripline; 2 feet. 34 Coast live oak 17 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Suppressed; lean N with base outside dripline; 2 feet; bark checking and oozing; canker N at 3’.
35 Aleppo pine 15 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Very high crown; slender; upright; lean N.
36 Aleppo pine 12 No 3 Moderate Very high crown; slender; upright; lean N. 37 Blackwood acacia 16,6 Exempt 3 Low Codominant at base; one-sized N; girdling roots; near fence at top of slope.
38 Coast live oak 13,4 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Multiple attachments at 2 and 5 feet; narrow; poor structure. 39 Coast live oak 17 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5 feet; one-sided W. 40 Coast live oak 17,5 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Multiple attachments at base; both bowed N with base outside dripline; suppressed.
41 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Codominant at 6 and 7 feet; bowed N with base outside dripline; suppressed.
42 Coast live oak 10,10,9,8,
4 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; one-sided W.
43 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal
native
2 Low At fence; lean W with base outside dripline; poor vigor. 44 Coast live oak 8 No 2 Low Engulfing fence; lean NW with base outside dripline. 45 Coast live oak 6 No 2 Low Engulfing fence; lean SE with base outside dripline; fused to base of #46.
46 Blue gum 30 Exempt 2 Low Topped many times; multiple stems arise from 6 feet; only epicormic a remain.
47 Coast live oak 7 No 2 Low Codominant at 8 feet; poor form; poor vigor. 48 Coast live oak 13 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Heavy bow to horizontal W; vase outside dripline; engulfing fence. 322
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
49 London plane 12 No 1 Low Just poor; all branches stubbed; one slender stem remains. 50 Olive 9,6,5,5,3 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 High Multiple attachments at base; low vigorous crown; one-sided N. 51 Olive 6,6,5,5 No 4 High Multiple attachments at base; low vigorous crown; one-sided N. 52 London plane 10,10,9 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 3 feet; spreading crown; thin; small branch dieback.
53 Coast live oak 9 No 2 Low Engulfing fence; thin; poor vigor. 54 London plane 10 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 3 feet; spreading crown; thin; small branch dieback.
55 Olive 9,6,6,4 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 High Multiple attachments at base; low spreading crown; good vigor. 56 Chinese elm 13 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 5 feet; one-sided W; branches bowed to horizontal.
57 Coast live oak 7 No 3 Moderate One-sided N; sinuous. 58 Italian stone pine 47 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 High Multiple narrow attachments at 4 feet; low flat crown; heavy laterals; asymmetric S.
59 Coast live oak 10,9 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Codominant at 3 feet; corrected sweep S; thin. 60 Coast live oak 7 No 2 Low Lean W with base outside dripline; suppresses. 61 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal
native
2 Low One-sided N; codominant at 9 feet.
62 Coast live oak 7,5 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Suppressed; poor vigor.
63 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Codominant at 6 feet; flat form E-W; crowded. 64 Coast live oak 8 No 2 Low Lean N with base outside dripline; sinuous; crowded. 65 London plane 8,8,5,5,4 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 2-3 feet; one-sided W; curling browning leaves; twig dieback.
66 Deodar cedar 10 No 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin. 323
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
67 Deodar cedar 9 No 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin. 68 Deodar cedar 6 No 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin. 69 Marina madrone 6 No 4 High Good young tree; small twig dieback; wound at base on S. 70 Olive 7,6,6,6,4 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 High Multiple attachments at base; exposed surface roots; vigorous epicormic sprouting.
71 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate One-sided W; good vigor; crowded.
72 Olive 7,6,6,5 Yes; large
diameter tree
5 High Multiple attachments at base; narrow form.
73 Coast live oak 13 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Wide codominant at 8 feet; one-sided N; crowded. 74 Coast live oak 13 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Wide codominant at 8 and 10 feet; one-sided N; crowded. 75 Coast live oak 11,10 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate 4 feet from wood wall; codominant at vase; asymmetric N. 76 Coast live oak 6 No 2 Low Suppressed; lean W with base outside dripline. 77 Coast live oak 16 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Sweeps S corrected; codominant at 8 and 10 feet; codom removed at base.
78 Coast live oak 6 No 3 Moderate Codominant at 1 and 4 feet; lean W. 79 Coast live oak 15,7,4 Yes; principal
native
2 Low Multiple attachments at base; extreme bow S to horizontal; crowded.
80 Coast live oak 12,7 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate End of row; codominant at base; sinuous, suppressed form; dense.
81 Coast live oak 5,5,3,3,2 Yes; principal
native
4 High Multiple narrow attachments at base; good young tree. 82 Coast live oak 6,4,4,4,3 Yes; principal
native
4 High Multiple narrow attachments at base; good young tree. 83 Coast live oak 8,7,6 Yes; principal
native
4 High Multiple narrow attachments at base with seam to base; good young tree.
84 Olive 7,5,5,4,3,3 No 4 High Multiple wide attachments at base; headed back from structure. 324
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
85 Coast live oak 6,6,2 Yes; principal
native
4 High Multiple narrow attachments at base with seam to base; good young tree; narrow; encroaching on building.
86 Coast live oak 4,4 No 3 Moderate Multiple narrow attachments at base with seam to base; good young tree; narrow; encroaching on building; slight chlorotic. 87 Tulip tree 8 No 5 High Good young tree; codominant at 9 feet, smaller branch bowed to horizontal.
88 Japanese cedar 26 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Excellent form; epicormic sprouting throughout; drought stress; thin; possible systemic injection sites at base; new concrete to S. 89 Southern live oak 7 No 4 High Good young tree.
90 Mulberry 6 No 3 Moderate Low, spreading crown; slightly thin; small leaves. 91 Southern live oak 6 No 4 High Good young tree.
92 Mulberry 6 No 2 Low Corrected lean S; trunk wounds; twig and small branch dieback. 93 Southern live oak 6 No 4 High Good young tree. 94 Southern live oak 5 No 4 High Good young tree.
95 Blackwood acacia 7,5,2,2,2 Exempt 3 Low Multiple attachments at base; slender; one-sided W. 96 Aleppo pine 20,19 Yes; large diameter tree
3 Moderate Codominant at base and 10 feet; one-sided N; pitch moth. 97 Aleppo pine 20,7,6 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Low Multiple attachments at base and 5 feet; lean W, tension side may be heaving; surface roots.
98 Aleppo pine 20 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 High Upright; good structure; base being sprayed by sprinkler head. 99 Aleppo pine 12 No 2 Low Heavy bow W to horizontal; base outside dripline; suppressed. 100 Aleppo pine 15 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate One-sided S; crowded; slight lean S.
101 Olive 5,5,4 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at base; slightly thin; trunk wounds. 102 Coast live oak 6 No 5 High Good young tree; crowded. 103 Italian stone pine 17,14 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 Moderate Codominant at base; lean W; good vigor.
104 Tulip tree 11 No 5 High Specimen tree; good central leader. 325
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
105 Coast live oak 6,4 Yes; principal
native
4 High Codominant at base; seam below; good tree.
106 Coast live oak 11 Yes; principal
native
4 High Multiple attachments at 4’; good young tree.
107 Aleppo pine 38 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate End of row; one-sided S; codominant at 3 feet lean S. 108 Aleppo pine 19 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Interior; narrow crown; codominant at 8 feet. 109 Aleppo pine 36 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Interior; dominant in stand; multiple narrow attachments at 6’; branches sweep up to candelabra fork.
110 Aleppo pine 16 Yes; large
diameter tree
2 Low Interior; narrow form; slight lean W; thin.
111 Aleppo pine 25 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Interior; many small girdling roots; codominant at 5 and 6 feet; bow N.
112 Aleppo pine 27 Yes; large
diameter tree
2 Low End of row; many small girdling roots; one large girdling root S; multiple attachments at 4’; thin.
113 Aleppo pine 49 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate End of row; huge tree; multiple attachments 6-8 feet; included bark; swollen base for height.
114 Aleppo pine 19,14 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Interior; flat E-W; codominant at 4 and 11 feet; thin. 115 Aleppo pine 21 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Corner; codominant at 11 feet; stub in compression side of E stem at attachment.
116 Aleppo pine 20,10 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Interior; one-sided N; codominant at 3 and 7 feet; sapsucker. 117 Aleppo pine 22,20 Yes; large
diameter tree
2 Low One-sided N; codominant at 3 feet; base outside dripline; bowed N.
118 Japanese cedar 9 No 3 Moderate Sinuous trunk; trunk wounds all around; sparse. 119 Coast live oak 9 No 4 High Growing through deck; encroaching on wooden truss; crossing, rubbing branches; vigorous low crown.
120 Coast live oak 6 No 4 High Growing through deck; good young tree. 326
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
121 Coast live oak 16 Yes; principal
native
1 Low One-sided E; extensive tip dieback and epicormic sprouting. 122 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal
native
2 Low One-sided E; extensive tip dieback and epicormic sprouting. 123 Coast live oak 9 No 3 Moderate Lean W; codominant at 5 feet; 3’ from asphalt; no basal flare. 124 Lemon-scented gum 27 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 High Upright; high crown raised for power lines; good structure. 125 Lemon-scented gum 23 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Corrected sweep N; stem removals at base; one-sided NW. 126 Canary Island pine 26 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Slight lean E; cabled to neighboring tree; sparse; no root flare; compressed soil.
127 Canary Island pine 25,25 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Codominant at 2 feet with seam to base; cabled to neighboring tree; cable between stems; sparse; no root flare; compressed soil. 128 Canary Island pine 12 No 2 Low Sweep N; epicormic sprouting; root barrier S. 129 Canary Island pine 17 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Good form; slightly sparse branching; 2’ from electrical box. 130 Canary Island pine 15 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Good form; crook at 20 feet; root barrier all directions 6” from trunk; laterals headed back.
131 Southern magnolia 5 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 5 feet; poor vigor and color; tip dieback; memorial tree.
132 London plane 12 No 4 High In 10’ planter; root barrier and irrigation pipe E; good form and structure; dense foliage.
133 London plane 12 No 4 High In 10’ planter; root barrier and irrigation pipe E; good form and structure; dense foliage.
134 Grecian laurel 6,6,6,5,5,5 Yes; large
diameter tree
4 High Topiary; multiple attachments at base; one-sided S. 135 Coast live oak 14 Yes; principal
native
4 High Lean W from crowding with building; wide codominant at 4 and 6 feet; 10’ from road to N; 4’ from sidewalk to SW.
136 Coast live oak 21,20 Yes; principal
native
4 Moderate Codominant at base; significant sweep from base E; pruned for high voltage.
327
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
137 Coast live oak 15 Yes; principal
native
3 Moderate Off-site on property line( growing through Cain link; overhangs 10’; topped.
138 Mulberry 12 No 4 High In stone circle; codominant at 5 feet; low, spreading crown; oozing; slime flux.
139 London plane 17 Yes; large
diameter tree
3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5 feet; vase-shaped; thin; under high voltage.
140 Deodar cedar 9 No 5 High Good young tree.
141 Deodar cedar 9 No 5 High Good young tree.
142 European white birch 10 No 4 Moderate Well irrigated; dense pendulous foliage; codominant at 6’. 143 European white birch 13 No 4 Moderate Well irrigated; dense pendulous foliage; codominant at 5 and 6’. 144 European white birch 10 No 4 Moderate Well irrigated; dense pendulous foliage; codominant at 7’; crook below attachment.
145 Loquat 10 No 4 Moderate In 3 foot planter; one-sided N; multiple attachments at 5 feet. 146 Rubber tree 8,8 No 4 Moderate At building foundation; codominant at vase; dense crowded crown; one-sided S.
147 Brisbane box 8 No 3 Moderate Sweep N; multiple attachments at 10 feet; slightly thin. 148 Southern live oak 6 No 3 Moderate Good young tree; a little thin; low vigor. 328
Tree Assessment Plan
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA Prepared for: Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024 No Scale Notes: Base map provided by: Ratcliff Emeryville, CA Numbered tree locations are approximate 2550 Ninth Street, Suite 112 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone 925.484.0211 329 Fax 925.484.0596
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected Tree? Disposition Comments
1 Canary Island pine 20 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of playground; area of whole tree failures in pine row.
2 Siberian elm 12,12,8,8,
5 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of development
3 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 4 Coast live oak 14 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 5 Coast live oak 19 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 6 Coast live oak 22 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 7 Canary Island pine 24 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve ~25 feet from development 8 Aleppo pine 13 No Remove Edge of development
9 Siberian elm 20 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of development 10 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal native Preserve ~15 feet from edge of plaza 11 Siberian elm 10 Exempt Remove Dead 12 Siberian elm 18 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve ~15 feet from edge of plaza 13 Siberian elm 11 No Preserve ~15 feet from edge of plaza 14 Coast live oak 17 Yes; principal native Preserve ~15 feet from edge of plaza 15 Siberian elm 17 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve ~15 feet from edge of plaza 16 Coast live oak 8 No Preserve >30 feet from impacts
17 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal native Preserve >30 feet from impacts 18 Coast live oak 9 No Preserve >30 feet from impacts
19 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal native Preserve >30 feet from impacts 20 Coast live oak 6 No Preserve >30 feet from impacts
21 Coast live oak 21 Yes; principal native Preserve >30 feet from impacts 22 Coast redwood 10 Yes; principal native Preserve >30 feet from impacts 23 Aleppo pine 20, 10 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve >30 feet from impacts 24 Aleppo pine 13 No Preserve >30 feet from impacts
25 Aleppo pine 16 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve >30 feet from impacts 26 Aleppo pine 22,16 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve >30 feet from impacts Preliminary Tree Disposition
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
330
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected Tree? Disposition Comments
Preliminary Tree Disposition
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
27 Aleppo pine 23 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve >30 feet from impacts 28 Aleppo pine 17 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve >30 feet from impacts 29 Aleppo pine 27 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve >30 feet from impacts 30 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal native Preserve >30 feet from impacts 31 Coast live oak 11,10,9 Yes; principal native Preserve >30 feet from impacts 32 Coast live oak 8 No Remove Condition; lean
33 Coast live oak 11,5 Yes; principal native Remove Condition; lean 34 Coast live oak 17 Yes; principal native Remove Condition; lean 35 Aleppo pine 15 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve ~20 feet from edge of development 36 Aleppo pine 12 No Preserve ~20 feet from edge of development 37 Blackwood acacia 16,6 Exempt Preserve >30 feet from impacts 38 Coast live oak 13,4 Yes; principal native Preserve >30 feet from impacts 39 Coast live oak 17 Yes; principal native Preserve ~20 feet from edge of development 40 Coast live oak 17,5 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 41 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 42 Coast live oak 10,10,9,8, 4 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development
43 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal native Remove Condition; lean 44 Coast live oak 8 No Remove Condition; lean
45 Coast live oak 6 No Remove Edge of development
46 Blue gum 30 Exempt Remove Edge of development
47 Coast live oak 7 No Remove Edge of development
48 Coast live oak 13 Yes; principal native Remove Condition 49 London plane 12 No Remove Condition
50 Olive 9,6,5,5,3 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve ~20 feet from edge of development 51 Olive 6,6,5,5 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 52 London plane 10,10,9 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 331
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected Tree? Disposition Comments
Preliminary Tree Disposition
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
53 Coast live oak 9 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 54 London plane 10 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 55 Olive 9,6,6,4 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 56 Chinese elm 13 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 57 Coast live oak 7 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 58 Italian stone pine 47 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 59 Coast live oak 10,9 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 60 Coast live oak 7 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 61 Coast live oak 10 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 62 Coast live oak 7,5 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 63 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 64 Coast live oak 8 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 65 London plane 8,8,5,5,4 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 66 Deodar cedar 10 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 67 Deodar cedar 9 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 68 Deodar cedar 6 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 69 Marina madrone 6 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 70 Olive 7,6,6,6,4 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 71 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 72 Olive 7,6,6,5 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 73 Coast live oak 13 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 74 Coast live oak 13 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 75 Coast live oak 11,10 Yes; principal native Remove Within building footprint 76 Coast live oak 6 No Remove Within building footprint 77 Coast live oak 16 Yes; principal native Remove Within building footprint 78 Coast live oak 6 No Remove Within building footprint 79 Coast live oak 15,7,4 Yes; principal native Remove Within building footprint 332
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected Tree? Disposition Comments
Preliminary Tree Disposition
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
80 Coast live oak 12,7 Yes; principal native Remove Within building footprint 81 Coast live oak 5,5,3,3,2 Yes; principal native Preserve ~15 feet from development 82 Coast live oak 6,4,4,4,3 Yes; principal native Preserve ~15 feet from development 83 Coast live oak 8,7,6 Yes; principal native Preserve ~15 feet from development 84 Olive 7,5,5,4,3, No Preserve ~15 feet from development 85 Coast live oak 6,6,2 Yes; principal native Preserve ~15 feet from development 86 Coast live oak 4,4 No Preserve ~15 feet from development 87 Tulip tree 8 No Remove Within building footprint 88 Japanese cedar 26 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve ~25 feet from development 89 Southern live oak 7 No Remove Within building footprint 90 Mulberry 6 No Remove Within building footprint 91 Southern live oak 6 No Remove Within building footprint 92 Mulberry 6 No Remove Within building footprint 93 Southern live oak 6 No Remove Within building footprint 94 Southern live oak 5 No Remove Within building footprint 95 Blackwood acacia 7,5,2,2,2 Exempt Remove Edge of development 96 Aleppo pine 20,19 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of devemopment 97 Aleppo pine 20,7,6 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 98 Aleppo pine 20 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 99 Aleppo pine 12 No Remove Within building footprint
100 Aleppo pine 15 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of development 101 Olive 5,5,4 No Remove Edge of development 102 Coast live oak 6 No Remove Edge of development 103 Italian stone pine 17,14 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve ~10 feet from development; up slope
104 Tulip tree 11 No Remove Within project area 105 Coast live oak 6,4 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 333
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected Tree? Disposition Comments
Preliminary Tree Disposition
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
106 Coast live oak 11 Yes; principal native Remove Edge of development 107 Aleppo pine 38 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 108 Aleppo pine 19 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 109 Aleppo pine 36 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 110 Aleppo pine 16 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 111 Aleppo pine 25 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 112 Aleppo pine 27 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 113 Aleppo pine 49 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 114 Aleppo pine 19,14 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Within building footprint 115 Aleppo pine 21 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of development 116 Aleppo pine 20,10 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of development 117 Aleppo pine 22,20 Yes; large diameter tree Remove Edge of development 118 Japanese cedar 9 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 119 Coast live oak 9 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 120 Coast live oak 6 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 121 Coast live oak 16 Yes; principal native Remove Condition 122 Coast live oak 12 Yes; principal native Remove Condition 123 Coast live oak 9 No Preserve New playground on existing pavement to N.
124 Lemon-scented gum 27 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve New playground on existing pavement to N.
125 Lemon-scented gum 23 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve New playground on existing pavement to N.
126 Canary Island pine 26 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 127 Canary Island pine 25,25 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 128 Canary Island pine 12 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 129 Canary Island pine 17 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 130 Canary Island pine 15 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 334
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected Tree? Disposition Comments
Preliminary Tree Disposition
Charles Armstrong School Belmont, CA June 2024
131 Southern magnolia 5 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 132 London plane 12 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 133 London plane 12 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 134 Grecian laurel 6,6,6,5,5, Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 135 Coast live oak 14 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 136 Coast live oak 21,20 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 137 Coast live oak 15 Yes; principal native Preserve Existing condition to remain 138 Mulberry 12 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 139 London plane 17 Yes; large diameter tree Preserve Existing condition to remain 140 Deodar cedar 9 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 141 Deodar cedar 9 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 142 European white 10 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 143 European white 13 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 144 European white 10 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 145 Loquat 10 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 146 Rubber tree 8,8 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 147 Brisbane box 8 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 148 Southern live oak 6 No Preserve Existing condition to remain 335
717 Market Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com

MEMORANDUM
Date: October 16, 2025
To: City of Belmont
From: Panorama Environmental, Inc.

