Belmont Planning Commission Meeting (Nov 4, 2025)

The Belmont Planning Commission met to approve prior minutes and hold a study session introducing the proposed Charles Armstrong School expansion at 1405 Solana Drive. No decisions were made on the expansion; staff and the applicant team presented the project scope, requested entitlements, and upcoming hearing schedule, followed by public comment expressing both support and opposition (often supportive of the school’s mission but concerned about neighborhood impacts).

Consent Calendar

• Approved minutes for the Oct. 7, 2025 Planning Commission meeting (vote: 5–0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Community Forum (non-agenda):

  • Zoom speaker (property owner, name unclear): Requested review of a Certificate of Compliance (COC) situation for two Belmont lots zoned HRO2; stated belief the lots should be exempt based on similar lots and noted Director DeMello suggested setting a follow-up meeting.

• Charles Armstrong School expansion (Study Session public comment):

  • Richard Huff (neighbor): Urged the Commission to keep an open mind and hear neighbors’ concerns; referenced historical commitments and perceived growth in school impacts over time.
  • Eric Bluestein (Board of Trustees; project steering committee; buildings and grounds chair): Expressed support for the expansion; described how the school benefited his child and stated the design is thoughtful and well placed.
  • Daniel Swisson (Armstrong facilities manager): Expressed support; emphasized traffic and safety as top priorities and stated the school follows the CUP; supported proposed adjustments to dismissal procedures for a few special-event days.
  • Zachary Donis (Belmont resident; Armstrong alum; current Armstrong faculty): Expressed support; stated Armstrong helped him learn to work with dyslexia and advocated for strengthening the program.
  • Jeff Chriswall (neighbor since 1998): Supported the school’s mission but opposed the athletic building/gym component; raised concerns about building mass/scale, views, noise (buzzers/doors/HVAC/music), kitchen odors near fences, and traffic; requested denial of the gym expansion and suggested a satellite location.
  • Donna Geise (San Carlos resident near Belmont border): Expressed strong opposition to the expansion; cited traffic/public safety, construction disruption, and that the scale (stated as “over 23,000 square feet”) is out of scale with surrounding low-density residential context.
  • Alyssa Warall (Armstrong Chief of Staff; project lead; parent of an alum): Expressed support; stated planning focused on mission needs and mitigating neighbor impacts; noted improvements in CUP compliance and neighbor relations compared with “20 years ago.”
  • Mark Moore (Armstrong Board of Trustees chair): Expressed support; emphasized the school’s unique mission and stated the campus needs modernization including classrooms, specialty spaces, an athletic facility/community center, teacher space, and a kitchen/hot lunch program.
  • Karen Shane (longtime resident; former McDougal School alum): Expressed support; argued that if this were a public school neighbors would have less local control; emphasized the request is for 30 additional students.
  • Colleen Carter (Belmont resident; Armstrong staff; community member): Expressed support; described shared community use of fields/blacktop and urged approval as an investment in specialized education.
  • Zoom speaker (Help Elvisavida, Belmont resident near entrance): Expressed support; stated Armstrong has been an exceptional neighbor and credited staff for safety and traffic management; said impacts should not be attributed solely to Armstrong given nearby schools.

Discussion Items

• Commission announcements: Commissioners encouraged residents to apply for City commissions; applications due Jan. 9.

• Study Session: Charles Armstrong School Expansion Project (1405 Solana Drive)

  • Staff (Planner Ruiz / Director DeMello): Presented project history and emphasized this was a study session with no action.
  • Project description (as presented):
    • Two-phase construction:
      • Phase 1: ~11,900 sq. ft. new academic wing.
      • Phase 2: ~11,100 sq. ft. new athletic building.
      • Additional site work: landscape plaza, stormwater management, slope stabilization, utilities.
    • Operational change requested: increase enrollment cap from 260 to 290; stated average daily attendance is approximately 200 to 240; hours of operation to remain unchanged.
    • Staffing: proposed increase of 11 faculty/staff (expected to be faculty; administrative/support staff expected to remain unchanged).
    • Entitlements identified by staff: Plan Development Amendment (Conceptual and Detailed Development Plan amendments), Conditional Use Permit (to modify student cap/operational standards), Design Review, Tree Permit (removal of ~40 trees with replacement), and Grading Permit.
  • Applicant (Neil Tuck, Head of School):
    • Described the school’s mission serving students with dyslexia and related learning differences and stated the project is intended to address space constraints and improve specialty spaces, faculty workspace, and athletic/community facilities.
    • Stated they are seeking a 30-student cap increase (described as 11.5%) and proposed operational CUP adjustments (e.g., limited weekend access and dismissal procedures for a few special events).
    • Stated the school offered up to $100,000 toward McDougall Park improvements and expressed openness to discussing responsible community access to future gym space.
  • Applicant architect (Ratcliffe Architects):
    • Described siting intended to nest buildings into topography and manage perceived height; clarified the kitchen is about 1,400 sq. ft. and the larger area referenced includes gym support spaces.
  • Commission Q&A (high level):
    • Confirmed parking spaces are expected to remain the same.
    • Discussed trees/landscaping; applicant stated no trees were planned to be removed or added along Solana Drive, but expressed openness to additional planting.
    • Staff confirmed public schools are generally outside City jurisdiction for these approvals (state process), while private schools in City zoning must pursue City entitlements.
    • Staff confirmed an environmental evaluation is underway and will be part of the January hearing materials.

Key Outcomes

• Minutes approved for Oct. 7, 2025 (5–0).
• No action taken on the Charles Armstrong expansion (study session only).
• Next steps / schedule (as presented):
  • Nov. 25, 2025: City Council study session (informational).
  • Jan. 6, 2026: Planning Commission public hearing (recommendation on entitlements).
  • Jan. 27, 2026: City Council public hearing (first reading of ordinance/resolution).
  • Feb. 10, 2026: City Council second reading (if approved).
• Staff reported receipt of 7 written comment letters by the 4 p.m. deadline and 2 additional letters after the deadline, reflecting both support and concerns.
• Upcoming Planning Commission meeting noted for Nov. 18 (agenda in development), with anticipated single-family design review items and a presentation on HIP Housing group; additional meetings scheduled for Dec. 2 and Dec. 16.