From: Mark Harnett
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Armstrong Expansion
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 1:21:44 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important As I stated during the planning committee meeting, I am a neighbor on Altura Way and I fully support the Armstrong expansion plans in their current form. We shouldn't require them to jump through any more hoops.
Mark Harnett
1539 Altura Way, Belmont, CA 94002
From: Jeffrey Selman
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: Charles Armstrong Expansion
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2026 7:50:56 PM
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
Honorable Mayor Mates and Councilmembers: I am writing in support of the proposed expansion of Charles Armstrong School. I won’t reiterate my statements from December‘s City Council meeting as you have already heard those. Rather, I will reinforce them by stating that the proposal is a modest expansion and modernizing upgrading of the school’s facilities on par with what has occurred at other schools (public and private) in the community over the last 18 years. There is no basis upon which to deny Charles Armstrong School a similar ability to serve its student body afforded other schools.
I thank you for positively considering Charles Armstrong School’s application.
Jeffrey Selman
Sent from my iPad
From: Warren C. Gibson
To: x-City Clerk"s Office
Subject: comment on Charles Armstrong project
Date: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 2:40:22 PM
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important To Belmont City Council
I was chair of the Planning Commission when the previous version of this project was submitted in 2005. It was denied, and that decision has bothered me ever since. That is my only reason for advocating for the project; I don’t live nearby and I have no particular concern for dyslexia.
The sticking point as you know is the proposed gym which abuts two or three residential back yards. Charles Armstrong evidently did their best to address those homeowners’ concerns with modifications to the building plan. The result in my view is a project that definitely should go forward.
The project is not perfect; no project ever is. Buildings are never invisible. Construction is never inaudible. But in my experience on the Commission, on not one major project were any of the more alarmist objections ever borne out after completion. I feel sure this project will turn out the same.
I hope you see fit to grant the various entitlements with whatever tweaks you may deem necessary.
Warren Gibson, P.E.
From: Edward Geise
To: x-City Clerk"s Office; x-community development
Subject: Follow‑Up on Charles Armstrong School Expansion Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 1:05:33 PM
Attachments: CAS expansion.pdf
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Edward and Dana Geise
644 Dartmouth Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
(650) 224‑4500
February 9, 2026
Belmont City Council
City of Belmont
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
Re: Follow‑Up on Charles Armstrong School Expansion – Request for Additional Review and Environmental Evaluation
Dear Members of the Belmont City Council:
This letter follows our correspondence to the Belmont Planning Commission dated November 4, 2025, which was subsequently forwarded to the City Council on November 25, 2025, regarding the proposed expansion of Charles Armstrong School (CAS) at 1405 Solana Drive.
In that letter, we expressed strong concerns about traffic, public safety, neighborhood compatibility, and environmental impacts arising from the scale and intensity of the proposed project. We continue to fully support CAS’s educational mission and the services it provides to students with dyslexia and related learning differences; our concerns relate solely to the land‑use, environmental, and policy implications of the specific expansion proposal at this location.
After reviewing the most recent Staff Report and associated materials, we believe several issues warrant further Council review before any final approval is granted.
1. Structural massing, placement, and compatibility
The proposed Athletic Building would exceed 30 feet in overall height, with a parapet wall of approximately 22 feet, and is sited roughly 18 feet from adjacent single‑family residential property lines. To our knowledge, there is no comparable example in Belmont of a gymnasium or multi‑use facility of this size located in such close proximity to single‑family homes. We respectfully request that the Council direct staff to conduct a comparative analysis of setbacks, massing, and building placement for similar facilities at other public and private schools in Belmont and the Belmont–Redwood Shores area, to ensure that development standards and General Plan neighborhood compatibility policies are applied consistently and equitably.
2. Removal of protected oak trees
The project arborist recommends removal of six protected coast live oaks along the rear property line due to anticipated root‑zone disturbance from construction activities. These mature trees provide the primary visual, environmental, and privacy buffer between CAS and neighboring properties. Before irreversible action is taken, we ask that the Council require an independent root‑mapping study (e.g., using radar‑based methods) to confirm whether removal is truly necessary and whether construction could be modified to preserve these trees.
This step would help uphold Belmont’s tree protection policies and avoid preventable environmental loss, including potential harm to mature trees on neighboring parcels.
3. CEQA review and use classification
We understand that the Staff consultant has concluded the project is exempt from CEQA under a “minor additions” provision, based on an enrollment increase below 25 percent and fewer than ten new classrooms. However, the approximately 11,000‑square‑foot Athletic Building appears to have been excluded from that calculation by characterizing it as an ancillary facility. At the same time, project descriptions indicate that the building will be used not only by CAS students during the school day, but also for adult trainings, community events, sports activities, and possible Parks and Recreation programs extending into evenings and weekends. These expanded uses are likely to increase traffic, parking demand, noise, and general activity beyond what is reflected in a narrow classroom‑count analysis. In our view, these circumstances strongly support preparation of at least a CEQA Initial Study and, if warranted, a Mitigated Negative Declaration to evaluate cumulative impacts and appropriate mitigation.
4. Alternative siting and circulation options
CAS has indicated that the current siting of the Athletic Building is driven by the existing lower‑playground drop‑off and pick‑up configuration. Because the project involves reconstruction and reconfiguration of this area, it seems reasonable to require a robust alternatives analysis that examines different building placements and orientations (for example, shifting the building closer to existing campus structures or re‑orienting it east–west) while also redesigning circulation. Such analysis is consistent with good planning practice and could materially reduce adjacency impacts on neighboring homes without compromising school operations.