Subject: CNDDB Search Results for Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search was completed for the project area and surrounding vicinity. The project site is located at 1405 Solana Drive in the City of Belmont, California, within San Mateo County. The search identified several special-status species that have been observed regionally, including the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat. The red dots shown on the CNDDB map represent previously documented observations of rare species or sensitive habitats—essentially “known occurrence records” from biologists or agencies that have been entered into the state database. These points indicate that special-status species have been observed somewhere in the general Belmont area, but they do not confirm their presence on or within the Charles Armstrong School campus. Pursuant to the City’s standard Conditions of Approval for biological resources, if any special-status wildlife species or nests (including San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat) is encountered during preconstruction surveys or during construction, the project would comply with the City’s standard Conditions of Approval, requiring the establishment of protective buffers and coordination with a qualified biologist and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) if relocation or additional protection measures are necessary.
336
Near Me Report
Area of Interest (AOI) Information
Area: 78.53 mi²
Date: Wed Sep 03 2025 15:46:09 GMT-0600 (Mountain Daylight Time) Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS | California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS | California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database
Powered by Esri
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 1/52 337
School_Site
PolyStyle00
CNDDB
Symbology
Plant (80m) Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 2/52 338
CNDDB Search | Total count: 203
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 3/52 339
# OBJECTID SNAME CNAME
1 67 Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake 2 172 Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake 3 1236 Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon 4 1237 Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily 5 4958 Dipodomys venustus venustus Santa Cruz kangaroo rat 6 4959 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat
7 4960 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow 8 11601 Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads
9 11602 Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort
10 1215 Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake 11 1216 Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake 12 1217 Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake 13 17557 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 14 47565 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
15 31787 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 16 59874 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 17 99594 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
18 35022 Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse 19 15921 Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail 20 15922 Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail 21 15923 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 22 67095 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
23 39410 Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's-clover 24 100066 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 25 102287 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
26 98113 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 27 7613 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover
28 7614 Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover 29 7615 Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes salty bird's-beak 30 1222 Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia San Francisco gartersnake 31 46 Acipenser medirostris pop. 1 green sturgeon - southern DPS 32 103747 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
33 70391 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
34 101441 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 35 2802 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 36 2803 Astragalus pycnostachyus var.
pycnostachyus coastal marsh milk-vetch
37 89622 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow 38 26889 Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail 39 7675 Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover 40 99894 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
41 12052 Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail 42 20537 Rana boylii pop. 4 foothill yellow-legged frog - central coast DPS
43 11142 Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 4/52 340
44 12430 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 45 29020 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 46 7538 Microcina edgewoodensis Edgewood Park micro-blind harvestman 47 7539 Serpentine Bunchgrass Serpentine Bunchgrass
48 102441 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 49 101824 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
50 2139 Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta 51 45945 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow 52 79187 Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 53 58864 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
54 34940 Hydrochara rickseckeri Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle 55 63153 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
56 97690 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
57 66503 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 58 3441 Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck
59 3442 Dipodomys heermanni goldmani Salinas kangaroo rat 60 3443 Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee
61 3444 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
62 3445 Dipodomys venustus venustus Santa Cruz kangaroo rat 63 12487 Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly 64 39217 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
65 78667 Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle
66 39500 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 67 6431 Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail
68 3778 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 69 102069 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 70 66836 Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle
71 7679 Sternula antillarum browni California least tern 72 7680 Charadrius nivosus nivosus western snowy plover 73 7681 Circus hudsonius northern harrier
74 7682 Asio flammeus short-eared owl
75 82230 Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia 76 82231 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
77 22505 Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly 78 25104 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
79 42224 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow 80 61880 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
81 66962 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
82 95395 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
83 34966 Calicina minor Edgewood blind harvestman
84 34956 Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint
85 22982 Serpentine Bunchgrass Serpentine Bunchgrass
86 90622 Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle
87 26317 Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia 88 44556 Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale fountain thistle 89 41364 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 5/52 341
90 61962 Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly 91 49833 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow 92 81120 Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion 93 99792 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
94 104114 Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads
95 81354 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
96 6184 Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes salty bird's-beak 97 70449 Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita 98 53319 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 99 49685 Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta 100 97400 Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint
101 99177 Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint
102 68361 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
103 62914 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
104 39593 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var.
chorisianus Choris' popcornflower
105 51087 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
106 64260 Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck
107 69452 Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 108 104019 Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale fountain thistle 109 104020 Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia 110 77181 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
111 70174 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
112 3044 Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee
113 3045 Speyeria zerene myrtleae Myrtle's silverspot butterfly 114 3046 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 115 3047 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
116 3048 Hydrochara rickseckeri Ricksecker's water scavenger beetle 117 3049 Pomatiopsis californica Pacific walker
118 3050 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow 119 82124 Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia 120 78717 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
121 99515 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
122 67491 Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle
123 102284 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 124 67849 Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads
125 34914 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat 126 92546 Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale fountain thistle 127 68380 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
128 66178 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
129 99805 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
130 82002 Nannopterum auritum double-crested cormorant
131 22352 Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail 132 49 Spirinchus thaleichthys pop. 2 longfin smelt - San Francisco Bay-Delta DPS
133 91551 Ardea herodias great blue heron
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 6/52 342
134 96829 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 135 27977 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow 136 78831 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
137 98217 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
138 92534 Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint
139 65215 Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle
140 80952 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
141 35110 Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt-marsh wandering shrew 142 22260 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
143 39598 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 144 39599 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 145 39600 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
146 98997 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
147 101291 Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck
148 102002 Plagiobothrys chorisianus var.
chorisianus Choris' popcornflower
149 76861 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
150 92086 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
151 39476 Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflower 152 6563 Triphysaria floribunda San Francisco owl's-clover 153 7636 Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint
154 80039 Actinemys marmorata northwestern pond turtle
155 104787 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
156 31178 Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia 157 42136 Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck
158 91216 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
159 10939 Sternula antillarum browni California least tern 160 27409 Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail 161 41530 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
162 60684 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
163 28787 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 164 80467 Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale fountain thistle 165 91611 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
166 96782 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood
167 62311 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
168 26547 Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse 169 35135 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
170 98022 Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion 171 68889 Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita 172 35133 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
173 35001 Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly 174 60451 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
175 33615 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia
176 68092 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
177 65713 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
178 15718 Nannopterum auritum double-crested cormorant
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 7/52 343
179 12049 Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 180 12050 Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail 181 78523 Malacothamnus arcuatus var. arcuatus arcuate bushmallow 182 22487 Aneides niger Santa Cruz black salamander
183 55679 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
184 24556 Serpentine Bunchgrass Serpentine Bunchgrass
185 27683 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
186 28039 Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short-leaved evax 187 92536 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
188 25083 Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia 189 81910 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
190 20221 Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita 191 35136 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
192 44643 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
193 2949 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
194 2950 Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander 195 2951 Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee
196 75349 Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat 197 7540 Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee
198 7541 Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily 199 7542 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
200 61805 Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax
201 34963 Calicina minor Edgewood blind harvestman
202 35157 Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse 203 22393 Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 8/52 344
# OCCNUMBER PRESENCE ELMDATE
1 10 Presumed Extant 19870505
2 2 Presumed Extant 20160205
3 32 Presumed Extant 20070515
4 2 Presumed Extant 20160322
5 11 Possibly Extirpated 19000402
6 292 Presumed Extant 19520827
7 37 Presumed Extant 19241026
8 50 Presumed Extant 19730422
9 82 Presumed Extant 19730422
10 39 Presumed Extant 20060215
11 58 Presumed Extant 20070426
12 59 Presumed Extant 20070814
13 31 Presumed Extant 20XXXXXX
14 66 Presumed Extant 20210313
15 16 Presumed Extant 20040512
16 19 Presumed Extant 20150501
17 31 Presumed Extant 20170404
18 57 Presumed Extant 19600430
19 12 Presumed Extant 197208XX
20 46 Presumed Extant 1975XXXX
21 13 Presumed Extant 197706XX
22 30 Presumed Extant 20170514
23 44 Extirpated 19320506
24 23 Presumed Extant 20150416
25 72 Presumed Extant 20150326
26 16 Presumed Extant 20090520
27 8 Presumed Extant 18860509
28 86 Presumed Extant 1976XXXX
29 62 Possibly Extirpated 18930617
30 75 Presumed Extant 19220531
31 11 Presumed Extant 2016XXXX
32 33 Presumed Extant 20170430
33 73 Presumed Extant 20160131
34 17 Presumed Extant 20090520
35 5 Presumed Extant 19120610
36 9 Presumed Extant 18940421
37 11 Presumed Extant 20040501
38 48 Presumed Extant 1975XXXX
39 88 Possibly Extirpated 1919XXXX
40 34 Presumed Extant 20170323
41 40 Presumed Extant 20060406
42 10 Extirpated 19380821
43 74 Presumed Extant 19921125
44 11 Presumed Extant 197706XX
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 9/52 345
45 39 Presumed Extant 20200520
46 1 Presumed Extant 19870102
47 3 Presumed Extant 19870405
48 25 Presumed Extant 20150404
49 32 Presumed Extant 20170420
50 7 Presumed Extant 1867XXXX
51 10 Presumed Extant 20040501
52 1 Presumed Extant 20010821
53 947 Presumed Extant 20150403
54 1 Presumed Extant 19540225
55 7 Presumed Extant 20210226
56 65 Presumed Extant 2017XXXX
57 18 Presumed Extant 20170520
58 69 Presumed Extant 19330517
59 3 Extirpated 19320616
60 249 Presumed Extant 19630915
61 118 Presumed Extant 19910325
62 24 Possibly Extirpated 19330808
63 3 Extirpated 1977XXXX
64 611 Presumed Extant 20090826
65 743 Presumed Extant 20050405
66 49 Presumed Extant 1985XXXX
67 3 Presumed Extant 19120104
68 27 Extirpated 19350411
69 17 Presumed Extant 20200508
70 744 Presumed Extant 20060224
71 5 Presumed Extant 1982XXXX
72 87 Presumed Extant 1977XXXX
73 6 Presumed Extant 19710618
74 4 Presumed Extant 1977XXXX
75 11 Presumed Extant 20030523
76 31 Presumed Extant 20030523
77 16 Presumed Extant 20170402
78 19 Presumed Extant 20150316
79 12 Presumed Extant 20040501
80 8 Presumed Extant 20200117
81 20 Presumed Extant 19840318
82 10 Presumed Extant 20150423
83 1 Presumed Extant 19830102
84 4 Possibly Extirpated 19720516
85 4 Presumed Extant 19870405
86 749 Presumed Extant 20060221
87 2 Presumed Extant 20140813
88 1 Presumed Extant 20140410
89 3 Presumed Extant 20160518
90 6 Possibly Extirpated 198XXXXX
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 10/52 346
91 14 Presumed Extant 20040527
92 10 Possibly Extirpated 1983XXXX
93 85 Presumed Extant 20210201
94 93 Presumed Extant 20210414
95 1220 Presumed Extant XXXXXXXX
96 18 Possibly Extirpated 190810XX
97 22 Presumed Extant 20150411
98 48 Presumed Extant 1985XXXX
99 1 Presumed Extant 2004XXXX
100 6 Presumed Extant 20000531
101 3 Presumed Extant 20130520
102 4 Presumed Extant 2010XXXX
103 21 Presumed Extant 20150310
104 7 Presumed Extant 19720416
105 1085 Presumed Extant 20070315
106 71 Presumed Extant 20180516
107 18 Presumed Extant 20160525
108 4 Presumed Extant 20010509
109 7 Presumed Extant 20010509
110 1664 Presumed Extant 20120822
111 1458 Presumed Extant 20160607
112 247 Presumed Extant 19510327
113 12 Extirpated 19190824
114 7 Presumed Extant 190306XX
115 116 Presumed Extant 19911105
116 6 Presumed Extant 19500314
117 3 Possibly Extirpated 18XXXXXX
118 27 Presumed Extant 18981105
119 10 Presumed Extant 20121009
120 1086 Presumed Extant 20060825
121 17 Presumed Extant 2004XXXX
122 746 Presumed Extant 20060222
123 24 Presumed Extant 20150414
124 38 Presumed Extant 20230510
125 47 Presumed Extant 1985XXXX
126 6 Possibly Extirpated 1993XXXX
127 1126 Presumed Extant 20190910
128 9 Presumed Extant 20200306
129 86 Presumed Extant 20210212
130 35 Presumed Extant 20040413
131 321 Presumed Extant 20110210
132 22 Presumed Extant 1995XXXX
133 76 Presumed Extant 20040413
134 44 Presumed Extant 20210517
135 13 Presumed Extant 20040527
136 1088 Presumed Extant 20060214
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 11/52 347
137 35 Presumed Extant 20140820
138 7 Presumed Extant 19940604
139 748 Presumed Extant 20060720
140 1087 Presumed Extant 20060818
141 3 Presumed Extant 198512XX
142 11 Presumed Extant 20140421
143 8 Presumed Extant 200707XX
144 30 Presumed Extant 200707XX
145 52 Presumed Extant 200707XX
146 87 Presumed Extant 20210212
147 70 Presumed Extant 20160516
148 42 Presumed Extant 20150507
149 1662 Presumed Extant 20170223
150 1124 Presumed Extant 20070108
151 1 Presumed Extant 20150503
152 48 Presumed Extant 1951XXXX
153 2 Extirpated 19770808
154 751 Presumed Extant 20060823
155 55 Presumed Extant 19990415
156 5 Presumed Extant 20000914
157 5 Presumed Extant 19940510
158 22 Presumed Extant 20010601
159 6 Extirpated 1976XXXX
160 91 Presumed Extant 20060318
161 1065 Presumed Extant 20140328
162 1089 Presumed Extant 20070322
163 14 Presumed Extant 197706XX
164 7 Presumed Extant 20130708
165 29 Presumed Extant 20070510
166 74 Presumed Extant 20150209
167 832 Presumed Extant 20180918
168 96 Presumed Extant 19851022
169 5 Presumed Extant 1971XXXX
170 14 Presumed Extant 20170523
171 21 Presumed Extant 20151201
172 6 Presumed Extant 1971XXXX
173 4 Possibly Extirpated 1983XXXX
174 35 Presumed Extant 20150228
175 35 Presumed Extant 20140506
176 18 Possibly Extirpated 197XXXXX
177 533 Presumed Extant 20120919
178 27 Presumed Extant 1988XXXX
179 12 Presumed Extant 197706XX
180 50 Presumed Extant 20060405
181 45 Presumed Extant 20201019
182 69 Presumed Extant 197XXXXX
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 12/52 348
183 1106 Presumed Extant 20051226
184 5 Presumed Extant 1986XXXX
185 1 Presumed Extant 20160504
186 30 Presumed Extant 19700503
187 21 Possibly Extirpated 19870623
188 1 Presumed Extant 20140811
189 1125 Presumed Extant 20070130
190 4 Presumed Extant 20130105
191 7 Presumed Extant 1971XXXX
192 59 Presumed Extant 20130520
193 121 Presumed Extant 19910104
194 90 Presumed Extant 19350915
195 126 Presumed Extant 19580705
196 19 Presumed Extant 20160518
197 124 Presumed Extant 19260706
198 1 Presumed Extant 19140312
199 113 Presumed Extant 19911209
200 5 Presumed Extant 20140507
201 2 Presumed Extant 19660123
202 8 Presumed Extant 19710806
203 5 Presumed Extant 20171217
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 13/52 349
# FEDLIST CALLIST SRANK
1 Endangered Endangered S2
2 Endangered Endangered S2
3 Delisted Delisted S3S4
4 None None S1
5 None None S1
6 None None S3
7 None None S2
8 None None S3
9 None None S2
10 Endangered Endangered S2
11 Endangered Endangered S2
12 Endangered Endangered S2
13 None None S2
14 None None S2
15 None None S2
16 None None S2
17 None None S2
18 Endangered Endangered S3
19 None Threatened S2
20 Endangered Endangered S2
21 None None S3.2
22 None None S2
23 None None S2?
24 None None S2
25 None None S2
26 None None S2
27 None None S2
28 Threatened None S3
29 None None S2
30 Endangered Endangered S2
31 Threatened None S1
32 None None S2
33 None None S2
34 None None S2
35 None None S2
36 None None S2
37 None None S2
38 Endangered Endangered S2
39 Threatened None S3
40 None None S2
41 Endangered Endangered S2
42 Threatened Endangered S2
43 Endangered Endangered S3
44 None None S3.2
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 14/52 350
45 None None S2
46 None None S1
47 None None S2.2
48 None None S2
49 None None S2
50 Endangered Endangered S1
51 None None S2
52 None None S2S3
53 Threatened None S2S3
54 None None S2?
55 None None S2
56 None None S2
57 None None S2
58 None None S3
59 None None S2S3
60 None Candidate Endangered S1
61 None None S4
62 None None S1
63 Threatened None S3
64 Threatened None S2S3
65 Proposed Threatened None SNR
66 None None S3
67 None None S2
68 None None S2
69 None None S2
70 Proposed Threatened None SNR
71 Endangered Endangered S2
72 Threatened None S3
73 None None S3
74 None None S2
75 None None S2
76 Threatened Threatened S1
77 Threatened None S3
78 None None S2
79 None None S2
80 None None S2
81 None None S2
82 None None S2
83 None None S1
84 Endangered Endangered S1
85 None None S2.2
86 Proposed Threatened None SNR
87 None None S2
88 Endangered Endangered S1
89 Threatened Threatened S1
90 Threatened None S3
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 15/52 351
91 None None S2
92 None None S1
93 None None S2
94 None None S3
95 Threatened None S2S3
96 None None S2
97 None None S2
98 None None S3
99 Endangered Endangered S1
100 Endangered Endangered S1
101 Endangered Endangered S1
102 Threatened Threatened S1
103 None None S2
104 None None S1
105 Threatened None S2S3
106 None None S3
107 None None S2S3
108 Endangered Endangered S1
109 None None S2
110 Threatened None S2S3
111 Threatened None S2S3
112 None Candidate Endangered S1
113 Endangered None S1
114 None None S2
115 None None S4
116 None None S2?
117 None None S1
118 None None S2
119 None None S2
120 Threatened None S2S3
121 Threatened Threatened S1
122 Proposed Threatened None SNR
123 None None S2
124 None None S3
125 None None S3
126 Endangered Endangered S1
127 Threatened None S2S3
128 None None S2
129 None None S2
130 None None S4
131 None Threatened S2
132 Endangered Threatened S1
133 None None S4
134 None None S2
135 None None S2
136 Threatened None S2S3
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 16/52 352
137 None None S2
138 Endangered Endangered S1
139 Proposed Threatened None SNR
140 Threatened None S2S3
141 None None S1
142 None None S2
143 None None S2
144 None None S2
145 None None S2
146 None None S2
147 None None S3
148 None None S1
149 Threatened None S2S3
150 Threatened None S2S3
151 Endangered Endangered S1
152 None None S2?
153 Endangered Endangered S1
154 Proposed Threatened None SNR
155 None None S2
156 None None S2
157 None None S3
158 Threatened Threatened S1
159 Endangered Endangered S2
160 Endangered Endangered S2
161 Threatened None S2S3
162 Threatened None S2S3
163 None None S3.2
164 Endangered Endangered S1
165 Threatened Threatened S1
166 None None S2
167 Threatened None S2S3
168 Endangered Endangered S3
169 None None S3S4
170 None None S2
171 None None S2
172 None None S3S4
173 Threatened None S3
174 None None S2
175 None None S2
176 Threatened Threatened S1
177 Threatened None S2S3
178 None None S4
179 None None S3.2
180 Endangered Endangered S2
181 None None S2
182 None None S3
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 17/52 353
183 None Candidate Endangered S2
184 None None S2.2
185 Threatened Threatened S1
186 None None S3
187 Threatened Threatened S1
188 None None S2
189 Threatened None S2S3
190 None None S2
191 None None S3S4
192 None None S2
193 None None S4
194 None None S2S3
195 None None S1S2
196 None None S2S3
197 None None S1S2
198 None None S1
199 None None S4
200 Threatened Threatened S1
201 None None S1
202 Endangered Endangered S3
203 None None S2
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 18/52 354
# RPLANTRANK CDFWSTATUS LOCDETAILS
1 No data FP No data
2 No data FP No data
3 No data No data No data
4 1B.1 No data No data
5 No data No data

SPECIMEN LOCALITY GIVEN AS
"BELMONT." EXACT COLLECTION
LOCATION UNKNOWN.
6 No data SSC
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED IN THE VICINITY OF
BELMONT.
7 No data SSC LOCATION STATED AS "BELMONT"
AND MAPPED AT BELMONT.
8 1B.2 No data

EXACT LOCATION OF MALABAR RD
UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST

GUESS NW OF MELENDY DR TO

INCLUDE THE AREA NORTH OF

MALABAR COURT, ALTHOUGH IT IS

UNKNOWN IF MALABAR COURT
EXISTED IN 1973. GIVEN ELEVATION
IS 600-680 FT.
9 1B.2 No data

EXACT LOCATION OF MALABAR RD
UNKNOWN. MAPPED AS BEST

GUESS NW OF MELENDY DR TO

INCLUDE THE AREA NORTH OF

MALABAR COURT, ALTHOUGH IT IS

UNKNOWN IF MALABAR COURT
EXISTED IN 1973. GIVEN ELEVATION
IS 600-680 FT.
10 No data FP No data
11 No data FP No data
12 No data FP No data
13 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED ROUGHLY AROUND WATER

DOG LAKE PARK, BASED ON A
CHECKLIST OF PLANTS BY CORELLI.

HISTORIC COLLECTIONS HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED AS M. HALLII, M.

DAVIDSONII, & M. FASCICULATUS;
MAPPED AS M. ARCUATUS BASED
ON LOCATION.
14 1B.2 No data
MAPPED AS 18 POLYGONS BASED

ON COORDINATES AND MAPPED

POINTS PROVIDED BY CORELLI AS

WELL AS OBSERVATIONS ON
INATURALIST & CALFLORA.

POSSIBLE DISCREPANCY WITH ONE

SET OF COORDINATES/MAPPED
POINT ON CHAPARRAL TRAIL.
15 1B.2 No data

MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM

COORDINATES PROVIDED BY
CORELLI ET AL.
16 1B.2 No data
13 POLYGONS MAPPED ACCORDING

TO MAPPED POINTS PROVIDED BY
CORELLI AND THOMSON. PLANTS

ALSO LOCATED ON ROCKS AT
SOUTH SIDE OF WATER DOG LAKE.

IN THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 9
AND THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 16.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 19/52 355
17 1B.2 No data
MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS FROM
2013 CORELLI FIELD SURVEY AND
2017 BOSCH COORDINATES, IN THE

CENTER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF
SECTION 9.
18 No data FP No data
19 No data FP

LOCATION DESCRIBED ONLY AS
"BELMONT SLOUGH" IN 1972.

COORDINATES FOR 2002 SURVEY AT
WEST END OF FEATURE.
20 No data FP No data
21 No data No data ON BIRD ISLAND AND ALONG THE
FRINGES OF THE SHORE.
22 1B.2 No data
MAPPED AS 5 POLYGONS BY
CNDDB, BASED ON 2015 THOMSON
COORDINATES AND 2017 BOSCH
COORDINATES. IN THE SOUTH 1/2
OF THE NE 1/4 SECTION 22, AND THE
SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 SECTION

23. 23 1B.2 No data

EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN,

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS A BEST
GUESS.
24 1B.2 No data

DISTRIBUTED ABOVE AND BELOW
TRAIL. 2 POLYGONS MAPPED IN THE
SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION

23. 25 1B.2 No data
MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2015

THOMSON COORDINATES, IN THE
SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION

23. 26 1B.2 No data

MAPPED BASED ON COORDINATES
PROVIDED ON A 2009 CORELLI

SURVEY FORM AND DIGITAL DATA
PROVIDED BY ANDERSEN.
27 1B.2 No data No data
28 No data SSC No data
29 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS A BEST
GUESS.
30 No data FP No data
31 No data SSC

MAPPED NON-SPECIFICALLY TO SAN

FRANCISCO BAY BETWEEN THE BAY
BRIDGE AND DUMBARTON BRIDGE.

IT IS KNOWN THAT GREEN

STURGEON ENTER THE SOUTH BAY,

BUT DETAILS ON HABITAT USE
APPEAR TO BE SCANT. TAGGED GST

WERE DETECTED AT THE
DUMBARTON BRIDGE.
32 1B.2 No data

ALONG TRAIL ON EASTERN SIDE OF

SUGARLOAF MTN, IN SHADY AREA

JUST BEFORE SMALL WOOD
BRIDGE. MAPPED BY CNDDB FROM
2017 BOSCH COORDINATES IN THE
SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF
PROJECTED SECTION 5.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 20/52 356
33 1B.2 No data

THIS TRAIL SYSTEM GRADES INTO

SAN MATEO CITY LAURELWOOD
PARK. COLONIES BOTH UPSLOPE
AND DOWNSLOPE OF TRAIL.

MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2016

THOMSON COORDINATES, IN THE
NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 8.
34 1B.2 No data

MAPPED BASED ON COORDINATES
PROVIDED ON A 2009 CORELLI

SURVEY FORM AND DIGITAL DATA
PROVIDED BY ANDERSEN.
35 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB

TO INCLUDE CRYSTAL SPRINGS
RESERVOIR.
36 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB

IN THE VICINITY OF UPPER CRYSTAL
SPRINGS RESERVOIR.
37 No data SSC AREA MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM
COORDINATES GIVEN.
38 No data FP No data
39 No data SSC No data
40 1B.2 No data
MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS BY CNDDB
FROM 2016 & 2017 BOSCH

COORDINATES, IN THE EAST HALF
OF PROJECTED SECTION 5.
41 No data FP
2006 SAMPLED SITES ALONG THE

SAN FRANCISCO BAY NATIONAL

WILDLIFE REFUGE DESIGNATED AS
OUTER BAIR B2 MUTED, OUTER BAIR
B2 SOUTH AND OUTER BAIR B2
NORTH.
42 No data No data

STONE CIRCLE APPEARS TO BE A

FORMER REFERENCE TO PULGAS
WATER TEMPLE. THE SITE WAS
ESTABLISHED IN 1934, BUT THE

CURRENT PULGAS WATER TEMPLE

STRUCTURE WAS ERRECTED IN
1938. HAWKEN LATER (1940S)

REFERRED TO THE STONE CIRCLE
AS PULGAS TEMPLE.
43 No data FP No data
44 No data No data FRINGE OF ISLAND.
45 1B.2 No data
2 POLYGONS MAPPED BY CNDDB. W
POLY IS BASED ON 2020
INATURALIST COORDINATES. E POLY

IS NON-SPECIFIC, MAPPED AS BEST

GUESS BASED ON SITE
DESCRIPTION: "UPPER PART OF THE

UNNAMED CANYON ON THE WEST
END OF PULGAS RIDGE PRESERVE."
46 No data No data

HOLOTYPE COLLECTED IN VICINITY

OF CANADA AND EDGEWOOD
ROADS. PARATYPES COLLECTED

FROM CANYON BETWEEN SYLVAN
AND SERPENTINE TRAILS.
47 No data No data
2 FORMERLY CONTIGUOUS AREAS.

IN MOSAIC W/ OTHER SERPENTINE
COMMUNITIES: CHAPARRAL,
WILDFLOWER FIELDS, BARRENS.
48 1B.2 No data MAPPED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE
1/4 OF SECTION 5.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 21/52 357
49 1B.2 No data
ON BOTH SIDES OF CROSS TRAIL.

MAPPED FROM 2015 THOMSON
FIELD SURVEY AND 2017 BOSCH
COORDINATES, IN THE SW 1/4 OF
THE SE 1/4 OF PROJECTED SECTION

5. 50 1B.1 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB

IN THE VICINITY OF CRYSTAL
SPRINGS RESERVOIR. MAPPED AS

LARGE, NONSPECIFIC POLYGON

AROUND CRYSTAL SPRINGS

RESERVOIR FOR LACK OF BETTER
INFORMATION.
51 No data SSC

AREA MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM

COORDINATES PROVIDED BY LIU
(2004). MVZ LOCATION GIVEN AS
"NEAR REDWOOD CITY".
52 No data SSC

TWO NESTS LOCATED NEXT TO

POWER LINE TRANSMISSION
TOWER.
53 No data SSC MAPPED TO PROVIDED LOCATIONS.
54 No data No data MANAGED BY SAN FRANCISCO
WATER DEPARTMENT.
55 1B.2 No data
MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS BY
CNDDB. WEST POLYGON BASED ON
2021 GALLAGHER OBSERVATION IN
CALFLORA; EAST POLYGON BASED
ON 1984 & 1985 MAPS, AS WELL AS
2019 COORDINATES.
56 1B.2 No data
MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2002

MORRIS MAP AND DIGITAL DATA

PROVIDED BY ANDERSEN IN THE NW
1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 27.
57 1B.2 No data

MAPPED AS A SINGLE POLYGON

BASED ON MAP DETAIL PROVIDED
BY CORELLI AND 2015 THOMSON
COORDINATES.
58 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED IN THE GENERAL VICINITY
OF REDWOOD CITY.
59 No data No data COLLECTION LOCALITY ONLY
DESCRIBED AS REDWOOD CITY.
60 No data No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED BY CNDDB CENTERED ON
REDWOOD CITY.
61 No data No data

MAPPED ACCORDING TO LAT/LONG

COORDINATES PROVIDED BY MANIS,
WITH UNCERTAINTY OF 4828.032 M.
62 No data No data

SPECIMEN LOCALITY GIVEN AS
"REDWOOD CITY." EXACT
COLLECTION LOCATION UNKNOWN.
63 No data No data No data
64 No data SSC

LAGUNA CREEK & PULGAS WATER

TEMPLE FOUND AT THE SOUTH END
OF UPPER CRYSTAL SPRINGS.
65 No data SSC No data
66 No data SSC No data
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 22/52 358
67 No data SSC

MAPPED NON-SPECIFICALLY TO THE

TIDAL MARSHES, SPECIFICALLY

REDWOOD SLOUGH/CREEK, NOTED
ON 1909 EDITION OF THE 1899 PALO
ALTO TOPOGRAPHIC QUAD.
68 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS A BEST
GUESS.
69 1B.2 No data

MAPPED ACCORDING TO
COORDINATES FROM MORSE (2017)
AND HICKMAN (2020). 2004 CORELLI
PHOTOS TAKEN AT "EMERALD HILLS,
REDWOOD CITY, CA" IN A FLICKR
ALBUM TITLED "EDGEWOOD

COUNTY PARK AND NATURAL
PRESERVE" ARE ATTRIBUTED TO
THIS OCCURRENCE.
70 No data SSC MANAGED BY SAN FRANCISCO
WATER DEPARTMENT.
71 No data FP No data
72 No data SSC PARTIALLY WITHIN THE SAN
FRANCISCO BAY NWR.
73 No data SSC
5 YOUNG OBSERVED IN NEST ON

LOOSE SALICORNIA MATERIAL
06/18/71.
74 No data SSC No data
75 1B.2 No data

SITE BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY

FORM FOR HESPEROLINON

CONGESTUM WITH LESSINGIA

ARACHNOIDEA MENTIONED AS AN
ASSOCIATE. IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE
NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7.
76 1B.1 No data

ON ROADCUT FOR TOWER ROAD,

IMMEDIATELY EAST OF DETENTION
FACILITY.
77 No data No data
MAPPED TO 6 SUB-POPULATIONS

LABELED A THROUGH F ON FIELD
SURVEY FORMS FROM 1990S.

OBSERVED IN AREAS B & D IN 1998;
ONLY IN AREA B IN 1999. 2017:
"MUCH SMALLER THAN CURRENT
CNDDB #16 EXTENT."
78 1B.2 No data

MULTIPLE COLONIES MAPPED BY
CNDDB AS FIVE POLYGONS; PULGAS

RIDGE, EAST OF THE DETENTION

CENTER, WEST OF THE DETENTION

CENTER, AND LAKE SHORE WEST
OF THE HWY 280/HWY 92
INTERCHANGE. SF WATER DEPT,

CALTRANS, & DFG SHARE
MGMT/OWNERSHIP.
79 No data SSC AREA MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM
COORDINATES GIVEN.
80 1B.2 No data
MAPPED BY CNDDB BASED ON 1984
& 1985 MAPS AS WELL AS 2017-2020
COORDINATES.
81 1B.2 No data

MAPPED IN THE CENTER OF THE
EAST HALF OF SECTION 27.

EDGEWOOD PARK COLONY 2.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 23/52 359
82 1B.2 No data
MAPPED BY CNDDB AS 2
POLYGONS. SW POLYGON BASED
ON 1984 & 1985 MAPS, IN THE NE 1/4
OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 27. NE
POLYGON BASED ON 2015

THOMSON COORDINATES, IN THE
WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 26.
83 No data No data
NEW GENUS, ARTICLE 1989,
COMPARITIVE MORPHOLOGY.

FORMER EO #3-6 REFERRED TO
MICROCINA HOMI.
84 1B.1 No data ALONG EAST SIDE OF RESERVOIR.
85 No data No data No data
86 No data SSC No data
87 1B.2 No data
MAPPED BY CNDDB AS 19

POLYGONS TO ENCOMPASS

VARIOUS SOURCES OF
INFORMATION.
88 1B.1 No data

DETAILED POPULATION INFO FOR

EACH POLYGON AVAILABLE AT
CNDDB. TOTAL POP NUMBERS WEST
OF I-280 (INCLUDES SITES L1, L2, L3,
L6, L8, L11, L14): 605 IN '89, 2500 IN
'99, 1846 IN '00, 1466 IN '01, 2000+ IN
'08, 19,342 IN '09, 10,000+ IN '13/'14.
89 1B.1 No data MAPPED AS MANY COLONIES ON
BOTH SIDES OF I-280.
90 No data No data

HABITAT AT ONE TIME EXTENDED

FROM NE OF CRYSTAL SPRINGS

RESERVOIR TO THE SE, BEYOND
THE HWY 92/I-280 INTERSECTION,
PRIOR TO I-280 CONSTRUCTION.
91 No data SSC AREA MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM
COORDINATES.
92 1B.2 No data No data
93 1B.2 No data
MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS BY CNDDB
BASED ON 2021 INATURALIST
OBSERVATIONS, IN THE NW 1/4 SW
1/4 SECTION 27.
94 1B.2 No data

MAPPED BY CNDDB ACCORDING TO
2021 COORDINATES FROM
INATURALIST.
95 No data SSC
ACCESSED FROM CANADA RD.

MAPPED TO 2007 AERIAL IMAGE AND
ESTATE MAP BROCHURE.
96 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB

AT MOUTH OF REDWOOD CREEK,
NEAR REDWOOD CITY.
97 1B.2 No data
MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2015

THOMSON COORDINATES, IN THE
NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION

27. 98 No data SSC ALONG OLD CANADA ROAD.
99 1B.1 No data

SFO CITY/COUNTY PROPERTY

MANAGED BY SAN FRANCISCO
WATER DEPARTMENT. MAP AT

CNDDB FOLLOWS GGNRA MAP
PRIMARILY.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 24/52 360
100 1B.1 No data

MAPPED ACCORDING TO GGNRA
DIGITAL DATA (DATE OF DATA UNK).

SFWD CURRENTLY PROTECTING

AGAINST USE OF PESTICIDES & SITE

IS FENCED TO AVOID TRAMPLING
(1989). NEW HOUSING

CONSTRUCTION NEAR SITE HAS

ALTERED MOISTURE REGIME IN
LAST 5 YRS (2000).
101 1B.1 No data

MAPPED ACCORDING TO MAP IN
SMT REPORT (1984). COLLECTIONS

FROM EMERALD LAKE & REDWOOD
CITY AREA ATTRIBUTED HERE.

PORTIONS SEEDED. N POLY: ~800 IN
'84, ~75 IN '93, ~50 IN '94, 190-220 IN
'95. ADDITIONAL POP INFO
AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.
102 1B.1 No data
MAPPED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE
1/4 OF SECTION 27 AND SLIGHTLY IN
THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF
SECTION 26.
103 1B.2 No data
EDGEWOOD PARK COLONIES 1
(EASTERN POLYGON) AND 3
(WESTERN POLYGON). COLONY 1 IS

0.8 AIR MILE NW OF THE HWY
280/CANADA RD. INTERCHANGE.

COLONY 3 IS ABOUT 800 METERS NE
OF THE INTERCHANGE.
104 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY

CNDDB, ALONG OLD CANADA ROAD,

1.5 MILE S OF PULGAS WATER
TEMPLE, 0.6 MILE W OF THE

INTERSECTION OF CANADA ROAD
AND EDGEWOOD ROAD.
105 No data SSC No data
106 1B.2 No data
SFPUC PROPERTY - SITE L4.

MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS BY CNDDB
BASED ON 2014 & 2018 FIELD
SURVEYS, IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NW
1/4 OF SECTION 7.
107 No data SSC MAPPED TO PROVIDED
COORDINATES. SITE L8.
108 1B.1 No data
THERE IS A FENCE AROUND PATCH.

MAPPED ACCORDING TO GGNRA
DIGITAL DATA.
109 1B.2 No data
WEST SIDE OF I-280. MAPPED BY
CNDDB ACCORDING TO 2002

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL

RECREATION AREA SHAPEFILE
NEAR THE CENTER OF THE SW 1/4
OF SECTION 27.
110 No data SSC

MAPPED TO PROVIDED

COORDINATES AND POND FEATURE
IN AERIAL IMAGERY. REFERED TO BY
SWAIM AS "SEDIMENT BASIN #5" AND
BY KOBERNUS AS "CALTRANS
POND."
111 No data SSC MAPPED TO PROVIDED
COORDINATES. SITE L8.
112 No data No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED BY CNDDB CENTERED ON
THE CITY OF SAN MATEO.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 25/52 361
113 No data No data
TYPE LOCALITY STATED AS "SAN
MATEO, CALIFORNIA." MAPPED

GENERALLY TO THE CITY OF SAN
MATEO, BUT LAUNER ET AL.

SUGGESTED THAT THIS MAY ONLY

REFERENCE THE COUNTY OF SAN

MATEO & SUGGESTED THE TYPE IS

FROM COASTAL SMT, LIKELY
PACIFICA (EO #13).
114 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS IN THE

VICINITY OF THE CITY OF SAN
MATEO.
115 No data No data No data
116 No data No data EXACT LOCALITY UNKNOWN.
117 No data No data

COLLECTION LOCALITIES GIVEN AS
"SAN MATEO." MAPPED BY CNDDB

CENTERED ON THE CITY OF SAN
MATEO. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THESE

COLLECTION LOCALITIES WERE

REFERRING TO SOMEWHERE IN THE

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO RATHER
THAN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO.
118 No data SSC LOCATION GIVEN AS "SAN MATEO".
119 1B.2 No data
MAPPED BY CNDDB IN THE SE 1/4
OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 28
ACCORDING TO 2012 MAGUIRE
COORDINATES.
120 No data SSC No data
121 1B.1 No data MAPPED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE
1/4 OF SECTION 27.
122 No data SSC No data
123 1B.2 No data MAPPED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE
1/4 OF SECTION 27.
124 1B.2 No data
5 POLYGONS MAPPED BY CNDDB
ACCORDING TO 2015 THOMSON
COORDINATES, 2016-2019, 2021-2023

INATURALIST COORDINATES AND
2023 EDGEWOOD COORDINATES.
125 No data SSC No data
126 1B.1 No data No data
127 No data SSC

MAPPED TO HOMESTEAD POND AND

PORTIONS OF THE CREEK WHERE

RANA DRAYTONII HAVE BEEN
DETECTED. WHEN THIS SITE WAS

TEMPORARILY AFFECTED BY A
MITIGATION PROJECT IN 2012, EGG

MASSES, TADPOLES, AND

JUV/ADULTS WERE RELOCATED TO
EO #1663 & EO #1664.
128 1B.2 No data
MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS BY
CNDDB. NORTH POLYGON:

PRIMARILY BASED ON 1993 REPORT.

OFF TRAIL LOCATION EAST OF PG&E
SUBSTATION ON CANADA RD.

ALONG SOUTH BANK OF CREEK
VISIBLE FROM CLARKIA TRAIL.

SOUTH POLYGON: BASED ON 2020
THOMAS COORDINATES.
129 1B.2 No data
MAPPED BY CNDDB BASED ON 2020-
2021 THOMAS COORDINATES IN THE
SE 1/4 SW 1/4 PROJECTED SECTION

18. 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 26/52 362
130 No data WL No data
131 No data FP
LOCATION FOR 1892-1913

COLLECTIONS STATED ONLY AS
"REDWOOD CITY," EXACT LOCATION

UNKNOWN, PRESUMABLY THE AREA

JUST NE ALONG REDWOOD
SLOUGH/RIVER. ATTRIBUTED
COLLECTIONS TO 2011 DETECTION
LOCATION. MAPPED TO 2011
SURVEY BOUNDARY.
132 No data No data

SPECIMENS FROM VICINITY OF
DUMBARTON BRIDGE (1980) &
HUNTERS PT (1922, ND). MAPPED TO
"SOUTH BAY" SAMPLING AREA FROM
IEP BAY STUDY INITIATED IN 1980;
INCLUDES 9 OPEN WATER
(MIDWATER & OTTER TRAWLS,
PLANKTON NET) & 8 BEACH SEINE
STATIONS.
133 No data No data No data
134 1B.2 No data
MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2014-2021

COORDINATES, NEAR THE CENTER
OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 34.
135 No data SSC AREA MAPPED ACCORDING TO UTM
COORDINATES.
136 No data SSC No data
137 1B.2 No data
MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2014
LARSEN DIGITAL DATA AND 2014
PARR MAP, IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 18.
138 1B.1 No data
POPULATION REPORTED AT 1997

RECOVERY WORKSHOP TO BE

DECLINING SINCE SEED STOPPED
BEING ADDED IN 1995. THOUGH

PRECARIOUS, POPULATION IS
REPRODUCING ON ITS OWN.
139 No data SSC No data
140 No data SSC No data
141 No data SSC No data
142 1B.2 No data

EXACT LOCATIONS OF PLANTS
UNKNOWN. MOST SOURCES FOR

THIS OCCURRENCE EITHER GIVE

LOCATIONS AS LARGE

UNDEVELOPED PARCELS OR GIVE
VAGUE LOCATIONAL INFORMATION.

IT SEEMS LIKELY THAT THERE ARE

MANY SMALL COLONIES OF PLANTS
IN THIS VICINITY.
143 1B.2 No data
WITHIN A 60 ACRE PARCEL. PRECISE

LOCATIONS OF PLANTS NOT
PROVIDED TO CNDDB. MAPPED BY

CNDDB NON-SPECIFICALLY ACROSS
THE ENTIRE PARCEL. ELEVATIONAL
RANGES GIVEN ARE BETWEEN 100
TO 500 FEET.
144 1B.2 No data
WITHIN A 60 ACRE PARCEL. PRECISE

LOCATIONS OF PLANTS NOT
PROVIDED TO CNDDB. MAPPED BY

CNDDB NON-SPECIFICALLY ACROSS
THE ENTIRE PARCEL. ELEVATION
GIVEN AS 100 TO 500 FEET.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 27/52 363
145 1B.2 No data
WITHIN A 60 ACRE PARCEL. PRECISE

LOCATIONS OF PLANTS NOT
PROVIDED TO CNDDB. MAPPED BY

CNDDB NON-SPECIFICALLY ACROSS
THE ENTIRE PARCEL. ELEVATION
GIVEN AS 100 TO 500 FEET.
146 1B.2 No data
MAPPED BY CNDDB BASED ON 2020-
2021 THOMAS COORDINATES IN THE
SW 1/4 SW 1/4 PROJECTED SECTION

18. 147 1B.2 No data
EAST OF THE 57 ROXBURY LANE

PROPERTY ON PUBLIC LAND, JUST

UPSLOPE OF WHERE HILLSIDE

BECOMES DENSELY COVERED IN
OAK WOODLAND. MAPPED IN THE
SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION

6. 148 1B.2 No data
MAPPED FROM 2015 LEVY
COORDINATES, IN THE SE 1/4 OF
THE NE 1/4 OF PROJECTED SECTION

13. 149 No data SSC

MAPPED TO WESTERN-MOST

CONSTRUCTED POND VISIBLE IN
AERIAL IMAGES.
150 No data SSC No data
151 1B.1 No data

FOUND ALONG BOTH SIDES OF

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD AND SAN
MATEO CREEK. 7 POLYGONS

MAPPED PRIMARILY ACCORDING TO
A 1992 MCGURE MAP, 2002 DIGITAL
DATA FROM GGNRA, AND 2007
BARTOSH COORDINATES.
152 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB

IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF
LOWER CRYSTAL SPRINGS LAKE.

INCLUDES COLLECTIONS FROM
"ALONG SKYLINE BLVD, 15 MILES
SOUTH OF SAN FRANCISCO" AND
"CRYSTAL SPRINGS LAKE."
153 1B.1 No data No data
154 No data SSC No data
155 1B.2 No data

ONE SMALL COLONY MAPPED IN
THE CENTER OF THE NW 1/4 OF
SECTION 12.
156 1B.2 No data

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS BEST GUESS

AROUND THE AREA JUST NORTH OF

THE JUNCTION OF TARTAN TRAIL

ROAD WITH CRYSTAL SPRINGS
ROAD.
157 1B.2 No data

MAPPED BY CNDDB ALONG

CRYSTAL SPRINGS ROAD JUST
NORTH OF TARTAN TRAIL. ALSO

MAPPED TO INCLUDE A COLLECTION
FROM "ROAD WEST OF SAN MATEO
CITY TO SKYLINE BLVD, 1.7 MILES

BELOW JUNCTION TO SKYLINE

OPPOSITE GRAVEL PIT
(HILLSBOROUGH)."
158 1B.1 No data
NORTH SIDE OF ROAD. MAJOR

PIPELINE IS EXPOSED JUST BELOW

THE COLONY WHERE THE PIPELINE
CROSSES A SMALL STREAM.

MANAGED BY SAN FRANCISCO
WATER DEPARTMENT.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 28/52 364
159 No data FP No data
160 No data FP No data
161 No data SSC
LOCATION DESCRIBED AS "FROM

CONFLUENCE OF WEST UNION

CREEK & MCGARVEY GULCH TO THE

UPSTREAM MOST BOUNDARY OF

PHELGER ESTATES, STOPPING

BEFORE THE IMPASSABLE FISH
BARRIER. THE SURVEY DISTANCE
WAS 1,094 M". MAPPED ACCORDING
TO THIS LOCATION.
162 No data SSC

ESSENTIALLY, THE OCCURRENCE IS
AT THE CENTER OF T053 R05W OF
SEC 12.
163 No data No data No data
164 1B.1 No data

MAPPED ACCORDING TO

COORDINATE INFORMATION
PROVIDED BY CORELLI (2007).

REPORTED SITE QUALITY VARIED
FROM POOR (2010) TO GOOD (2013);

RANKED AS FAIR DUE TO
DISTURBANCES/THREATS.

EXPERIMENTAL SEEDING AT SITE

THROUGH CDFW RESEARCH
PERMIT.
165 1B.1 No data

ON THE NW SIDE OF THE CREEK
(OJO DE AQUA), SOUTH OF THE

INTERSECTION OF FARM HILL BLVD
AND BRANDY ROCK WAY.
166 1B.2 No data
MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2015

HUDDLESTON COORDINATES, IN
THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 1.
167 No data SSC No data
168 No data FP

SITE WAS DEVELOPED AS PACIFIC

SHORES CENTER (CORPORATE

BUSSINESS PARK) SOMETIME
BETWEEN 1993 & 2002 ; THIS SITE IS
EXTIRPATED.
169 No data FP 1 OF 3 NESTS LOCATED ON THE NE
PART OF BAIR ISLAND IN 1971.
170 1B.2 No data 2 POLYGONS MAPPED IN THE SW 1/4
OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 36.
171 1B.2 No data
2 POLYGONS MAPPED BY CNDDB
ACCORDING TO 2013 LAPORTE

COORDINATES (DATUM UNKNOWN,

MAPPED TO INCLUDE COORDINATES
IN NAD 27 AND NAD 83) AND 2015
SHEPARD COORDINATES. IN THE SE
1/4 SW 1/4 OF SECTION 34 AND THE
NW 1/4 NW 1/4 OF SECTION 3.
172 No data FP 1 OF 3 NESTS LOCATED ON THE NE
PART OF BAIR ISLAND IN 1971.
173 No data No data

SITE WAS LARGELY ELIMINATED BY

A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LEAVING
A SMALL, 26-ACRE REMNANT.

SECURE, PROTECTIVE OWNERSHIP

RENDERS THIS SITE POTENTIALLY
GOOD FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
174 1B.2 No data

SITE IS EAST OF FARM HILL BLVD

AND SOUTH OF EDEN BOWER LANE

AND EXTENDS EAST TO THE WATER
TANKS.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 29/52 365
175 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB

AROUND CRYSTAL SPRINGS DAM,
BASED ON 2014 KRAMER PHOTOS.
176 1B.1 No data

MAPPED ON THE EAST SIDE OF

FARM HILL BLVD BETWEEN EDEN

BOWER LN AND WOODHILL DR
ACCORDING TO A 1979 MAP FROM
MCCLINTOCK.
177 No data SSC

TADPOLES FOUND AT THE TOP OF

THE DAM, AS WELL AS AT THE BASE
ALONG SAN MATEO CREEK IN 2001.
178 No data WL NESTS FOUND ON UTILITY TOWERS
NEXT TO THE BRIDGE.
179 No data No data ALL OF ISLAND & FRINGE OF
ADJACENT ISLAND.
180 No data FP
2006 SURVEYS ON GRECO ISLAND

WERE ONLY ON THE NW THIRD OF
THE ISLAND.
181 1B.2 No data MAPPED ACCORDING TO 2020 WAHL
COORDINATES.
182 No data SSC EXACT LOCATION ALONG GULCH
UNKNOWN.
183 No data SSC

OWL OBSERVED AT TOP EDGE OF
RIPRAP ABOUT 30 FT NORTH OF

TRAIL SURROUNDING THE

RESTORED SAN MATEO LANDFILL IN
THE SAN MATEO SHORELINE PARK.
184 No data No data

ONE LARGE PATCH NW OF CRYSTAL

SPRINGS DAM, SE OF CRYSTAL
SPRINGS GOLF COURSE.
185 1B.1 No data
BOTH SIDES OF HWY 280 AND
BETWEEN SKYLINE BLVD AND I-280.
5 POLYGONS MAPPED BY CNDDB IN
THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 36, THE
EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 35 AND THE
NE 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 1.
186 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN;
LOCALITY DESCRIPTION IS VAGUE.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS ALONG
SKYLINE BLVD. AT THE BASE OF
BLACK MOUNTAIN.
187 1B.1 No data
APPROXIMATELY 150' WEST OF

TARTAN TRAIL ON NORTH SIDE OF

MORSE RD, WHICH NO LONGER HAS

A STREET SIGN AND IS ABANDONED
(1987). ROAD NAMES APPEAR TO

HAVE CHANGED ALONG WITH

RECENT DEVELOPMENT IN THIS
AREA.
188 1B.2 No data
BOTH SIDES OF SKYLINE BLVD.

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS 10

POLYGONS ACCORDING TO

MAP/COORDINATE INFORMATION
FROM 2001, 2006, AND 2007, AND
2014 RODRIGUEZ DIGITAL DATA.
189 No data SSC No data
190 1B.2 No data

OPPOSITE FARWELL'S
RHODODENDRON NURSERY.

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS A BEST

GUESS AROUND THE GENERAL

AREA OF FARWELL'S
RHODODENDRON NURSERY (13040
SKYLINE BLVD).
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 30/52 366
191 No data FP 1 OF 3 NESTS LOCATED ON THE NE
PART OF BAIR ISLAND IN 1971.
192 1B.2 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED AS BEST GUESS BY CNDDB
ALONG SKYLINE BLVD FOR ~0.50

ROAD MILE, OPPOSITE OF THE

STATUE OF FATHER JUNIPERO
SERRA AT THE I-280 REST AREA ON
BURI BURI RIDGE.
193 No data No data

MAPPED ACCORDING TO LAT/LONG

COORDINATES PROVIDED BY MANIS,
WITH UNCERTAINTY OF 3218.688 M.
194 No data SSC
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED BY CNDDB CENTERED ON
THE TOWN OF WOODSIDE.
195 No data No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED BY CNDDB IN GENERAL

VICINITY OF WOODSIDE, SW OF
REDWOOD CITY.
196 No data SSC MAPPED TO PROVIDED
COORDINATES. SITE BB8.
197 No data No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED BY CNDDB IN GENERAL
VICINITY OF HILLSBOROUGH.
198 1B.1 No data
EXACT LOCATION UNKNOWN.

MAPPED NEAR THE MIDDLE OF THE
CITY OF HILLSBOROUGH.
199 No data No data

MAPPED TO INCLUDE LAT/LONG

COORDINATES PROVIDED BY MANIS,
WITH UNCERTAINTY OF 2414.016 M.
200 1B.1 No data
MAPPED AS 2 POLYGONS

ACCORDING TO A MCCARTEN MAP
(W POLYGON) AND

COORDINATES/MAPS FROM PGE (E
POLYGON).
201 No data No data NEW GENUS, ARTICLE 1989,
COMPARITIVE MORPHOLOGY.
202 No data FP

TWO CAPTURES (PLUS ONE
RECAPTURE) DURING 100
TRAPNIGHTS, ON AUG 5-6, 1971.
203 1B.2 No data

MAPPED BY CNDDB AS SEVERAL
POLYGONS. LONG ROADSIDE

POLYGON IS NON-SPECIFIC,
MAPPED TO INCLUDE 1940

WIESLANDER COLLECTIONS FROM
"ROAD FROM WOODSIDE TO KINGS
MTN" AT ELEVATIONS RANGING 600 -
2000 FT. REMAINING POLYS MAPPED
FROM SPECIFIC INFO.
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 31/52 367
# GENERAL AREA PERIMETER
1 No data 344650067.788000 77397.469294
2 No data 306693402.447000 77652.395781
3 No data 153220361.136000 49844.139636
4 No data 153220361.136000 49844.139636
5 SPECIMEN COLLECTED 2 APR 1900

FROM BELMONT FIRST IDENTIFIED
AS D. CALIFORNICUS BY W. STONE
IN 1904 & LATER RE-IDENTIFIED AS
D. VENUSTUS, PER GRINNELL (1922).
8042068.815910 10052.968849
6 1 MALE AND 1 FEMALE COLLECTED
BY A. VOSS ON 18 OCT 1949, CAS
#9732-9733. 1 FEMALE COLLECTED
BY SISTER ANNA SND ON 27 AUG
1952, CAS #10357.
8042068.815910 10052.968849
7 8 COLLECTED (CAS #27106 - 21110 &
51642 - 51644) DURING 1917 & 1924. 8042068.815910 10052.968849 8 ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS OCCURRENCE IS A 1973
HEMPHILL COLLECTION. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
5309019.973200 8168.085912
9 ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS OCCURRENCE IS A 1973
HEMPHILL COLLECTION. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
5309019.973200 8168.085912
10 No data 153473041.311000 49880.400695
11 No data 153473041.311000 49880.400695
12 No data 153473041.311000 49880.400695
13 SITE BASED ON A CHECKLIST OF
PLANTS FROM JAN 5, 2013, BUT IT IS

UNKNOWN IF PLANTS WERE SEEN
ON THAT DATE; LIKELY SEEN IN
1990S OR 2000S. NEEDS
FIELDWORK. HISTORIC
COLLECTIONS FROM "BELMONT,"
AND "HILLS BACK OF BELMONT"
ALSO ATTRIBUTED HERE.
1169947.204270 10113.591281
14 434 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2013;

ONLY VISIBLE PLANTS WERE
COUNTED; MANY MORE PLANTS
NOT COUNTED OFF THE TRAILS. 135

PLANTS IN NW-MOST POLYGON IN
2015. 2-10 PLANTS IN 2018.

UNKNOWN NUMBER SEEN IN 2020.

AN ESTIMATED 37-170 PLANTS IN
2021.
109926.321484 5235.865370
15 10 PLANTS SEEN IN 2004. AREA

RECENTLY INCORPORATED IN THE
CITY OF SAN CARLOS. NEGATIVE

DECLARATION SUBMITTED FOR

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL
AFFECT THIS POPULATION. M.

ARCUATUS NOT MENTIONED IN
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.
282659.366024 1884.815631
16 ~900 PLANTS OBSERVED
THROUGHOUT SITE IN 2013; ONLY

VISIBLE PLANTS WERE COUNTED

AND MAPPED, LIKELY MANY MORE
PLANTS ARE OFF TRAIL. 22 PLANTS

OBSERVED IN SOUTHEASTERN
POLYGON IN 2015.
59281.530609 3498.213076
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 32/52 368
17 650 PLANTS TOTAL OBSERVED IN
2013, WITH AN ESTIMATED 400
PLANTS IN WEST POLYGON. 51-100

PLANTS OBSERVED IN WEST
POLYGON IN 2017. THE RARE ALLIUM
PENINSULARE VAR. FRANCISCANUM
ALSO OCCURS HERE.
6261.606673 397.877574
18 COLLECTIONS MADE HERE IN FEB
AND APR 1960. 281501.806828 1883.209205
19 ONE OBSERVED IN 1972. NOT

FOUND IN THE SOUTH BAY DURING
THE 1977 SURVEY. LACK OF

SUITABLE HABITAT (HIGH MARSH)

PROBABLY PREVENTS NESTING IN
THIS REGION. 0 DETECTED DURING
A CALL-RESPONSE SURVEY ON 9
MAY 2002.
2077906.180270 17080.460429
20 BREEDING POPULATIONS. 2077906.180270 17080.460429
21 WITHIN DFG REDWOOD SHORES
ECOLOGICAL RESERVE. SEE
HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEG

CAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO

INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.
2077906.180270 17080.460429
22 2015 POPULATION NUMBERS IN
POLYGONS WEST TO EAST: 287, 488,
300, 2055, AND 75 PLANTS. 11-50

PLANTS OBSERVED IN
WESTERNMOST POLYGON IN 2017.
31912.350803 1561.484945
23 MAIN SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS SITE IS A 1932
COLLECTION BY KECK. 1897 DUDLEY
COLLECTION FROM "BY ROAD
ABOVE BELMONT SCHOOL" AND
1927 ROSE COLLECTION FROM SAN

MATEO ARE ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO
THIS OCCURRENCE.
257733.404417 3473.603914
24 700 PLANTS OBSERVED IN EASTERN
POLYGON AND 4 PLANTS OBSERVED
IN WESTERN POLYGON IN 2015.
5654.519538 377.088093
25 SEEN IN 2014. 6 PLANTS OBSERVED
IN 2015. 2827.328603 188.495825
26 150 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2009

BETWEEN THIS OCCURRENCE AND
OCCURRENCE #17 TO THE SOUTH.

PLANTS ARE WELL OFF THE TRAIL,

SO TRAIL MAINTENANCE IS
PROBABLY NOT A THREAT. THERE

ARE MANY MORE PLANTS IN THE
AREA.
8818.763299 388.189706
27 TYPE LOCALITY. ONLY SOURCE OF

INFORMATION IS COLLECTION FROM
1886 BY E. GREENE.
8007023.185930 10043.695195
28 TWO ADULTS OBSERVED IN 1972;
NESTS OBSERVED IN 1975-76; 19
ADULTS OBSERVED DURING 1978

STUDY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY

PORTION OF THE SOUTH BAY
(UNKNOWN WHETHER THIS AREA
WAS USED FOR NESTING).
8007023.185930 10043.695195
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 33/52 369
29 ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS SITE IS A 1893
COLLECTION BY DAVY. POSSIBLY

EXTIRPATED ACCORDING TO
HECKARD; EXTIRPATED ACCORDING
TO D. SMITH (1996).
8007023.185930 10043.695195
30 No data 153470345.497000 49880.017573
31 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF

PRESENCE NEAR THE PORT OF

OAKLAND & COYOTE HILLS NEAR
NEWARK. COLLECTED IN 1941.

JUVENILES & ADULTS DETECTED OR
STUDIED FROM 2007 - 2016.
466947686.796000 189939.592552
32 2-10 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2017. 2815.217915 188.291771 33 69 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2016. 20105.954052 502.770935
34 150 PLANTS OBSERVED BETWEEN

THIS OCCURRENCE AND
OCCURRENCE #16. TRAIL

MAINTENANCE SHOULD BE DONE

AFTER SEEDS ARE SET TO INSURE
THE HEALTH OF THIS POPULATION.

MOST PLANTS WERE WITHIN 2-5 FT
OF TRAIL. THERE ARE MANY MORE
PLANTS IN THE AREA.
4264.962378 236.511878
35 ONLY SOURCES OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS OCCURRENCE ARE A 1902

BAKER COLLECTION FROM
"CRYSTAL SPRINGS LAKE" AND A
1912 EASTWOOD COLLECTION
FROM "CRYSTAL SPRINGS". NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
8042240.772850 10053.076078
36 ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS SITE IS AN 1894 DUDLEY
COLLECTION. NEEDS FIELDWORK.
8042240.772850 10053.076078
37 1 DETECTION ON 21 MAR 2004 AND 3
DETECTIONS ON 1 MAY 2004.

DETECTIONS OCCURRED AT THE
SAME POINT.
20023.323457 502.136401
38 AREA SUPPORTS BREEDING
POPULATIONS. 406988.314703 5047.913184
39 ONE MUSEUM EGG SET COLLECTED
IN 1919; 19 ADULTS OBSERVED
DURING 1978 STUDY IN SAN MATEO

COUNTY PORTION OF THE SOUTH

BAY (UNKNOWN WHETHER ANY

BIRDS WERE NESTING AT THIS
LOCATION).
8006847.553890 10043.593871
40 HUNDREDS OF PLANTS OBSERVED
IN EAST POLYGON IN 2016, AND

HUNDREDS OBSERVED IN WEST
POLYGON IN 2017.
5717.249097 379.272453
41 BREEDING POPS DETECTED
BETWEEN 1971 & 1975. 25 AUG 2003:
2 RAILS COUNTER-CALLING
(TERRITORIAL "CLAPPER" CALL)

ALONG N PORTION OF DEEPWATER
SL. BETWEEN 31 JAN & 6 APR 2006
UP TO 4 BIRDS OBS AT EACH OF 29

SITES BY INVASIVE SPARTINA
PROJECT.
4329661.478270 26125.961181
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 34/52 370
42 HISTORIC COLLECTION FROM

VICINITY OF REDWOOD CITY
COLLECTED IN 1899. COLLECTED IN
1935 & 1938. ACCORDING TO

JENNINGS, RANA BOYLII IS
EXTIRPATED FROM THIS VICINITY.
1130525.483170 3769.543213
43 19 INDIVIDUALS CAPTURED DURING
220 TRAP NIGHTS IN MAR 1988.

NUMEROUS OTHER DETECTIONS
MADE BETWEEN 1949 AND 1992.
5598158.712370 25677.440265
44 SEE
HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEG

CAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO

INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.
3309365.485380 25823.063021
45 W POLYGON: SEEN IN 2020. E
POLYGON: SITE MENTIONED IN A
2002 KAN SPECIAL STATUS PLANT
SURVEY REPORT; KAN INDICATES
SHE "LEARNED ABOUT THIS
POPULATION LATE IN 2001" BUT

ORIGINAL SOURCE OF
INFORMATION IS NOT GIVEN. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
302702.636783 2387.216923
46 HOLOTYPE MALE COLLECTED 13
APR 1985, DEPOSITED AT CAS, AND 2
MALE PARATYPES, 2 JAN 1987,
DEPOSTED AT CAS.
8007281.006660 10043.856881
47 MORE ECOLOGY INFO IN COR91F03.

SEE
HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEG

CAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO

INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.
8007281.006660 10043.856881
48 27 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2015. 2827.309741 188.493530
49 176 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2015. 11-
50 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2017. 3647.013257 216.310210
50 ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS COLLECTION IS 1867
BOLANDER COLLECTION. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
13818077.618000 23261.240529
51 2 COLLECTED (MVZ #108140, 108141)
ON 4 MAY 1929. 1 DETECTION AT 2
POINTS, 2 DETECTIONS AT 1 POINT
AND 4 DETECTIONS AT 1 POINT ON
21 MAR 2004 AND 1 MAY 2004. 2
POINTS SAMPLED 1 TIME AND 2
POINTS SAMPLED 2 TIMES.
130602.753482 1883.749275
52 ONE ANIMAL OBSERVED ON 21 AUG
2001 AND NOTED AS NESTING; TWO

NESTS INCLUDING ONE LARGE

TREE NEST AND ONE SMALL
GROUND NEST, ON SITE.
20023.841827 502.142902
53 1 ADULT FOUND DOR ON CANADA
ROAD ON 9 NOV 2005. 4
METAMORPHS OBSERVED ON 14
AUG 2006. 3 EGG MASSES
OBSERVED ON 15 MAR 2007. 1
ADULT OBSERVED ON 3 APR 2015.
63622.491144 1041.197432
54 No data 281509.162811 1883.233647
55 EAST POLYGON: 51-100 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 1985 AND 2019. WEST
POLYGON: 100 PLANTS OBSERVED
IN 2021.
41394.833140 1303.568010
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 35/52 371
56 61 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2002.

UNKNOWN NUMBER SEEN IN 2017. 9784.511297 388.669496
57 623 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2004. 560
PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2015.

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
SEEN IN 2017. 2002 AND 2003

CORELLI PHOTOS FROM

EDGEWOOD COUNTY PARK ARE

ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS
OCCURRENCE.
34180.395377 1087.358075
58 ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS SITE IS A 1933 ROSE
COLLECTION. NEEDS FIELDWORK.
8042069.367970 10052.969032
59 THIS OCCURRENCE IS KNOWN
FROM A COLLECTION MADE IN 1932.

MOST OF THIS AREA HAS BEEN
DEVELOPED SINCE THAT TIME.