5. Regional facility and long‑term planning
We understand that the Belmont–Redwood Shores School District has experienced declining middle school enrollment and is evaluating potential consolidation options. If one or more existing district campuses were to become underutilized or vacated, those sites could offer more appropriate locations for CAS’s longer‑term expansion needs, given their established athletic facilities, circulation patterns, and parking capacity. We encourage the City to consider, at a policy level, how coordination with the school district might provide opportunities that better align regional educational facility needs with neighborhood compatibility objectives.
For the reasons set forth above and in our November 4, 2025 letter, we respectfully request that the City Council defer final approval of the CAS expansion proposal until additional due diligence is completed, including: (1) a comparative analysis of school facility siting and setbacks; (2) an independent root‑mapping study for the protected oaks; (3) an appropriate level of CEQA review that accounts for all proposed uses of the new Athletic Building; and (4) a more thorough evaluation of feasible site alternatives and regional facility options.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these concerns and for your ongoing commitment to transparent, balanced land‑use decision‑making in Belmont.
Sincerely,
Edward and Dana Geise
Edward and Dana Geise
644 Dartmouth Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
(650) 224-4500
February 9, 2026
Belmont City Council
City of Belmont
1 Twin Pines Lane
Belmont, CA 94002
Re: Follow-Up on Charles Armstrong School Expansion – Request for Additional Review and Environmental Evaluation
Dear Members of the Belmont City Council:
This letter follows our correspondence to the Belmont Planning Commission dated November 4, 2025, which was subsequently forwarded to the City Council on November 25, 2025, regarding the proposed expansion of Charles Armstrong School (CAS) at 1405 Solana Drive. In that letter, we expressed strong concerns about traffic, public safety, neighborhood compatibility, and environmental impacts arising from the scale and intensity of the proposed project. We continue to fully support CAS’s educational mission and the services it provides to students with dyslexia and related learning differences; our concerns relate solely to the land-use, environmental, and policy implications of the specific expansion proposal at this location.
After reviewing the most recent Staff Report and associated materials, we believe several issues warrant further Council review before any final approval is granted.
1. Structural massing, placement, and compatibility
The proposed Athletic Building would exceed 30 feet in overall height, with a parapet wall of approximately 22 feet, and is sited roughly 18 feet from adjacent single-family residential property lines. To our knowledge, there is no comparable example in Belmont of a gymnasium or multi-use facility of this size located in such close proximity to single-family homes. We respectfully request that the Council direct staff to conduct a comparative analysis of setbacks, massing, and building placement for similar facilities at other public and private schools in Belmont and the Belmont–Redwood Shores area, to ensure that development standards and General Plan neighborhood compatibility policies are applied consistently and equitably.
2. Removal of protected oak trees
The project arborist recommends removal of six protected coast live oaks along the rear property line due to anticipated root-zone disturbance from construction activities. These mature trees provide the primary visual, environmental, and privacy buffer between CAS and neighboring properties. Before irreversible action is taken, we ask that the Council require an independent root-mapping study (e.g., using radar-based methods) to confirm whether removal is truly necessary and whether construction could be modified to preserve these trees. This step would help uphold Belmont’s tree protection policies and avoid preventable environmental loss, including potential harm to mature trees on neighboring parcels.
3. CEQA review and use classification
We understand that the Staff consultant has concluded the project is exempt from CEQA under a “minor additions” provision, based on an enrollment increase below 25 percent and fewer than ten new classrooms. However, the approximately 11,000-square-foot Athletic Building appears to have been excluded from that calculation by characterizing it as an ancillary facility. At the same time, project descriptions indicate that the building will be used not only by CAS students during the school day, but also for adult trainings, community events, sports activities, and possible Parks and Recreation programs extending into evenings and weekends. These expanded uses are likely to increase traffic, parking demand, noise, and general activity beyond what is reflected in a narrow classroom-count analysis. In our view, these circumstances strongly support preparation of at least a CEQA Initial Study and, if warranted, a Mitigated Negative Declaration to evaluate cumulative impacts and appropriate mitigation.
4. Alternative siting and circulation options
CAS has indicated that the current siting of the Athletic Building is driven by the existing lower-playground drop-off and pick-up configuration. Because the project involves reconstruction and reconfiguration of this area, it seems reasonable to require a robust alternatives analysis that examines different building placements and orientations (for example, shifting the building closer to existing campus structures or re-orienting it east–west) while also redesigning circulation. Such analysis is consistent with good planning practice and could materially reduce adjacency impacts on neighboring homes without compromising school operations.
5. Regional facility and long-term planning
We understand that the Belmont–Redwood Shores School District has experienced declining middle school enrollment and is evaluating potential consolidation options. If one or more existing district campuses were to become underutilized or vacated, those sites could offer more appropriate locations for CAS’s longer-term expansion needs, given their established athletic facilities, circulation patterns, and parking capacity. We encourage the City to consider, at a policy level, how coordination with the school district might provide opportunities that better align regional educational facility needs with neighborhood compatibility objectives.
For the reasons set forth above and in our November 4, 2025 letter, we respectfully request that the City Council defer final approval of the CAS expansion proposal until additional due diligence is completed, including: (1) a comparative analysis of school facility siting and setbacks; (2) an independent root-mapping study for the protected oaks; (3) an appropriate level of CEQA review that accounts for all proposed uses of the new Athletic Building; and (4) a more thorough evaluation of feasible site alternatives and regional facility options.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these concerns and for your ongoing commitment to transparent, balanced land-use decision-making in Belmont.
Sincerely,
Edward and Dana Geise