OCCURRENCE IS PRESUMED
EXTIRPATED.
8042069.367970 10052.969032
60 COLLECTED 14 OCT 1950 AND 15
SEP 1963. 8042069.367970 10052.969032
61 1 MALE AND 1 FEMALE SPECIMENS
(MVZ #182421-182422) COLLECTED
BY WILLIAM E., RAINEY ON 23 FEB
AND 25 MAR 1991.
8042069.367970 10052.969032
62 1 COLLECTED 8 AUG 1933. 8042069.367970 10052.969032
63 TYPE LOCALITY. 3212488.976900 8073.959558
64 1 ADULT IN SPRING 2002 AND 1
ADULT ON 25 NOV 2002. 1 ADULT
FOUND ON 4 JUL 2004. ALL LIFE

STAGES DETECTED IN AREA ON
SURVEYS IN FEB & AUG 2006, AND IN
FEB & MAR 2007. 1 ADULT FOUND ON
26 AUG 2009.
263455.785127 3455.063971
65 1 TURTLE WAS DISCOVERED DEAD
ON CANADA RD. 1 WAS OBSERVED

AT THE BASE OF A CYCLONE FENCE
ABOUT 10' W OF A HIKING TRAIL &
ABOUT 75' W OF CANADA RD.
20025.586167 502.167391
66 13 BREEDING PAIRS OBSERVED
DURING 1985 SURVEY.
254736.674841 2488.353636
67 1 COLLECTED ON 2 JAN 1893. 1
COLLECTED 23 DEC 1894. 1
COLLECTED 21 OCT 1896. 1
COLLECTED ON 22 JAN & 1 ON 24
OCT 1897. 1 REPORTEDLY
COLLECTED 17 NOV 1911. 1
COLLECTED ON 4 JAN 1912.
8041671.224180 10052.845306
68 THIS AREA IS NOW COMPLETELY
DEVELOPED. OCCURRENCE
EXTIRPATED.
8042068.910350 10052.968908
69 SITE MENTIONED IN A 1993 REPORT
(UNKNOWN WHEN SEEN). SEEN IN
2017. 2-10 PLANTS IN 2020. PER
CORELLI (1996), A SMALL POP "AT
EDGEWOOD" BURNED 2 YEARS

PRIOR AND PRODUCED HUNDREDS
OF SEEDLINGS.
3117.056825 198.432121
70 1 JUVENILE OBSERVED ON 3 JUN
2004. 4 ADULTS OBSERVED ON 24
FEB 2006.
32922.806951 928.150067
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 36/52 372
71 FROM 1969-71, UP TO 15 PAIRS
NESTED HERE; NO NESTING IN 1972
OR 1973; FROM 1974-76, 8-14 PAIRS
NESTED; 1 PAIR NESTED IN 1977; NO
NESTING IN 1978; IN 1982, 48 PAIRS
NESTED; NO NESTING IN 1987 OR
1988, 1990 - 1992 OR 1996.
8006836.388820 10043.578190
72 TWO ADULTS OBSERVED BY TIM
MANOLIS IN MAY-JUNE OF 1977; 19
ADULTS OBSERVED DURING 1978

STUDY IN SAN MATEO COUNTY

PORTION OF THE SOUTH BAY
(UNKNOWN WHETHER ANY WERE
USING THIS SITE FOR NESTING).
8006836.388820 10043.578190
73 No data 8006836.388820 10043.578190
74 BIRDS NESTING. 8006836.388820 10043.578190
75 UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2003. 20023.325847 502.136422
76 200 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2003. 20023.325847 502.136422 77 ADULT COUNTS: 100KS IN EARLY
1900S; LOW 1000S BY 1993; 1000S IN
1994 & '97; PRESENT, 1995; 1000S,
1998; 100S, 1999; <100, 2000; 0, 2003-

06. REINTRODUCED, 2011. LARVAL
COUNTS REACHED 4.2K IN 2014;
DOWN TO 100 IN FEB 2017. 47
ADULTS IN 2017.
905820.367585 8748.495534
78 POP #S FOR PARTS OF EO. >100 IN
1985, 100S IN '87, 11,000 IN '88, 1000S
IN '89, ADD'L COLONY OBS IN '99, 919
IN '00. UNK # IN '01, '03 & '09. 117 IN
2014, ~5500 IN 2015. BTWN CANADA
RD AND INTERCHANGE: 14 IN 1995,
230 IN 1996, 94 IN 2012.
553042.414927 8510.574575
79 1 DETECTION AT 1 POINT, 2
DETECTIONS AT EACH OF 2 POINTS,
4 DETECTIONS AT 1 POINT, AND 5
DETECTIONS AT 1 POINT ON 21 MAR
2004 AND 1 MAY 2004. 2 POINTS
SAMPLED 1 TIME AND 3 POINTS
SAMPLED 2 TIMES.
181646.962294 2518.407856
80 ABOUT 500 PLANTS OBSERVED IN
1985. ALSO SEEN IN 1989, 1996, 2017-
2020.
47754.287951 955.578701
81 FEWER THAN 1000 PLANTS

OBSERVED BETWEEN THIS
OCCURRENCE AND EO #21 IN 1981.
50 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1982, 35
SEEN IN 1983, AND 145 SEEN IN 1984.
32417.974318 781.833217
82 300 PLANTS OBSERVED IN SW
POLYGON IN 1985. NO PLANTS
FOUND IN SW POLYGON, AND 267
PLANTS IN NE POLYGON IN 2015.
1988, 2004 & 2010 OBSERVATIONS

FROM EDGEWOOD COUNTY PARK
ATTRIBUTED HERE.
16537.775823 718.616224
83 EXCELLENT HABITAT FOR THIS
SPECIES. OTHER RARE TAXA
(BUTTERFLIES AND PLANTS) ALSO
OCCUR IN THIS AREA.
281506.533991 1883.289531
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 37/52 373
84 THIS IS THE SITE OF A 1972
COLLECTION. POPULATION MAY

HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE 280
FREEWAY. SOME SUITABLE HABITAT

STILL EXISTS ACC TO PARTICIPANTS
AT 1997 RECOVERY WORKSHOP;
EXTENSIVE SURVEYS NEEDED.
281507.128562 1883.226885
85 SOILS ARE SERPENTINE DERIVED
OBISPO CLAY AND FAGAN LOAM.

BAY CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLIES
AND SF GARTER SNAKES HERE. SEE
HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEG

CAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO

INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.
794558.079333 9531.495031
86 1 JUVENILE FOUND DEAD ON 21 FEB
2006. 20023.322000 502.136377
87 POPULATION NUMBERS ARE FOR
PORTIONS OF OCCURRENCE:

THOUSANDS OF PLANTS OBSERVED
IN 1994, 56,500+ IN 2001, 20 IN 2006,
HUNDREDS IN 2007, 19,401 AT

SOUTH END OF OCCURRENCE IN
2012, 19,270+ PLANTS IN 2014.

INCLUDES FORMER OCCURRENCE
#3 AND 4.
448420.575572 10737.185062
88 TOTAL POP NUMBERS EAST OF I-280:
(INCLUDES SITES L4, L7, L9, L10,
L15): 1501 IN '89, 2500 IN '94, 1600 IN
'95, 2300 IN '96, 2742 IN '00, 2348 IN
'01, 5493 IN '12, 1525 IN '14. TWO SWMOST POLYS MAY BE C.

QUERCETORUM. INCL FORMER EOS
2, 5.
148348.177384 5816.882307
89 POP #S FOR PORTIONS OF SITE:
>15,600 TOTAL PLANTS IN 1988,
10,300 IN 1995, 5170 IN 1996, 3072 IN
2000, 1390 IN 2001, 1000S TO TENS
OF 1000S BETWEEN EO#S 1 & 3 IN
2009, 129 IN 2012, 11 IN 2014, 816+ IN
2016. INCLUDES FORMER EO #19 &
#30.
200726.449599 6913.604092
90 COLONY WAS BELIEVED
EXTIRPATED AFTER I-280
CONSTRUCTION; HOWEVER, A

REMNANT COLONY OR

RECOLONIZATION WAS

DISCOVERED NORTH OF THE
INTERSECTION. HOWEVER, NO

BUTTERFLIES HAVE BEEN FOUND
1989-1993.
47362.364891 824.302700
91 1, 2, AND 3 DETECTIONS OCCURRED
AT 3 DIFFERENT POINTS ON 27 MAY
2004.
85421.464970 1319.716897
92 OBSERVED IN 1981 AND 1983.

DOUBT EXISTS ABOUT THE
IDENTIFICATION. NO PLANTS WERE
OBSERVED DURING 5 ANNUAL
SURVEYS FROM 1984 THROUGH
1988.
20023.326960 502.136440
93 UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2021. SITE BASED ON

THREE INATURALIST
OBSERVATIONS.
5896.716668 385.492117
94 UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
SEEN IN 2021. 2812.762879 188.261194
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 38/52 374
95 FORMAL SURVEY DATA WAS NOT
AVAILABLE, BUT FON04R0001 AND

THE FILOLI WEBSITE IDENTIFY THIS

LOCATION AS BEING A KNOWN RANA
DRAYTONII BREEDING SITE.

ADDITIONAL PONDS AT THE FILOLI

MANSION AND GARDENS MAY
SUPPORT RED-LEGGED FROGS.
20023.326765 502.136438
96 ONLY INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE
IS 1908 COLLECTION BY HALSEY.

EXTIRPATED ACCORDING TO D.

SMITH (1996).
8041954.538960 10052.897099
97 1 MATURE SHRUB AND 2 SMALLER,

YOUNGER PLANTS OBSERVED IN
2015. PHOTOS FROM EDGEWOOD
COUNTY PARK FROM 2002, 2003,
2006, AND 2010 ARE ALSO
ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE. PLANTS

ARE UNDER SHADE OF COAST LIVE
OAKS; NO SIGNS OF RECRUITMENT.
20105.939655 502.665215
98 3 BREEDING PAIRS OBS DURING
1985 SURVEY. MANAGED BY SAN
FRANCISCO WATER DEPARTMENT.
70602.608087 942.200317
99 POPULATION GROWING SINCE 1978.

ABOUT 1 MILLION PLANTS SEEN IN
1982, THOUSANDS IN 1987, MILLIONS
IN '89, '91 & '92, '00, UNKNOWN NO. IN
'01. PARK POPULATION IS SMALL
(APPROX. 100 IN 1989, 950 IN 1992,
43 IN 2004).
87040.688335 2969.900154
100
<20 PLANTS REPORTED IN 1987, ~40
IN 1988, 50 IN 1991, 34 IN 1994, 23 IN
1995 IN AN AREA SMALLER THAN
ONE SQUARE FOOT, "SMALL
POPULATION" SEEN IN 2000. NOT
SEEN ON 5/11/2001 (TOO EARLY?).

NEEDS FIELDWORK TO DETERMINE
STATUS OF POPULATION.
10600.327907 926.226656
101
S POLY: 2000-3000 PLANTS IN 1978 &
'81; 12,864 IN '90; 9,660 IN '91; 18,772
IN '92; 36,280 IN '93; 53,136 IN '94; 165
IN '04; 500 IN '07; 249 IN '08; 395 IN '09;
3135 IN '10; 3450 IN '11; 934 IN '12; 875
IN '13. INCLUDES FORMER EOS #1 &

5. 6959.905658 478.678577
102

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
SEEN IN 1980, <1000 IN 1981, >10,000
IN 1983, UNK # IN 1983 & 1984, >800
IN 1986, 2000 IN 1992, >1500 IN 2004,
UNK # IN 2009, FEWER PLANTS THAN
PREVIOUS YEARS IN 2010. GOOD TO
EXCELLENT SITE QUALITY.
26947.199012 774.253404
103
EASTERN POLYGON: 500 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 1982, 707 IN 1983, 3350
IN 1984, 200+ PLANTS IN 2011 AND
2015. WESTERN POLYGON: 200
PLANTS SEEN IN 1982, 167 IN 1983,
460 IN 1984. INCLUDES FORMER
OCCURRENCE #22.
42480.837313 1362.334905
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 39/52 375
104
MAIN SOURCE OF INFO IS 1972
HECKARD COLLECTION. HISTORIC
COLLECTIONS FROM "NEAR
CRYSTAL SPRINGS RESERVOIR",
"NEAR CRYSTAL SPRINGS LAKE",
"POND BY ROAD BTWN WOODSIDE &
BYRNE'S STORE" (SITE OF STORE
UNKNOWN) ATTRIBUTED HERE.

NEEDS FIELDWORK.
252216.549602 3404.485701
105
16 METAMORPHS OBSERVED ON 22
AUG 2006. 2 EGG MASSES
OBSERVED ON 27 FEB & 15 MAR
2007.
74676.580086 1172.756781
106
100 PLANTS OBSERVED IN NW
POLYGON IN 2014. 120 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN SE POLYGON IN 2018.
40152.625159 1004.998073
107
2 ADULTS AND 6 JUVENILES
OBSERVED "WILL [SIC] DISMANTLING
MIDDEN. WAITED 48 HOURS AND
MIDDEN HAD BEEN VACATED." ON 25
MAY 2016. 1 "ADULT LEAVING AREA"
ALSO SEEN.
22804.044655 536.585101
108
ABOUT 200 PLANTS SEEN IN 1985,
FEWER THAN 100 PLANTS IN A 20 SQ
FT AREA SEEN IN 1989, 137 IN 1992,
10 IN 1997, 65 IN 1999, 7 IN 2000, AND

AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
SEEN IN 2001.
2815.199793 188.291167
109

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2001. 1994 SMITH
NOTE THAT 1 PLANT WAS

OBSERVED IN EDGEWOOD PARK IS
ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE.
2815.199793 188.291167
110

EGG MASSES, TADPOLES,

METAMORPHS, & ADULTS WERE

RELOCATED HERE BETWEEN MAR -
AUG 2012. DURING MAY - JUN 2018
SURVEYING & TRAPPING FOR T.

SIRTALIS TETRATAENIA, "NOTABLY"

NO RANA DRAYTONII WERE
CAPTURED OR DETECTED.
20073.775053 502.452166
111 1 FROG OBSERVED ON 7 JUN 2016. 20106.088361 503.040733 112 COLLECTED IN 1930, 1950, AND 1951. 8042101.910000 10052.989537 113
HOLOTYPE MALE COLLECTED 27
JUL 1919. ALLOTYPE FEMALE
COLLECTED 10 AUG 1919. 5
PARATYPES COLLECTED 10-24 AUG
BY W. F. BREEZE & IN THE AMERICAN
MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.

BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN
EXTIRPATED IN 1970'S.
8042101.910000 10052.989537
114

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS
A VAGUE 1903 COLLECTION BY
ELMER. NEEDS FIELDWORK.
8042101.910000 10052.989537
115
1 MALE SPECIMEN (MVZ #27858)
COLLECTED BY JOSEPH S. HUNTER
AND JOSEPH S. DIXON ON 12 FEB
1918. 1 FEMALE SPECIMEN (MVZ
#182425) COLLECTED BY WILLIAM E.

RAINEY ON 5 NOV 1991.
8042101.910000 10052.989537
116
1 COLLECTED BY R.S. BEAL 14 MAR
1950. MUSEUM LABEL DATA CITED IN
APPENDIX OF HAFERNIK REPORT.
8042101.910000 10052.989537
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 40/52 376
117

OCCURRENCE KNOWN FROM A PAIR
OF HISTORIC COLLECTIONS. ONE

SET WAS MADE SOME TIME PRIOR
TO 1901 (LIKELY FROM LATE 1800'S).

THE OTHER SET WAS FROM AN
UNKNOWN DATE. OCCURRENCE IS

POSSIBLY EXTIRPATED BUT EXACT

COLLECTION LOCALITY IS
UNKNOWN.
8042101.910000 10052.989537
118
1 MALE COLLECTED (MVZ #6069) ON
14 MAR 1891. 5 COLLECTED (CAS
#51610, 51627-8, 51640, 51648), NOV
1898. THERE IS SOME QUESTION

REGARDING SUBSPECIES ID OF MVZ
#6069. SPECIMEN MAPPED AS

PUSILLULA DUE TO LOCATION
WHERE IT WAS FOUND.
8042101.910000 10052.989537
119 APPROXIMATELY 30 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2012. 20023.325916 502.136427
120 3 METAMORPHS OBSERVED ON 25
AUG 2006. 20025.169829 502.161303
121
FEWER THAN 3000 PLANTS SEEN IN
1983, 30-50 IN 1987, 900 IN 1992, AND
>4000 IN 2004. OTHER RARE

SPECIES NEARBY INCLUDE

FRITILLARIA LILIACEA,

PENTACHAETA BELLIDIFLORA, AND

BAY AREA CHECKERSPOT
BUTTERFLY.
6373.685336 307.312425
122
10 ADULTS WERE OBSERVED AT THE
INLET LOCATION ON 10 FEB 2006
AND 1 ADULT WAS OBSERVED AT
THE LAKESIDE LOCATION ON 22 FEB
2006.
30457.675641 887.270588
123
23 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2015. AN
ADDITIONAL 14 FLOWERING STEMS

PRESENT BUT THE FLOWERS HAD

BEEN REMOVED BY PREDATION
(RABBITS?); NOT COUNTED AS THEY

COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED AS
FRANCISCAN ONION.
2827.334883 188.496820
124

POPULATION NUMBERS ARE FOR
PARTS OF EO: 116 PLANTS SEEN IN
2015, MULTIPLE PLANTS SEEN IN
2017, 11-50 SEEN IN 2023. 1988, 2007,
2009, 2010, 2012 & 2016

OBSERVATIONS FROM EDGEWOOD

PARK ATTRIBUTED HERE, AS WELL
AS A 1930 HOLM COLLECTION.
29025.522620 1484.453219
125 8 BREEDING PAIRS OBS IN 1985. 281511.425139 1883.241391 126
ONLY 1 PLANT SEEN IN 1993. ENTIRE

LENGTH OF TRAIL SURVEYED IN
1996; SOME SUITABLE HABITAT

FOUND, BUT NO PLANTS WERE
FOUND.
20018.184079 502.192624
127
1 EGG MASS FOUND ON 1 MAR 2007.

ALL LIFE STAGES DETECTED IN 2012
MONITORING, SOME RELOCATED. 1
EGG MASS FOUND ON 15 FEB 2013.
2 DETECTED DURING VEGETATION
REMOVAL WORK IN NOV 2013.

REGULARLY DETECTED ON
SURVEYS FROM 2014 - 2019.
26871.297774 665.534647
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 41/52 377
128
NORTH POLYGON: SIZE OF
POPULATION OBSERVED IN 1993
NOT PROVIDED. ABOUT 200 PLANTS
ESTIMATED IN 2014. 450-500 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2016. UNKNOWN

NUMBER SEEN IN BOTH POLYGONS
IN 2020.
35696.842246 1058.262861
129
1 PLANT OBSERVED IN 2020. AN
ESTIMATED 34-150 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2021.
5871.233272 289.158547
130 ~180 ACTIVE NESTS (360 ADULTS)
OBSERVED ON 13 APR 2004. 20023.326068 502.136427
131

SEVERAL COLLECTED VICINITY OF
REDWOOD CITY IN 1892, 1897, 1898,
1900, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, AND
1913. NONE DETECTED IN 1977,
2002, 2007, 2008, OR 2009. 1
DETECTED ON 10 FEB 2011.
943465.812686 4099.777813
132
COLLECTED IN 1922, 1980. 1980-95:

LARVAE COLLECTED FROM SOUTH

BAY ONLY IN HIGH-OUTFLOW
YEARS. YOY >40 MM PRESENT IN
LOW #S MAY-DEC; SUBSTANTIAL

YOY USE ONLY IN HIGH-OUTFLOW
YEARS. AGE-1 FISH PRESENT JANMAR; NONE DETECTED BY JULY. 446522403.746000 161523.276637
133 2 ACTIVE NESTS (3 ADULTS)
OBSERVED ON 13 APR 2004. 20023.165414 502.134425
134

UNKNOWN NUMBER OF PLANTS
SEEN IN 2014 & 2016. ~76 PLANTS
SEEN IN 2017. 40 PLANTS SEEN IN
2018. ~100 PLANTS SEEN IN 2019.

UNKNOWN NUMBER SEEN IN 2020.
10-50 PLANTS SEEN IN 2021.
11932.394826 491.988572
135
2 TO 10 DETECTIONS OCCURRED AT
EACH OF 11 POINTS SAMPLED ON 13
APR 2004 AND 27 MAY 2004. THE

TOTAL NUMBER OF DETECTIONS
FOR THE SAMPLE PERIOD WAS 53. 2
POINTS SAMPLED 1 TIME AND 9
POINTS SAMPLED 2 TIMES.
346181.649673 4577.387017
136 3 ADULTS AND 1 EGG MASS
OBSERVED ON 14 FEB 2006. 20024.494966 502.151782
137
45 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2014. 2008

LEITNER SPECIMEN ON CALFLORA
FROM "CRYSTAL SPRINGS

WATERSHED ADOBE GULCH
POWERLINE" ALSO ATTRIBUTED
HERE.
8590.413704 339.943464
138
1176 NUTLETS (FROM OCC #5-

EDGEWOOD PARK) SOWN HERE ON
9/9/91, 315 SEEDLINGS COUNTED IN
1992 (JANUARY-JUNE GROWING
SEASON). SITE ENHANCED (SEEDS
ADDED) 10/92, 11/93, AND 1994. 181
PLANTS IN 1993, 158 IN 1994.
20018.287921 502.193913
139
5 ADULTS WERE OBSERVED ON THE
EAST SHORE ON 15 FEB & 6 MAR
2006 AND 1 ADULT WAS OBSERVED
ON THE WEST SHORE ON 20 JUL
2006.
39527.516558 1003.522963
140 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 18 AUG 2006. 20023.327164 502.136452 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 42/52 378
141
300 TRAP-NIGHTS: NO S. V.

HALICOETES CAPTURED IN TRAPS, 3

OBSERVED IN COVER ADJACENT TO
TRAPLINE.
281490.511460 1883.171471
142
8700+ PLANTS ESTIMATED IN 2007.
2014 KRAMER PHOTOS FROM "SAN
MATEO CREEK" ATTRIBUTED HERE.

INCLUDES FORMER OCCURRENCE
#12. NEED MAP DETAIL FOR THIS
SITE.
966336.052813 6193.359081
143
6273 PLANTS OBSERVED IN TOTAL IN
2007. A 1907 HELLER COLLECTION
FROM "BACK OF SAN MATEO ON THE
HALF MOON BAY RD" AND A 1963
BREEDLOVE COLLECTION FROM "SE

CORNER OF JUNCTION OF CRYSTAL
SPRINGS RD & POLHEMUS RD" ARE
ATTRIBUTED HERE.
252075.144030 3290.629417
144 3 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2007. 252075.144030 3290.629417 145 660 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2007. 252075.144030 3290.629417 146
1 PLANT OBSERVED IN 2020. AN
ESTIMATED 44-200 PLANTS
OBSERVED IN 2021.
7368.657955 434.983206
147
113 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2016.

ORANGE PLASTIC FENCING WAS

PLACED AROUND THE POPULATION

DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE

WATER PIPELINE TO PROTECT IT

FROM CONSTRUCTION
DISTURBANCE.
4511.262264 242.508086
148 ABOUT 250 PLANTS OBSERVED IN
2015. 3255.279369 202.827496
149
3 ADULTS DETECTED ON 27 MAY
2014. 1 EGG MASS, JUVENILES, AND

ADULTS DETECTED ON SURVEYS IN
MAR-MAY 2015. 1 ADULT FOUND ON
23 FEB 2017.
20073.775165 502.452166
150 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 8 JAN 2007. 20022.294670 502.143593 151
TYPE LOCALITY. POPULATION

NUMBERS ARE FOR PARTS OF
OCCURRENCE: 100+ PLANTS IN
1986, 221 IN 1991, 315+ IN 1992, ~60
IN 1993, ~163 IN 1994, "A FEW" IN
1997, 189 IN 2001, 53 IN 2002, 311 IN
2007, 100 IN 2009, SEEN IN 2014 &
2015.
255614.799631 6640.879856
152
BASED ON COMMENT "OBERBAUER

IN HIS THESIS SAYS 'IN THE SPRING
OF '51 ORTHOCARPUS

FLORIBUNDUS WAS ABUNDANT IN

THE GRASSLANDS OPPOSITE OF
LOWER CRYSTAL SPRINGS LAKE."

CORELLI LOOKED FOR PLANTS IN
THIS AREA AROUND 1989-1991, NO
PLANTS FOUND.
8041669.559000 10052.844166
153
SITE BASED ON 1915 DUTTON
COLLECTIONS AND A 1977 HECKARD
COLLECTION. LIKELY EXTIRPATED
FROM URBANIZATION.
8006970.430660 10043.662367
154 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 23 AUG 2006. 20023.394486 502.136473 155
25 INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED IN 1999.

SITE HAS NO PUBLIC ACCESS,

WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR AND
STATE GAME REFUGE.
1951.865318 158.348217
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 43/52 379
156
SITE BASED ON A 2000 ZANDER
COLLECTION. A 1941 ROSE
COLLECTION FROM "SAN MATEO
CANYON, 300 FT" IS ALSO
ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
282659.706295 1884.816358
157
TYPE LOCALITY. MAIN SOURCES OF

INFORMATION FOR THIS SITE ARE A
1953 NEWCOMB COLLECTION AND A
1994 TAYLOR COLLECTION. THE

TYPE COLLECTION BY HELLER IN
1907 FROM "BACK OF SAN MATEO
ON THE HALF MOON BAY RD" IS
ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO THIS SITE.
183422.344232 2541.753850
158 57 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1988, 143
IN 2000, AND 54 IN 2001. 20023.274671 502.135785
159
IN 1976, A FEW PAIRS NESTED NEAR

SOME FORSTER'S TERNS ON A
DRIED SALT EVAPORATING POND, 3-
5 KM SSE OF BAIR ISLAND. FURTHER

SE OF THESE PONDS, PALO ALTO

BAYLANDS SERVES AS A FREQUENT
POST-BREEDING HAUNT.
7129482.274670 15159.450153
160
10 ADULTS OBSERVED ON 10 DEC
2003. 1-4 ADULTS OBSERVED AT 29
LOCATIONS SURVEYED BETWEEN 25
JAN & 18 MAR 2006 BY THE INVASIVE
SPARTINA PROJECT.
373339.754632 2760.755639
161
1996: 2 ADULTS IN WOODY DEBRIS
ON 24 JUL; 2 ADULTS ON GRAVEL
BAR, 1 ADULT UNDER OPEN CANOPY
& DEBRIS JAM; 2 ADULTS & LARVAE
26 JUL; 2 ADULTS NEAR ROOT WAD
31 JUL. 1 JUVENILE FOUND AND
PHOTOGRAPHED ON 28 MAR 2014.
196447.249573 2701.918232
162
2 EGG MASSES OBSERVED ON 13
FEB AND 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 6
MAR 2006. 1 EGG MASS OBSERVED
ON 5 MAR, 2 EGG MASSES & 1
JUVENILE OBSERVED ON 22 MAR
2007.
54501.874572 1120.707285
163
SEE
HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEG

CAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO

INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.
310464.201118 2184.190113
164

POPULATION DISCOVERED BY
JEFFREY CALDWELL. 50 PLANTS

SEEN BY CORELLI & CALDWELL IN
2007. 548 PLANTS (280 OF WHICH
WERE SEEDLINGS) IN 2010. 783 (306
WERE SEEDLINGS) IN 2011.1092 (614
SEEDLINGS) IN 2012. 1216 (233
SEEDLINGS) IN 2013.
20023.328394 502.136464
165 500 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2007. 20023.142131 502.134149 166 49 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2015. 12068.181685 432.057260 167
2 ADULTS CAPTURED ON 27 AND 29
MAY 2004, AND 1 JUVENILE
CAPTURED ON 17 NOV 2004. 2
ADULTS CAPTURED ON 28 JUL 2005.
1 JUVENILE DETECTED ON 10 AUG
2017. 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 18 SEP
2018.
45574.438079 800.954120
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 44/52 380
168
ONE SMHM CAPTURE IN 800
TRAPNIGHTS (1985). NO CAPTURES
IN 978 TRAPNIGHTS (1989). THIS
SITE IS EXTIRPATED.
430462.407357 2882.940230
169
ALL 3 NESTING PAIRS ON BAIR
ISLAND IN 1971 PRODUCED EGGS,
AND AT LEAST 2 OF THE PAIRS
FLEDGED YOUNG. FLEDGED
YOUNG.
281489.080917 1883.166579
170
110 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2007.

FEWER THAN 50 PLANTS OBSERVED
IN EASTERN POLYGON IN 2017.
9006.930807 488.828015
171
100+ PLANTS OBSERVED IN NE
POLYGON IN 2013. 2 PLANTS SEEN

GROWING NEAR A TRANSMISSION

TOWER IN THE SW POLYGON IN
2015.
24947.294170 771.823917
172
ALL 3 NESTING PAIRS ON BAIR
ISLAND IN 1971 PRODUCED EGGS,
AND AT LEAST 2 OF THE PAIRS
FLEDGED YOUNG.
281489.229115 1883.167197
173 SITE CHECKED DURING SPRING
1994; NO ADULTS OBSERVED. 281503.502547 1883.214904
174
~110 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 1979.
100+ PLANTS IN 1981. 25 PLANTS IN
2015. COLLECTIONS FROM "NEAR

CANADA COLLEGE, JUST OFF OF
FARM HILL BLVD", "FARM HILLS

SCHOOL SITE OPPOSITE CANADA
COLLEGE", AND "FARM HILL"
ATTRIBUTED HERE.
55793.663258 886.927476
175
SITE BASED ON 2014 PHOTOS BY
KRAMER IN CALPHOTOS. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
282631.742411 1884.776177
176
100 PLANTS SEEN ON AN UNKNOWN
DATE, PRESUMABLY IN THE 1970'S.

SITE WAS CONTEMPLATED FOR

DEVELOPMENT OF A CHURCH AND

POSSIBLY VISITED BY MCCARTEN IN
1986. 2012 AERIAL PHOTO SHOWS

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT &
OPEN SPACE; AREA SHOULD BE
CHECKED.
28074.207877 701.691318
177
15 MAY 2001: 20+ TADPOLES
OBSERVED. 2006: JAN; 11 ADULTS,
MAR; 12 EGG MASSES, APR; 7
ADULTS & 2 JUVENILES. 2007: FEB; 3
ADULTS & 12 EGG MASSES, MAR; 2
EGG MASSES, APR; 2 ADULTS, MAY; 2
ADULTS. DETECTED IN THIS AREA IN
2011 & 2012.
37657.253103 722.665038
178
DATA REPORTED IN FEBRUARY 1989

REPORT BY POINT REYES BIRD
OBSERVATORY.
2264132.124980 22958.935556
179
SEE
HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEG

CAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO

INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.
4334535.050820 17933.645516
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 45/52 381
180
1-2 ADULTS FOUND AT 14

LOCATIONS ON NW GRECO ISLAND
BETWEEN 31 JAN & 5 APR 2006

DURING SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY
THE INVASIVE SPARTINA PROJECT.

NO RAILS FOUND AT THE 2 SITES
SURVEYED ALONG WESTPOINT SL.
4334535.050820 17933.645516
181
2 PLANTS OBSERVED IN 2020;

PLANTS WERE ACCIDENTALLY CUT

DOWN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO

BUT NOW RESPROUTING
VIGOROUSLY.
20072.786955 502.455692
182 COLLECTED IN 1970S. 909115.215420 6508.454365
183
1 ADULT OBSERVED AT BURROW.

OWL HAS BEEN OSERVED IN SAME

LOCATION DURING WINTER MONTHS
IN 2000 AND 2003. OWL HAS NOT

BEEN OBSERVED DURING SUMMER

MONTHS, THEREFORE IS MOST
LIKELY A WINTERING OWL.
70602.600135 942.200262
184

SERPENTINE SEEP VEGETATION
KNOWN FROM THE AREA. SEE
HTTPS://WILDLIFE.CA.GOV/DATA/VEG

CAMP/NATURAL-COMMUNITIES TO

INTERPRET AND ADDRESS THE
PRESENCE OF RARE COMMUNITIES.
607880.950826 5709.392256
185

POP NUMBERS ARE FOR PARTS OF
OCC: <100 PLANTS IN 1981, 75 IN
1986, 1500+ IN 1989, 1100 IN 1991,
5000 IN 2000, UNK # IN 2001, 640 IN
2006, 13 IN 2008, ~10,000 TOTAL
BETW EO#S 1, 3, & 30 IN 2009, 100S
IN 2010, SEEN IN 2016. INCL FRMR
EO#2.
358680.324859 7570.264778
186

ONLY SOURCE OF INFORMATION
FOR THIS OCCURRENCE IS 1970
ROSE COLLECTION. NEEDS

FIELDWORK TO DETERMINE EXACT
LOCATION.
343502.830666 4543.519856
187
44 PLANTS SEEN IN 1987. 2012

AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWS

RESIDENTIAL DEVEOPMENT
THROUGHOUT THIS AREA;

POPULATION CONSIDERED
POSSIBLY EXTIRPATED.
20018.254623 502.193489
188

POPULATION NUMBERS ARE FOR
PORTIONS OF OCCURRENCE:
10,000-100,000+ PLANTS IN 1994,
THOUSANDS OF PLANTS IN 1996,
170,000 IN 2001, 74,000 PLANTS IN
2006 BETWEEN THIS OCC AND OCC
#6, 5000+ IN 2007, UNKNOWN
NUMBER IN 2008, 711 IN 2014.
554775.477898 7728.721009
189 1 ADULT OBSERVED ON 30 JAN 2007. 20023.326138 502.136430 190
SITE BASED ON 1974 WALLACE
COLLECTION. OTHER COLL/OBS
FROM "SKYLINE BLVD, 2 MI N OF
SUMMIT OF KINGS MTN," "ALONG

SKYLINE HWY BTWN KINGS MTN RD
& LA HONDA RD," "ON STAGE ROAD

FROM KINGS MTN TO
SPANISHTOWN," & "FILOLI"
ATTRIBUTED HERE.
1130890.314400 3769.841680
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 46/52 382
191
ALL 3 NESTING PAIRS ON BAIR
ISLAND IN 1971 PRODUCED EGGS,
AND AT LEAST 2 OF THE PAIRS
FLEDGED YOUNG.
281488.921295 1883.166154
192
SITE BASED ON A 1978 SMITH
COLLECTION. A 1915 SMITH

COLLECTION FROM
"HILLSBOROUGH" AND TWO 2013
PHOTOS BY KRAMER FROM "BURI
BURI RIDGE" ARE ALSO ATTRIBUTED
TO THIS OCCURRENCE.
147165.204015 2091.513465
193
1 MALE (MVZ #106317) COLLECTED
BY WILLIAM E. RAINEY ON 4 JAN
1991.
8042158.535620 10053.024928
194 1 COLLECTED NEAR WOODSIDE ON
15 SEP 1935. 8042158.535620 10053.024928
195 COLLECTED 5 JUL 1958. 8042158.535620 10053.024928
196 SURVEYOR OBSERVED ONE ADULT
"LEAVING AREA" ON 18 MAY 2016. 20075.934527 502.483751
197 COLLECTED 6 JUL 1926. 8007279.666600 10043.855861
198
TYPE LOCALITY. BASED ON A 1914
COLLECTION BY SMITH. NEEDS
FIELDWORK.
8007279.666600 10043.855861
199
2 FEMALE AND 1 MALE SPECIMENS
(MVZ #182416-182418) COLLECTED
BY WILLIAM E. RAINEY ON 20 DEC
1990, 29 OCT 1991 & 9 DEC 1991.
8007279.666600 10043.855861
200
W POLYGON: 1 PLANT SEEN IN 1978,
BETWEEN 1000-1500 PLANTS IN
1981, 175 PLANTS IN 1986. E
POLYGON: ABOUT 10,000-15,000
PLANTS IN 2014; ON-SITE
RESTORATION PLANNED. A 1900

COLLECTION BY DUTTON FROM

WOODSIDE IS ALSO ATTRIBUTED TO
THIS SITE.
48189.033350 1381.028445
201 HOLOTYPE LOCATION. TOPOTYPES
COLLECTED 19 FEBRUARY 1966. 281506.642476 1883.221587
202 No data 281486.715265 1883.158787
203
TYPE LOCALITY. NUMEROUS

COLLECTIONS FROM SUMMIT OF
KINGS MTN FROM 2000 FT TO 2500
FT ATTRIBUTED HERE. POP
NUMBERS FOR PORTIONS OF SITE:
10 IN 1994, 2 LIVE/9 DEAD IN 2002, 34
IN 2015, "RARE" IN 2016, <10 IN 2017.

INCL FORMER EO #6 & 7.
933634.297079 12974.362322
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 47/52 383
# Symbology Shape__Area Shape__Length Closest Approximate Distance
1 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 344650068.294455 77397.469321 0 mi
2 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 306693402.750880 77652.395879 0 mi
3 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 153220361.363352 49844.139672 0 mi
4 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 153220361.363352 49844.139672 0 mi
5 Multiple (circular) 8042068.818798 10052.968851 0 mi
6 Multiple (circular) 8042068.818798 10052.968851 0 mi
7 Multiple (circular) 8042068.818798 10052.968851 0 mi
8 Multiple (circular) 5309019.983154 8168.085907 0.23 mi 9 Multiple (circular) 5309019.983154 8168.085907 0.23 mi 10 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 153473041.387528 49880.400714 0.73 mi
11 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 153473041.387528 49880.400714 0.73 mi
12 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 153473041.387528 49880.400714 0.73 mi
13 Plant (non-specific) 1169947.191533 10113.591306 0.81 mi 14 Plant (specific) 109926.322233 5235.865239 0.92 mi
15 Plant (circular) 282659.369119 1884.815642 1 mi
16 Plant (specific) 59281.532406 3498.213465 1 mi
17 Plant (specific) 6261.606629 397.877589 1.21 mi
18 Animal (circular) 281501.814051 1883.209230 1.4 mi
19 Multiple (specific) 2077906.165287 17080.460342 1.43 mi 20 Multiple (specific) 2077906.165287 17080.460342 1.43 mi 21 Multiple (specific) 2077906.165287 17080.460342 1.43 mi 22 Plant (specific) 31912.351897 1561.484995 1.69 mi
23 Plant (non-specific) 257733.361402 3473.603926 1.74 mi 24 Plant (specific) 5654.519732 377.088108 1.76 mi
25 Plant (specific) 2827.328786 188.495827 1.76 mi
26 Plant (specific) 8818.765656 388.189745 1.77 mi
27 Multiple (circular) 8007023.215600 10043.695229 1.79 mi 28 Multiple (circular) 8007023.215600 10043.695229 1.79 mi 29 Multiple (circular) 8007023.215600 10043.695229 1.79 mi 30 Sensitive EO's (Commercial
only) 153470346.213408 49880.017693 1.93 mi
31 Animal (non-specific) 466947686.930823 189939.592610 1.96 mi 32 Plant (specific) 2815.217615 188.291758 1.97 mi
33 Plant (80m) 20105.954486 502.770899 2.03 mi
34 Plant (specific) 4264.960608 236.511835 2.04 mi
35 Multiple (circular) 8042240.774736 10053.076078 2.05 mi 36 Multiple (circular) 8042240.774736 10053.076078 2.05 mi 37 Animal (80m) 20023.320805 502.136372 2.11 mi
38 Animal (non-specific) 406988.308500 5047.913069 2.13 mi 39 Animal (circular) 8006847.560347 10043.593854 2.16 mi 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 48/52 384
40 Plant (specific) 5717.248427 379.272424 2.18 mi
41 Animal (non-specific) 4329661.506801 26125.961210 2.28 mi 42 Animal (circular) 1130525.493216 3769.543228 2.28 mi 43 Animal (specific) 5598158.696176 25677.440282 2.29 mi 44 Terrestrial Comm. (specific) 3309365.492969 25823.062891 2.29 mi 45 Plant (non-specific) 302702.634999 2387.216897 2.29 mi 46 Multiple (circular) 8007281.012054 10043.856896 2.33 mi 47 Multiple (circular) 8007281.012054 10043.856896 2.33 mi 48 Plant (specific) 2827.309817 188.493533 2.34 mi
49 Plant (specific) 3647.012891 216.310202 2.36 mi
50 Plant (non-specific) 13818077.729979 23261.240511 2.38 mi 51 Animal (non-specific) 130602.744046 1883.749269 2.4 mi 52 Animal (80m) 20023.842360 502.142911 2.41 mi
53 Animal (specific) 63622.497676 1041.197403 2.44 mi
54 Animal (circular) 281509.171274 1883.233678 2.45 mi
55 Plant (specific) 41394.834460 1303.567898 2.45 mi
56 Plant (specific) 9784.513687 388.669496 2.46 mi
57 Plant (specific) 34180.396574 1087.358124 2.5 mi
58 Multiple (circular) 8042069.370457 10052.969034 2.55 mi 59 Multiple (circular) 8042069.370457 10052.969034 2.55 mi 60 Multiple (circular) 8042069.370457 10052.969034 2.55 mi 61 Multiple (circular) 8042069.370457 10052.969034 2.55 mi 62 Multiple (circular) 8042069.370457 10052.969034 2.55 mi 63 Animal (non-specific) 3212488.934847 8073.959523 2.57 mi 64 Animal (specific) 263455.789173 3455.064092 2.6 mi
65 Animal (80m) 20025.586409 502.167397 2.62 mi
66 Animal (non-specific) 254736.680804 2488.353770 2.62 mi 67 Animal (circular) 8041671.220075 10052.845304 2.66 mi 68 Plant (circular) 8042068.879316 10052.968888 2.69 mi 69 Plant (specific) 3117.056360 198.432113 2.73 mi
70 Animal (specific) 32922.801421 928.150048 2.75 mi
71 Multiple (circular) 8006836.417685 10043.578229 2.79 mi 72 Multiple (circular) 8006836.417685 10043.578229 2.79 mi 73 Multiple (circular) 8006836.417685 10043.578229 2.79 mi 74 Multiple (circular) 8006836.417685 10043.578229 2.79 mi 75 Multiple (80m) 20023.324381 502.136405 2.79 mi
76 Multiple (80m) 20023.324381 502.136405 2.79 mi
77 Animal (specific) 905820.373838 8748.495498 2.82 mi
78 Plant (specific) 553042.410772 8510.574502 2.83 mi
79 Animal (non-specific) 181646.985469 2518.407908 2.84 mi 80 Plant (specific) 47754.284822 955.578635 2.85 mi
81 Plant (specific) 32417.974779 781.833204 2.86 mi
82 Plant (specific) 16537.772397 718.616194 2.88 mi
83 Animal (circular) 281506.530119 1883.289486 2.88 mi
84 Plant (circular) 281507.135175 1883.226942 2.91 mi
85 Terrestrial Comm. (specific) 794558.058058 9531.494890 2.95 mi 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 49/52 385
86 Animal (80m) 20023.323536 502.136403 2.96 mi
87 Plant (specific) 448420.594526 10737.185490 2.96 mi
88 Plant (specific) 148348.178687 5816.882185 2.97 mi
89 Plant (specific) 200726.445385 6913.603679 3.01 mi
90 Animal (non-specific) 47362.368596 824.302712 3.02 mi 91 Animal (non-specific) 85421.462326 1319.716906 3.02 mi 92 Plant (80m) 20023.324358 502.136408 3.02 mi
93 Plant (specific) 5896.714892 385.492059 3.03 mi
94 Plant (specific) 2812.762259 188.261169 3.03 mi
95 Animal (80m) 20023.325843 502.136426 3.04 mi
96 Plant (circular) 8041954.544012 10052.897099 3.05 mi 97 Plant (80m) 20105.939466 502.665204 3.05 mi
98 Animal (circular) 70602.610964 942.200333 3.06 mi
99 Plant (specific) 87040.697989 2969.900519 3.07 mi
100 Plant (specific) 10600.328876 926.226612 3.14 mi
101 Plant (specific) 6959.900856 478.678569 3.16 mi
102 Plant (specific) 26947.195943 774.253466 3.16 mi
103 Plant (specific) 42480.840239 1362.334873 3.16 mi
104 Plant (non-specific) 252216.548446 3404.485695 3.16 mi 105 Animal (specific) 74676.577071 1172.756806 3.17 mi
106 Plant (specific) 40152.626026 1004.998067 3.19 mi
107 Animal (specific) 22804.042694 536.585075 3.19 mi
108 Multiple (specific) 2815.199193 188.291148 3.2 mi
109 Multiple (specific) 2815.199193 188.291148 3.2 mi
110 Animal (80m) 20073.774906 502.452164 3.21 mi
111 Animal (80m) 20106.088553 503.040714 3.21 mi
112 Multiple (circular) 8042101.901954 10052.989532 3.22 mi 113 Multiple (circular) 8042101.901954 10052.989532 3.22 mi 114 Multiple (circular) 8042101.901954 10052.989532 3.22 mi 115 Multiple (circular) 8042101.901954 10052.989532 3.22 mi 116 Multiple (circular) 8042101.901954 10052.989532 3.22 mi 117 Multiple (circular) 8042101.901954 10052.989532 3.22 mi 118 Multiple (circular) 8042101.901954 10052.989532 3.22 mi 119 Plant (80m) 20023.322237 502.136381 3.25 mi
120 Animal (80m) 20025.166535 502.161266 3.26 mi
121 Plant (specific) 6373.684708 307.312401 3.26 mi
122 Animal (specific) 30457.682819 887.270664 3.31 mi
123 Plant (specific) 2827.335023 188.496827 3.32 mi
124 Plant (specific) 29025.522930 1484.453413 3.34 mi
125 Animal (circular) 281511.421136 1883.241377 3.35 mi 126 Plant (80m) 20018.183062 502.192616 3.5 mi
127 Animal (specific) 26871.294575 665.534634 3.51 mi
128 Plant (specific) 35696.847709 1058.262937 3.54 mi
129 Plant (specific) 5871.232035 289.158529 3.55 mi
130 Animal (80m) 20023.327690 502.136446 3.56 mi
131 Animal (non-specific) 943465.820227 4099.777852 3.57 mi 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 50/52 386
132 Animal (non-specific) 446522403.788405 161523.276579 3.59 mi 133 Animal (80m) 20023.164118 502.134407 3.59 mi
134 Plant (specific) 11932.396785 491.988599 3.6 mi
135 Animal (non-specific) 346181.631829 4577.387076 3.61 mi 136 Animal (80m) 20024.495532 502.151797 3.64 mi
137 Plant (specific) 8590.414404 339.943488 3.66 mi
138 Plant (80m) 20018.291200 502.193959 3.67 mi
139 Animal (specific) 39527.514153 1003.522879 3.68 mi
140 Animal (80m) 20023.324346 502.136415 3.68 mi
141 Animal (circular) 281490.507183 1883.171459 3.7 mi
142 Plant (non-specific) 966336.065939 6193.359049 3.78 mi 143 Multiple (non-specific) 252075.124621 3290.629456 3.78 mi 144 Multiple (non-specific) 252075.124621 3290.629456 3.78 mi 145 Multiple (non-specific) 252075.124621 3290.629456 3.78 mi 146 Plant (specific) 7368.660203 434.983269 3.8 mi
147 Plant (specific) 4511.261577 242.508047 3.82 mi
148 Plant (specific) 3255.279052 202.827481 3.85 mi
149 Animal (80m) 20073.772767 502.452136 3.88 mi
150 Animal (80m) 20022.295211 502.143607 3.88 mi
151 Plant (specific) 255614.809426 6640.879624 3.9 mi
152 Plant (circular) 8041669.555235 10052.844165 3.91 mi 153 Plant (circular) 8006970.410170 10043.662365 3.99 mi 154 Animal (80m) 20023.395351 502.136477 3.99 mi
155 Plant (specific) 1951.865211 158.348180 4 mi
156 Plant (circular) 282659.705118 1884.816353 4.02 mi
157 Plant (non-specific) 183422.339054 2541.753798 4.03 mi 158 Plant (80m) 20023.275961 502.135796 4.03 mi
159 Animal (non-specific) 7129482.266614 15159.450120 4.03 mi 160 Animal (specific) 373339.755622 2760.755663 4.07 mi 161 Animal (non-specific) 196447.246645 2701.918205 4.08 mi 162 Animal (specific) 54501.873200 1120.707189 4.12 mi
163 Terrestrial Comm. (specific) 310464.204265 2184.190129 4.15 mi 164 Plant (80m) 20023.327676 502.136461 4.17 mi
165 Plant (80m) 20023.141303 502.134140 4.17 mi
166 Plant (specific) 12068.185318 432.057249 4.19 mi
167 Animal (specific) 45574.434203 800.954091 4.2 mi
168 Animal (non-specific) 430462.398077 2882.940295 4.2 mi 169 Animal (circular) 281489.089484 1883.166605 4.21 mi 170 Plant (specific) 9006.929376 488.828071 4.21 mi
171 Plant (specific) 24947.294221 771.823958 4.25 mi
172 Animal (circular) 281489.231099 1883.167205 4.26 mi 173 Animal (circular) 281503.506304 1883.214920 4.29 mi 174 Plant (specific) 55793.666800 886.927465 4.3 mi
175 Plant (circular) 282631.745934 1884.776191 4.32 mi
176 Plant (specific) 28074.212514 701.691365 4.35 mi
177 Animal (specific) 37657.254560 722.665068 4.4 mi
9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 51/52 387
178 Animal (non-specific) 2264132.043488 22958.935520 4.41 mi 179 Multiple (specific) 4334535.070220 17933.645469 4.43 mi 180 Multiple (specific) 4334535.070220 17933.645469 4.43 mi 181 Plant (80m) 20072.786844 502.455681 4.44 mi
182 Animal (non-specific) 909115.210724 6508.454322 4.49 mi 183 Animal (circular) 70602.600019 942.200259 4.5 mi
184 Terrestrial Comm. (nonspecific) 607880.933702 5709.392500 4.52 mi 185 Plant (specific) 358680.294287 7570.264778 4.55 mi
186 Plant (non-specific) 343502.833134 4543.519844 4.59 mi 187 Plant (80m) 20018.254068 502.193482 4.6 mi
188 Plant (specific) 554775.469385 7728.720889 4.62 mi
189 Animal (80m) 20023.327044 502.136441 4.62 mi
190 Plant (circular) 1130890.318536 3769.841686 4.66 mi 191 Animal (circular) 281488.904219 1883.166102 4.68 mi 192 Plant (non-specific) 147165.198721 2091.513474 4.74 mi 193 Multiple (circular) 8042158.535586 10053.024928 4.79 mi 194 Multiple (circular) 8042158.535586 10053.024928 4.79 mi 195 Multiple (circular) 8042158.535586 10053.024928 4.79 mi 196 Animal (80m) 20075.935209 502.483755 4.84 mi
197 Multiple (circular) 8007279.609903 10043.855830 4.86 mi 198 Multiple (circular) 8007279.609903 10043.855830 4.86 mi 199 Multiple (circular) 8007279.609903 10043.855830 4.86 mi 200 Plant (specific) 48189.029783 1381.028474 4.9 mi
201 Animal (circular) 281506.647751 1883.221602 4.95 mi 202 Animal (circular) 281486.718958 1883.158802 4.98 mi 203 Plant (non-specific) 933634.316688 12974.362418 5 mi 9/3/25, 3:46 PM blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 blob:https://experience.arcgis.com/bcdb5e04-c90f-4bd8-af72-28295b819609 52/52 388
September 5, 2025
Peter Mye
Panorama Environmental, Inc.
717 Market Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94103
RE: Final Archaeological Resources Assessment Report – Charles Armstrong School, 1405 Solana Drive (APN 045-122-190), City of Belmont, San Mateo County Dear Mr. Mye,
Please let this letter report stand as Basin Research Associates’ (BASIN) Archaeological Resources Assessment Report (ARAR) for the Charles Armstrong School New Academic & Athletics Buildings, 1405 Solana Drive, City of Belmont, San Mateo County.

This ARAR provides the results of an archival records review conducted by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center (CHRIS/NWIC), Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park; a limited literature review of materials on file with BASIN for the project area; the results of a Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File Search and, a short management summary and recommendations. A field review was not conducted due to the nature of the project within a developed school.

The ARAR was completed to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in regard to cultural resources and City of Belmont planning requirements. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts, and objects; and, locations of important historic events or sites of traditional and/or cultural importance to various groups. The analysis of cultural resources can provide valuable information on the cultural heritage of both local and regional populations. Cultural resources may be determined significant or potentially significant in terms of national, state, or local criteria either individually or in combination. Resource evaluation criteria are determined by the compliance requirements of a specific project.

CEQA requires a review by the lead state or local agency to determine if the project will have a significant effect (impact) on archaeological sites or properties of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic group eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Impacts on any significant resources that may be affected by the project must be mitigated to a less-than-significant effect. The information provided by the assessment 389
2 will allow the City to determine any appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts on any significant cultural resources.

LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Charles Armstrong School (CAS), a private institution in Belmont, San Mateo County serving students with dyslexia and related learning differences, plans to expand and modernize its 4.9- acre campus at 1405 Solana Drive (APN 045-122-190). The school site consists of several single-story school buildings in the middle of the site surrounded by drive aisles, a parking lot, basketball court, and other outdoor activity areas. The campus is bordered by McDougal Park to the west, Solana Drive to the north, single-family residences within the City of Belmont to the east, and single-family residences within the City of San Carlos to the south. The closest cross street is Chula Vista Drive (USGS San Mateo, CA. 1997, Township 5 South, Range 4 West [T4S R4W], unsectioned) [Figs. 1-3].

The proposed project would occur in two phases and result in the construction of four new buildings on the existing Charles Armstrong School campus at 1405 Solana Drive in Belmont, CA. Phase 1 (2026-2027) would include three new academic buildings totaling approximately 11,900 square feet with general classrooms and creative learning spaces, along with a new landscaped outdoor learning and central plaza area that would link the new facilities with the rest of the campus. Phase 2 (2031-2032) would include an approximately 11,100-square-foot, onestory athletic and multi-purpose building that would include an indoor court, multipurpose space, and commercial kitchen. All new buildings would be built on existing outdoor playgrounds and asphalt-paved areas of the campus. Other site improvements would include upgraded stormwater and utility infrastructure, slope stabilization, landscaping, and expanded parking (from 83 to 85 spaces) [see Fig. 4].

The project site slopes down to the south, with about 40 feet of elevation change between the northeastern and southeastern corners of the site. Approximately 61 trees would be removed, and a limited amount of cut and fill would be required for the new buildings and trenching for utility lines to serve the new buildings, slope stabilization, and stormwater treatment basin(s).

RESEARCH PROTOCOLS
A prehistoric and historic site record and literature search was completed by the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 24-1878 dated 6/16/2025 by Murazzo).

Reference material from the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley and Basin Research Associates, San Leandro was also consulted. Specialized listings for cultural resources included:

California History Plan (CAL/OHP 1973);
California Inventory of Historic Resources (CAL/OHP 1976); Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CAL/OHP 1988); National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listings in San Mateo County (USNPS 2024a-c);
390
3 OHP [Office of Historic Preservation] Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for San Mateo County (CAL/OHP 2025a);
California Historical Resources for San Mateo County (CAL/OHP 2025b); Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility for San Mateo County [ADOE] (CAL/OHP 2025c); and,
Other relevant sources (see References Cited).

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of the Sacred Lands Inventory (Busby 2025). The review was negative (Lin 2025). The City of Belmont will conduct any needed Native American consultation in accordance with AB 52 pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1.

No other agencies, departments or local historical societies were contacted regarding landmarks, potential historic sites or structures.

A pedestrian archaeological survey of the project site was not completed due to previous grading for development of the school grounds in the mid-1950s and lack of current sufficient native soil exposures for inspection.

SUMMARY CONTEXT

PREHISTORIC
Cultural resources are traces of human occupation and activity. In northern California, human occupation extends back in time for at least 9,000-11,500 years with Native American occupation and use of the Bay Area extending over 5,000-8,000 years and possibly longer.

Evidence for early occupation along the bayshore has been hidden by rising sea levels from about 15,000 to 7,000 years ago, or was buried under sediments caused by bay marshland infilling along estuary margins from about 7,000 years onward. The locations of the shoreline, marshlands, and creeks within the greater San Francisco Bay area have changed over the past 6,000 years due to either natural factors or urban development including flood control. In general, the prehistoric archaeological sites associated with the bay, inland areas and the Coast Ranges are located close to water (e.g., creeks, marshes, and the shoreline) and exploitable resources.

The project site is within an environmentally advantageous area for Native American use and occupation during the prehistoric period prior to white contact. The area would have provided a favorable environment during the prehistoric period with coastal, riparian and inland resources readily available. Prehistoric use was heavily influenced by the presence of various seasonal creeks, the San Francisco Bay marshlands around the bay margin, the coastal margins and the foothills and higher elevations. In addition, travel would have been relatively easy between the coast and bay shorelines and interior. The foothills and higher elevations would have provided access to acorns, seeds, game, tool stone and other resources while San Francisco Bay and its margins three to four miles to east along with the many perennial and seasonal creeks and sloughs would have been sources of shellfish, fish, waterfowl, and riparian vegetation. The San Mateo coast would have provided ocean resources similar to the bay and was approximately 8-10 miles to the west.
391
4 Prehistoric site types in the general project area include habitation sites ranging from villages to temporary campsites, stone tool and other manufacturing areas, quarries for tool stone procurement, cemeteries usually associated with large villages, isolated burial sites, rock art locations, bedrock mortars or other milling feature sites and trails. Archaeological sites appear to have been selected for relative accessibility, protection from seasonal flooding, and proximity to a diversified resource base. The higher elevations were probably occupied seasonally for hard seed collection and processing and hunting.

Archaeological information suggests a slow steady increase in the prehistoric population in the greater Bay Area and the San Mateo Peninsula over time with an increasing focus on permanent settlements with large populations in later periods. This change from hunter-collectors to an increased sedentary lifestyle is due both to more efficient resource procurement as well as a focus on staple food exploitation, the increased ability to store food at village locations, and the development of increasingly complex social and political systems including long-distance trade networks.

The complexity of the archaeological record in the central California region has resulted in the development and refinement of local sequences with specific cultural traits and chronologies. A tripartite scheme consisting of the Archaic (10,000-1,300 B.P), Emergent (1,300-200 B.P.) and Ethnographic (Historic), each delineated by certain archaeological characteristics, has been suggested by Fredrickson (1974, 1994a-b). The periods from 10,000-4,500 B.P. are not well known. The other divisions are reasonably well represented and details on the chronology and characteristics of these cultural divisions are presented in Fredrickson (1974, 1994a-b). Hylkema (see Allen 1999) has presented a four-period chronological framework for the Northern Santa Clara Valley/Southern San Francisco Bay region based on Milliken and Bennyhoff (1993) and Fredrickson (1994a-b).

General overviews and perspectives on the regional prehistory including chronological sequences can be found in Moratto (1984), Elsasser (1978), Allen (1999), Jones and Klar (2007), Milliken et al. (2007) and Hylkema (1991, 2002) for detail regarding environment and chronology for selected archaeological sites from the southern San Francisco Bay and the peninsula coast.

ETHNOGRAPHIC
The aboriginal inhabitants of the project area belonged to a group known as the Costanoan, a name derived from the Spanish word Costanos (“coast people” or “coastal dwellers”) who occupied the central California coast as far east as the Diablo Range. Their territory covered 6,000-7,000 square miles extending along the Pacific Coast from south of Monterey Bay north to the San Francisco Peninsula and inland 20-45 miles into the Coast Ranges, including the east shore of San Francisco Bay from the Carquinez Straits south. The descendants of the Costanoan in the greater San Francisco Bay Area now generally prefer to be known as Ohlone (Margolin 1978).

The Ohlone language belongs to the larger Penutian language family spoken by other California Indian groups known as the Wintun, Maidu, Miwok, and Yokuts. The language has been subdivided into eight distinct branches or possible dialects (Levy 1978; Milliken 1995). 392
5 Linguistic analyses suggest that the Ohlone moved into the San Francisco Bay Area around A.D. 500 and may have replaced an original Hokan-speaking population.

In 1770, the Ohlone lived in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous tribelets with each group having one or more permanent villages surrounded by a number of temporary camps.

The camps were used to obtain seasonally available floral and faunal resources (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978; Hart 1987). Tribelet territories, defined by physiographic features, generally supported a population of approximately 200 persons with a range of between 50-500 individuals. The Ohlone population at the time of Spanish contact was estimated at 7,000 (Kroeber 1925) while recent research using mission records (Milliken et al. 2007) suggests a population of 16,000.

The project site is within the Ramaytush subdivision of the Ohlone, which included much of present day San Mateo and San Francisco counties (Levy 1978:485, Fig. 1, #13 lamsin (Las Pulgas). Alternatively the tribe is known as the Lamchin (Lhamshín), who held the area along the shore from present-day Belmont south to Redwood City and adjacent interior valleys inland.

The closest village appears to have been Guloisnistac1 at Belmont in the hollow or gap that conforms to the Belmont Valley (1.3 miles north of Pulgas Creek). The main village, “Cachanigtac, alias Las Pulgas” (The Fleas) has been placed along Pulgas Creek within presentday San Carlos (Kroeber 1925; Brown 1973-1974; Milliken 1983, 1995, 2006).

Traditional Native American lifeways were disrupted by European exploration, colonization and the development of the Spanish missions in the late 18th century (see Milliken 1995). Introduced diseases, the cataclysmic impact of the mission system, a declining birthrate, and the later secularization2 of the missions by the Mexican government and establishment of the rancho system (Brown 1973-1974, 1975; Levy 1978; Milliken 1983, 1995) led to drastic reductions of the Native American population and the disappearance of the pre-contact lifeway. The Ohlone were transformed from hunters and gatherers into generally agricultural laborers who lived at the missions and worked with former neighboring groups such as the Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok (Levy 1978). Later, due to secularization of the missions in the Mexican Period, the majority of the aboriginal population gradually moved to ranchos to work as manual laborers (Levy 1978).

The sparse ethnographic data available on the Ohlone was collected by the early explorers, mission staff, and late 19th and early 20th century interviews of members of the surviving multiethnic Indian communities that formed in and around Ohlone territory. Recent interpretations of the prehistoric Ohlone populations have been based on intensive mission records study (see Milliken 1983, 1995, 2006; Milliken et al. 2009).

HISTORIC ERA
Hispanic Period
The history of the San Francisco Bay Region can be divided into the Age of Exploration, the Spanish Period (1769-1821), the Mexican Period (1822-1848), and the American Period (1848- onward). During the Spanish Period government policy in northwestern New Spain was directed

1. Name as Wuloisnístac following Brown (1973-1974:16).

2. Program which replaced Franciscan clergy with "secular" (parish) clergy, released Native American neophytes from mission jurisdiction, and converted mission property into pueblos (towns). Decrees were issued in Spain in 1813 and 1820 and in California in 1826 and 1834 (Hart 1987). 393
6 at the founding of presidios (forts), missions, and pueblos (secular towns) with the land held by the Crown. Between 1769-1823, twenty-one missions were established by the Franciscan priests along the California coast between San Diego and Sonoma. Later Mexican Period policy stressed individual ownership of the land with grants of vast tracts of land to individuals (Beck and Haase 1974; Hart 1987).

Spanish explorers in the late 1760s and 1770s were the first Europeans to traverse the San Francisco Peninsula. The first party, that of Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi, traveled up the coast in search of Monterey Bay but failed to recognize it based on previous descriptions.

In the fall of 1769, they first sighted San Francisco Bay from a ridge on the Peninsula. Sergeant Jose Francisco Ortega scouted the area although his exact route remains uncertain. The second Hispanic exploration party, that of Fernando Javier Rivera and Father Francisco Palou, reached the San Francisco Peninsula in late 1774. The same route was followed by Heceta in 1775 (Beck and Haase 1974:#17).

In 1776, Colonel Juan Bautista de Anza and Father Pedro Font traveled from Monterey to San Francisco to select the settlement sites. On March 29, 1776, the party of explorers camped at the banks of San Mateo Creek in the present-day City of San Mateo (CAL/OHP 1976, 1990:Landmark #47; San Mateo County 1986:Appendix B, #2).3 The Juan Bautista de Anza
National Historic Trail [1776]4 places their northward route along present-day El Camino Real5
/State Route 826 and their return along Skyline Boulevard (Hoover et al. 1966; Beck and Haase 1974:#17; Hynding 1982; USNPS 1995, 1996:Sheet 41 of 47).

Mission San Francisco de Asis (also known as Mission San Francisco Dolores) was formally established on October 9, 1776, to provide for the religious needs of the Peninsula until the American Period (Beck and Haase 1974; Hart 1987). In 1793, an adobe was built at the rancheria on the north bank of San Mateo Creek along El Camino Real, the trail connecting the San Francisco outpost with Monterey. This “Hospice” or Outpost of Mission Dolores adobe, at Baywood and El Camino (P-41-000011/ CA-SMA-6), located approximately 5 miles north of the project site, was the focus of Native American activity in the Mission era (Stanger 1963; Brown 1975; CAL/OHP 1976, 1990:Landmark #393; Gebhard et al. 1985; San Mateo County 1986:Appendix B, #26). None of the other known ranches of the mission, San Francisco Presidio or of an individual were located in the vicinity of the project site (Brown ca. 1963).

3. There were 17 expedition campsites known in San Mateo county (Richards 1978:3).

4. The National Trails System Act (P.L. 90-543 (16 U.S.C. 1241 et. seq) as amended through P.L. 102-461, October 23, 1992 defines three types of national trails: National scenic trails, National recreation trails, and National historic trails. National historic trails are extended trails which follow as closely as possible and practicable the original trails or routes of travel of national historical significance. They are established to identify and protect a historic route, plus its historic remnants and artifacts, for public use and enjoyment (USNPS 1996:Appendix A).

5. El Camino Real/State Route 82 ran from Mission San Diego de Alcala, San Diego to Mission San Francisco de Asis (Mission Dolores), in San Francisco. El Camino Real is listed in The California History Plan (CAL/OHP 1973/II:150) and is also a State of California landmark. As a landmark designated after #770, it is automatically on the California Register of Historical Resources (CAL/OHP 1990:204-205, Landmark #784, ca. 1999).

6. El Camino Real through Belmont and San Carlos was built just west of the railroad tracks in 1917-1918 (Hoover et al. 1966:392).
394
7 The project is within the former Rancho de las Pulgas or Pulgas Rancho (the fleas) or Cochenetas (variously Cochinitas or little pigs) which extends from San Mateo Creek to San Francisquito Creek (Palo Alto). Originally this rancho nacional of the San Francisco Presidio was granted by Governor Diego de Borica in 1795 to Jose D. Arguello and later by Governor Pablo Vicente de Sola in 1820 or 1821. The formal grant by Governor Jose Castro was made on November 27, 1835, to Luis Arguello and patented to Maria de la Soledad Ortega de Arguello on October 2, 1857. None of the known rancho dwellings, other structures or features (e.g., mills, corrals, roads, etc.) were located in or adjacent the project site (Hendry and Bowman 1940; Stevens 1856; Easton 1868; Hoover et al. 1966; Beck and Haase 1974; Brown 1975; USGS 1980).

American Period
Beginning in the mid-19th century, most rancho and pueblo lands were subdivided as a result of population growth, the American takeover, and the confirmation of property titles. The initial population explosion on the Peninsula was associated with the Gold Rush (1848), followed later by the construction of the transcontinental railroad (1869), and local railroads. Until about World War II, San Mateo County was dominated by a predominantly agricultural or rural landuse pattern (Hart 1987).

San Mateo County was created in 1856 from the southern part of San Francisco County and enlarged by annexing part of Santa Cruz County in 1868. Belmont was initially the County seat as a result of a fraudulent election; it was changed within a year to Redwood City (Hoover et al. 1966:389).

For the most part, the cultural landscape of San Mateo County from San Francisco to Palo Alto consisted of large estates and farms. The origin story of Belmont varies. Following Moore & DePue 1878), initial settlement consisted of “Angelo’s” canvas tent succeeded by his “hotel” built in 1850 or 1851. In turn, he was succeeded by a Mr. Flashner, later known as the solicitous proprietor of the “Belmont Hotel.” Initial growth was centered around the roadhouse on the County Road (present-day Old County Road) and the canyon route to the coast, later known as “The Corners.” Adam Castor’s store across from the roadhouse followed in 1857, and John Ellet’s small hotel in 1858 was across from the store.

The name Belmont – “beautiful mountain” is a combination of two French phrases – belle montagne and beau mont - and is credited to land speculator Elias Beard and his land agent John Beal Steinberger who laid out and sold both villa lots and town lots in Belmont beginning in November 1853. The property was sold to Beard by Simon Mónserrate Mezes, the original owner and subdivider of the property who had obtained the land as his fee for successfully arguing the Arguello family claim for the Rancho de las Pulgas. His claim for 15% of the rancho included what is now the City of Belmont and much of Redwood City (Cain and Jones 2024).

Belmont was laid out in September 1853 as the Cañada Diablo Villa Lots subdivision, but was advertised as ‘Belmont” the following year. The first Belmont post office was established July 18, 1854, discontinued September 4, 1856, and re-established shortly thereafter, April 15, 1857. 395
8 Growth accelerated with the arrival of the San Francisco & San Jose Railroad in 18637 and construction of small rail depot at Belmont in 1864. Soon after banker/financier William Chapman Ralston (1826-1875) purchased 14 acres adjacent to present-day Ralston Avenue (named between 1888 and 1893). Ralston’s baronial “Belmont” estate - incorporating Count Leonetto Cipriani’s earlier villa and enlarged from 1865-1875 - was the focal point of the area and synonymous with the Town of Belmont.8” Ralston was also responsible for constructing a wharf on the nearby slough.9 By 1875 Belmont was a popular picnic ground with a limited number of local businesses including a soda works. Growth accelerated after the San Francisco earthquake and fire of 1906 and by the 1920s, the population of San Mateo County doubled. The City of Belmont was incorporated in 1926, effective in 1927 to prevent its absorption by its southern rival, San Carlos. Post-World War II San Mateo County as in the case of other towns/cities in the San Francisco Bay region experienced a tremendous influx of residents as various maps document (Moore & DePue 1878 by Gilbert 1974; Stanger 1963: Brown 1974; Hynding 1982; Hart 1987; Patera 1991; Robertson 1998).

Selected Historic Map Review
A number of historic maps were reviewed for the presence of cultural features in and/or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project (Stevens 1856; Easton 1868; Whitney 1873; Cloud 1877; Moore and DePue 1878; Neuman 1909; USGS 1896; USGS 1915; 1980, 1997; US War Dept 1943). In brief, linear transportation related features are the major cultural features identified in the project vicinity. These consist of east/west Ralston Avenue to the north of the project site and the north/south Old County Road on the west side of the railroad tracks about

0.8 mile east of the project.

The proposed project is within the former Rancho de las Pulgas (T5S R4W; USGS 1980). The Stevens’ 1856 Plat of the Pulgas Rancho finally confirmed to Maria de la Soledad Ortega de Arguello et al. shows the “County Road” (present-day Old County Road). Richard’s 1974 annotated detail of Belmont extracted from Easton’s 1868 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California shows the Belmont town grid flanking the railroad tracks and county road. At the time, a single road (present-day Ralston Avenue) crossed the railroad tracks and continued east to a tendril of the adjacent slough system – Angelo Creek, O’Neill Creek, etc..

The 1892, 1896 and 1915 USGS San Mateo topographic quadrangles do not show a road extending to the slough system. Neuman’s 1909 Official Map of San Mateo Co., California differs and shows a road to “Angleo Creek”. Later maps – the 1934 United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) San Francisco Bay, West Coast, California (surveyed in 1931 and 1932) and the US War Dept. 1943 map show the road to as far as US Highway 101.10 Development in the vicinity of the project site by the late 1930s was limited to unpaved roads.

7 Consolidated into the Southern Pacific Railroad Company on October 12, 1870. 8 The landmark mansion is located on the present-day campus of Notre Dame de Namur University at 1500 Ralston Avenue (Gebhard et al. 1985).

9. Note this wharf likely replaced the embarcadero at Belmont based on the construction of a road from the Rancho Canada de Raymundo in 1862 (Richards 1973:83).

10. The Bayshore highway was constructed between 1928 and 1935 (Brown 1975:5). 396
9 The 1947 topographic map and 1946 aerial imagery (GS-CP 2-189) shows the area as vacant with the St. Joseph’s Military Academy to the southwest. The 1956 topographic map shows the project site as the location of the John McDougal Elementary School.11 A 1956 aerial photograph (GS-VLX 1-9) has the school within an active construction site with two buildings already present with an additional building started. The area around the school is a new subdivision under construction with lots laid out. By 1980 the project is within urbanized Belmont (USGS 1947,1956, 1980, 1997; US War Department 1943).

INDIVIDUALS, GROUP AND AGENCY PARTICIPATION
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of the Sacred Lands Inventory (Busby 2025). The review was negative (Lin 2025) (see Attachments). The City of Belmont will conduct any needed Native American consultation in accordance with AB 52 pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1.

No other agencies, departments or local historical societies were contacted.

RECORDS SEARCH RESULTS
No reports or recorded resources are on file with the CHRIS/NWIC for the project site or immediately adjacent areas (see Attachments).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY
The area appears to have a low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources based on the archaeological literature, the draft geotechnical report for the proposed improvements and a review of aerial photographs.

No archaeological sites are present within the project site or within a 0.25 mile radius. None of the over 500 shellmounds mapped by Nels C. Nelson between 1906 and 1908 during his comprehensive archaeological survey of the San Francisco Bay periphery were located in the vicinity of the project although five mounds are present in the vicinity of Belmont near and along the alignment of Belmont and Pulgas creeks (Nelson 1909, ca. 1912 [annotated]; Moratto 1984:227).

The project site is within an area mapped as Franciscan Complex sedimentary rocks (KJfs). A review of three test boring logs in the geotechnical report completed by Rockridge Geotechnical (2024) indicates the presence of sandy clay and clayey sand with gravel layers (to depth ranging from 2-5 feet) before encountering shale and/or sandstone bedrock at depths of 2-5 feet. A 1956 aerial photograph (GS-VLX 1-9) has the school within an active construction site indicating extensive mass grading for the preparation of both school and adjacent subdivision construction.

11. The Charles Armstrong School appears to have purchased the elementary school in 1984 for private school use.
397
10 SUMMARY
• The CHRIS/NWIC records review found no record of any previous project site specific cultural resources reports and did not report the presence of any prehistoric and/or historic era archaeological sites within or adjacent to the project site. • No Native American villages, traditional use areas or contemporary use areas or other features of significance have been identified in or adjacent to the project site. • No Hispanic era features have been identified in or adjacent to the project site. • No American Period archaeological sites have been recorded, reported or identified in or adjacent to the project site.
• A review of the available archaeological research for the project site and surrounding area suggests a low potential for the presence of subsurface prehistoric and/or historic deposits either within or adjacent to the project site. Geotechnical information and aerial photographs indicate a lack of culture bearing sediments based on the geology and previous disturbance during mass grading for construction of the school in the mid1950s. No discoveries of significant archaeological materials have been noted over the past 70 years.
• No listed, known significant and/or potentially significant National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or local cultural resources/historic properties, landmarks, points of interest, etc. have been identified in or adjacent to the project site.

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the considered opinion of BASIN, based on a review of pertinent records, maps and other documents that the proposed project can proceed as planned in regard to prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. No subsurface testing for buried archaeological resources appears warranted. Archaeological and/or tribal monitoring during subsurface construction is not recommended due to the low cultural sensitivity of the project site.

BASIN recommends that if any unanticipated prehistoric or significant historic period cultural materials are exposed during construction grading and/or excavation, operations should stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist contacted for evaluation and further recommendations consistent with CEQA and City of Belmont requirements.

Significant prehistoric cultural resources are defined as human burials, features or other clusterings of finds made, modified or used by Native American peoples in the past. The prehistoric and protohistoric indicators of prior cultural occupation by Native Americans include artifacts and human bone, as well as soil discoloration, shell, animal bone, sandstone cobbles, ashy areas, and baked or vitrified clays. Prehistoric materials may include:
a. Human bone - either isolated or intact burials.
b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors).
398
11 c Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces; groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; and, shell and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads.
d. Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains (which permit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities.
e. Isolated artifacts
Historic cultural materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries.

Objects and features associated with the Historic Period can include:
a. Structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks, cobbles/boulders, stacked field stone, postholes, etc.).
b. Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts. c. Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.).
d. Human remains.

In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian and other ethnic or racial groups are potentially significant. Such features or clusters of artifacts and samples include remains of structures, trash pits, and privies.

Potential recommendations for treatment could include identification, evaluation, collection, recordation, analysis, etc. of any significant cultural materials followed by a professional report.

State law shall be followed in regard to Native American burials (Chapter 1492, Section 7050.5 to the Health and Safety Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code).

CLOSING REMARKS
If I can provide any additional information, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

Colin I. Busby, Ph.D., RPA
Principal
CIB/dg
Enclosures
399
12 REFERENCES
Allen, Rebecca (editor)
1999 Upgrade of the Guadalupe Parkway, San Jose. Historic Properties Treatment Plan. MS on file, S-22066, CHRIS/NWIC, CSU Sonoma, Rohnert Park.

Bean, Lowell John (compiler and editor)
1994 The Ohlone Past and Present: Native Americans of the San Francisco Bay Region. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 42, Menlo Park.

Beck, W.A. and Y.D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California (Third Printing). University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Belmont (City of)
2017a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report [Draft EIR] City of Belmont General Plan, Phase 1 Zoning, Belmont Village Specific Plan, and Climate Action Plan. SCH #2016082075. Dated June 30, 2017.
2017b [Final] City of Belmont 2035 General Plan. Adopted November 14, 2017.

Brabb, E.E., F.A. Taylor and G.P. Miller with the cooperation of San Mateo County Planning Department, San Mateo County Historical Association and San Mateo County Historic-Resources Advisory Board
1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B. Scale 1:62,500. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, n.p.

Brown, Alan K.
ca. 1963 The Peninsula in Mission Days under the Kingdom of Spain 1776-1822. In, South from San Francisco: San Mateo County, California: Its History and Heritage by Frank M. Stanger, 1963, page 21. San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City.
1973-1974 Indians of San Mateo County. La Peninsula: Journal of the San Mateo County Historical Association 17(4).
1975 Place Names of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Historical Association, College of San Mateo Campus, San Mateo.

Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates, San Leandro) 2025 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request: Charles Armstrong School Improvements, City of Belmont, San Mateo County. Dated 5/27/2025. Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Cain, Julie A. and Laura Jones
2024 Campus Historical Resources Survey. Notre Dame de Namur University, Belmont, County of San Mateo, California. Stanford University Heritage 400
13 Services. March 25, 2024. Draft on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro
California (State of), Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation (CAL/OHP)
1973 The California History Plan. Volume One - Comprehensive Preservation Program. Volume Two - Inventory of Historic Features.
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources.
1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. 1990 California Historical Landmarks.
1992 California Points of Historical Interest. May 1, 1992. 2025a OHP Historic Properties Directory: Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for San Mateo County (includes National Historical Landmarks, National Register of Historic Places, Federal (Agency Nominations, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest listings). Web, accessed 6/16/2025. 2025b Listed California Historical Resources – San Mateo County [including National Register, State Landmark, California Register, and Point of Interest]. <http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=county&criteria=41>. Web, accessed 6/16/2025.
2025c Archeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE) for San Mateo County.

Reviewed by CHRIS/NWIC 6/16/2025.

Cloud, J.J. (compiler)
1877 Official Map of the County of San Mateo California Showing New Boundary Line and Delineating the Lines of Cities, Towns, Private Claims, Ranchos, Waterworks, and Railroads. Compiled by J.J. Cloud County Surv[eyo]r, S.M.

Co. Drawn by Walter Montague Kerr. Reproduction provided by San Mateo County Historical Association Museum, San Mateo.

Easton, A.S.
1868 Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California. Including City and County of San Francisco with All New Additions of Cities, Towns, and Villas, Delineating the Lines of Ranchos, Private Claims, Water Works, Railroads, etc. etc. Carefully compiled from actual surveys and published by A.S. Easton, County Surveyor, S.M.C. Britton and Rey, San Francisco.

Elsasser, A.B.
1978 Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, edited by R.F.

Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 37-57. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Fredrickson, David A.
1974 Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41-53.
401
14 1994a Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes.

Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility

52. 1994b Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 25-47. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52.

Galvan, P.M.
1967/1968 People of the West: The Ohlone Story. Indian Historian 1(2):9-13.

Gebhard, D., E. Sanweiss, and R. Winter
1985 Architecture in San Francisco and Northern California (Revised edition).

Gibbs M. Smith, Inc. Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City.

Hamilton, Jerome
1896-1936 Indian Shell Mounds of San Mateo Creek and Vicinity (including Some Historic Facts About the Ancient Indian Shell Mounds of San Mateo and map).

On file, San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City. MS on file, S-3174, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Hart, J.D.
1987 A Companion to California (revised and expanded). Oxford University Press, New York.

Hendry, G.W. and J.N. Bowman
1940 The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850. MS on file, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch and W.N. Abeloe
1966 Historic Spots in California (Third edition, revised by William N. Abeloe).

Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.

Hylkema, Mark G.
1991 Prehistoric Native American Adaptations along the Central Coast of San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties. M.A. thesis, San Jose State University.

Coyote Press, Salinas. MS on file, S-13597, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
2002 Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, Perspectives in California Archaeology 6:233-262.
402
15 Hynding, A.
1982 From Frontier to Suburb, The Story of The San Mateo Peninsula. Star Publishing Company, Belmont.

Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar (editors)
2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Altamira Press, New York.

King, C.D.
1978a Protohistoric and Historic Archaeology. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 58-68. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Historic Indian Settlements in the Vicinity of the Holiday Inn Site. In Archeological Investigations at CA-SCl-128, The Holiday Inn Site, edited by J.C. Winter, pp. 436-469. MS on file, S-5281, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Kyle, Douglas E.
2002 Historic Spots in California (revised fifth edition of M.B. Hoover, H.E. Rensch and E.G. Rensch and W.N. Abeloe). Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Levy, R.
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, Volume 8. Handbook of North American Indians, W.G. Sturtevant, general editor, pp. 485-497.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Lin, Mathew (Native American Heritage Commission) (NAHC) 2025 Response to Request for Review of Sacred Lands File, Charles Armstrong School Improvements, Belmont Project, San Mateo County. Dated 5/28/2026.

On File, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Margolin, M.
1978 The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco - Monterey Bay Area.

Heyday Books, Berkeley.

Milliken, R.T.
1983 The Spatial Organization of Human Population on Central California's San Francisco Peninsula at the Spanish Arrival. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Inter-Disciplinary Studies, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 43. 2006 The Central California Ethnographic Community Distribution Model, Version 403
16 2.0, with Special Attention to the San Francisco Bay Area. Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 4 Rural Conventional Highways. MS on file, S32596, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park.

Milliken, Randall T. and James A. Bennyhoff
1993 Temporal Changes in Beads as Prehistoric California Grave Goods. In The Grows a Green Tree: Papers in Honor of David A. Fredrickson, edited by Greg White, Pat Mikkelsen, William R. Hildebrandt and Mark E. Basgall, pp. 381- 395. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication 11.

Milliken, Randall, Laurence H. Shoup and Beverly R. Ortiz 2009 Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. National Park Service, San Francisco. Web accessed.

Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Thomas Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellefemine, Eric, Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson
2007 Chapter 8. Punctuated Change in San Francisco Bay Area [Prehistory]. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-123. Altamira Press, New York.

Moore and DePue
1878a Moore & DePue's Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California. G.T.

Brown and Company, San Francisco.
1878b The Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California - 1878. Originally published by Moore & DePue. Reduced facsimile edition with Introduction by Gilbert Richards. Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside, California. 1878c Official Map of the County of San Mateo, California. Showing New Boundary Line and the Delineation of Line of Cities, Towns, Private Claims, Rancho, Water Works and Rail Roads. Moore & DePue, Publishers, n.p.

Moratto, Michael J.
1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Murazzo, Justin (CHRIS/NWIC Staff)
2025 Records Search for Armstrong Belmont, City of Belmont, San Mateo County.

CHRIS/NWIC File. No. 24-1878, Dated 6/16/2025). Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 7(4):309-356. ca. 1912 Site location map for Nelson's San Francisco Bay region (ca. 1910).

Manuscript map in University of California Archaeological Survey Files (as cited in University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 75:83). 404
17 Neuman, J.V. (compiled and drawn by)
1909 Official Map of San Mateo Co., California. Approved by the Board of Supervisors, April 1909.,
Patera, E.L. (editor)
1991 H.E. Salley History of California Post Offices 1849-1990 (Second edition).

The Depot, n.p.

Richards, Gilbert
1973 Crossroads: People and Events of the Redwood of San Mateo County. Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside.
1974 The Illustrated History of San Mateo County, California - 1878. Originally published by Moore & DePue. Reduced facsimile edition with Introduction by Gilbert Richards. Gilbert Richards Publications, Woodside.

Rockridge Geotechnical
2024 Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Improvements Charles Armstrong School, 1405 Solana Drive, Belmont, California. DRAFT Report, dated July 22, 2024 (Project No. 24-2627). Copy on file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.

Robertson, Donald B.
1986 Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History. [Volume I of IV]. The Desert States - Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah. The Caxton Printers, Ltd, Caldwell.

San Mateo County
1986 [General Plan] Part 5: Historical and Archaeological Resources. Background - Issues. County of San Mateo, Planning Division, Redwood City.

Stanger, F.M.
1963 South from San Francisco: San Mateo County, California: Its History and Heritage. San Mateo County Historical Association, Redwood City.

Stevens, T.S.
1856 Plat of the Pulgas Rancho finally confirmed to Maria de la Soledad Ortega de Arguello et al. Surveyed under the Orders of the U.S. Surveyor General by T.S. Stevens Dep[uty] Sur[veyor]. November 1856. Approved December 19th 1856. Map on file, #148 California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento.

Tillery, Anne C., Janet M. Sowers and Sarah Pearce
2007 Creek & Watershed Map of San Mateo & Vicinity. The Oakland Museum of California, Oakland.

United States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS)
1934 San Francisco Bay, West Coast, California. Scale 1:80,000. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C. No. 5530.
405
18 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (USNPS) 1995 Map Supplement for the Comprehensive Management and Use Plan Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Arizona California. National Park Service, San Francisco.
1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIR). Comprehensive Management and Use Plan Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Arizona California. National Park Service, San Francisco.
2024a-c National Register of Historic Places San Mateo County, California listings:
spreadsheet of NRHP Listed, Multiple Property Cover Documents, Spreadsheet of NHLs [National Historic Landmarks] (current to 7/10/2024). http://www.nps.gov./nr/research//data_downloads. Web, accessed 5/30/2025.

United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1892 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series. Detail, Tillery et al. 2007 Creek & Watershed Map of San Mateo & Vicinity. 1896 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series (1892 surveyed).
1915 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series (1892 surveyed, 1914 culture revised in part, reprinted 1939). 1947 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. 1956 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series. 1980 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series (1956 photorevised).
1997 San Mateo, CA. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series.

United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.

United States War Department, Corps of Engineers, United States Army 1943 San Mateo, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 15 minute series (photography 1939, topography 1941).

University of California at Santa Barbara Map & Imagery Library (UCSB M&IL) 1946 Imagery Report: Flight GS-CP Dated 7/29/1946, Scale 1:23,600, Frame 2-189. 1956 Imagery Report: Flight GS-VLX Dated 9/8/1956, Scale 1:23,600, Frame 1-9.

Whitney, J.D.
1873 Map of the Region Adjacent to the Bay of Bay Francisco. State Geological Survey of California, n.p.

Abbreviations
n.d. no date v.d. various dates N.P. no publisher noted n.p.p. no place of publisher noted
CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park is used for material on file at the California Historical Resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park. 406

ATTACHMENTS

FIGURES
FIGURE 1 General Project Location (ESRI World Street Map) FIGURE 2 Project Location - T5S R4W unsectioned (USGS San Mateo, CA 1997; Woodside, CA 1997)
FIGURE 3 Charles Armstrong School - Aerial View of Project Vicinity FIGURE 4 Charles Armstrong School - Proposed Site Plan (Ratcliff 2024:C2.0)

NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH
REQUEST Request to Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for Review of Sacred Lands File (SLF)
RESPONSE NAHC Response to Request for SLF Review

CHRIS/NWIC SEARCH
SEARCH CHRIS/NWIC File No. 24-1878 (Dated 6/16/2025)
[No Confidential Information]
407
Figure 1: General Project Location (ESRI World Street Map) Project Location
408
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Figure 2:
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Project Location - T5S R4W unsectioned (USGS San Mateo, CA 1997; Woodside, CA 1997)
USGS San Mateo
USGS Woodside
Project Location
409
Figure 3: Charles Armstrong School - Aerial View of Project Vicinity Chula Vista Dr
Solana Dr
El Verano Way
Altura Way
Dartmouth Ave
Wycombe Ave

MCDOUGAL
PARK
0 100 200 300 400
Feet ±
410
Figure 3: Charles Armstrong School - Proposed Site Plan (Ratcliff 2024:C2.0) 411
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1556 Harbor Boulevard, STE 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: Charles Armstrong School Improvements, Belmont County: San Mateo
USGS Quadrangle Name: USGS San Mateo, CA 1997
Address: 1405 Solana Drive
Township: 5 South, Range: 4 West unsectioned
Company/Firm/Agency: Basin Research Associates
Contact Person: Colin I. Busby, PhD, RPA
Street Address: 1933 Davis Street, STE 214
City/Zip: San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: (510) 430-8441 x101
Email: Please send response to [email protected]
Project Description:

Charles Armstrong School (CAS), a private institution in Belmont, San Mateo County, plans to expand and modernize its 4.9-acre campus at 1405 Solana Drive (APN 045-122-190). The school site consists of several single-story school buildings in the middle of the site surrounded by drive aisles, a parking lot, basketball court, and other outdoor activity areas.

The proposed project includes constructing two new buildings: an 11,900-square-foot, two-story Academic Building with general classrooms and creative learning spaces, and an 11,100-square-foot, one-story Athletic/Multi-Purpose Building with an indoor court, multipurpose space, and commercial kitchen. The proposed new buildings would be constructed on the existing outdoor playgrounds and asphalt paved areas of the school campus. A new landscaped outdoor learning and central plaza area linking the new buildings with the rest of the campus would also be developed. Other site improvements include upgraded stormwater and utility infrastructure, slope stabilization, and expanded parking (from 83 to 85 spaces).

The project site slopes down to the south, with about 40 feet of elevation change between the northeastern and southeastern corners of the site. Approximately 61 trees would be removed, and a limited amount of cut and fill would be required for the new buildings and trenching for utility lines to serve the new buildings, slope stabilization, and stormwater treatment basin(s).

The project site slopes down to the south, with about 40 feet of elevation change between the northeastern and southeastern corners of the site. Approximately 61 trees would be removed, and a limited amount of cut and fill would be required for the new buildings and trenching for utility lines to serve the new buildings, slope stabilization, and stormwater treatment basin(s).

Date: 05/27/2025
412
Project Location
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles ±
413
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Figure 1:
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Project Location - T5S R4W unsectioned (USGS San Mateo, CA 1997; Woodside, CA 1997)
USGS San Mateo
USGS Woodside
Project Location
414
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION