Belmont Planning Commission Meeting – January 6, 2026

The Belmont Planning Commission convened at 7:02 PM on January 6, 2026, to discuss and hear public testimony on a major development proposal by Charles Armstrong School at 1405 Solana Drive. The project sought approvals for a new academic wing (Phase 1), an athletic building (Phase 2), an enrollment increase from 260 to 290 students, and extended operational hours. After hours of deliberation, the commission split their recommendation: they voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) for the entire project, but failed to reach a majority on the Detailed Development Plan (DDP) and associated permits, primarily due to unresolved concerns about the Phase 2 gymnasium. The matter will be forwarded to the City Council with a note of the commission's divided stance.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Meeting Minutes (December 16, 2025): The minutes were approved with a vote of 5-0-1 (Commissioner Majeski abstained).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Opposition: Numerous residents spoke against the expansion, citing increased traffic congestion, public safety risks (especially regarding fire truck access and narrow streets), loss of protected trees (39 trees proposed for removal), noise, and the precedent set by a similar, much smaller proposal denied in 2005. Several neighbors from San Carlos expressed particular concern about the gymnasium being placed within 18 feet of their property lines, creating a 22-foot blank wall. Residents argued the school had outgrown its site and should consider a satellite campus or relocation.
• Support: Supporters included a former planning commissioner (who regretted the 2005 denial), parents of current and former students, a local soccer league representative, and a Chamber of Commerce member. They emphasized the school's transformative mission for dyslexic students, its responsible traffic management (staggered drop-offs, staffed supervision), and its positive community partnerships (shared use of McDougall Park, parking for the public, and a voluntary $100,000 contribution for park improvements). Several speakers noted that the modest 30-student increase would not substantially worsen traffic compared to nearby large schools.
• Neutral: A few residents acknowledged the school's value but requested further study on the gym's design, tree replacement details, and long-term community impacts.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Principal Planner Jeremy Plana-Ruiz and Community Development Director Carlos DeMello presented the project details: two phases (academic wing 11,900 sq ft; athletic building 11,126 sq ft), a 30-student enrollment increase, staff expansion to 85, and a one-for-one tree replacement plan (39 trees removed, 44 new trees planted). The project qualifies for a Class 3 CEQA categorical exemption (minor alteration of an existing school). Outreach included a National Night Out, a community meeting, and study sessions with the Planning Commission and City Council in late 2025.
• Applicant Presentation: Head of School Neil Tuck, architect Sarah Nyes, and board members Kelly Sortino and Mark Moore explained the need for space to support dyslexic learners: specialty classrooms (art, music, maker space), a gym for student athletics, a kitchen for meal service, and facilities to match typical middle schools. They outlined traffic management plans (two drop-off loops, staff supervision) and committed to continued coordination with the City for joint use of fields and the future gym.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioners probed parking adequacy (85 spaces for 85 staff, plus overflow capacity), the setback of the gym from property lines (18.5 feet), tree removal and replacement (existing trees in poor health or in conflict with construction), the spatial feasibility of alternative gym locations (constrained by fire lane, drop-off areas, and easements), and the CEQA classification (10 classrooms plus gym – staff argued the gym is not a classroom per CEQA guidelines). Parks and Recreation Director Bridget Sherer confirmed strong existing partnerships with Armstrong for field use and noted no anticipated conflicts from the proposed 12 weekend events or extended hours.

Key Outcomes

• Conceptual Development Plan (CDP) Resolution: The commission voted 6-0 to recommend City Council approval of the CDP, which encompasses both Phase 1 and Phase 2, including the gymnasium.
• Detailed Development Plan (DDP) and Associated Permits (Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, Grading Plan, Tree Removal Permit): The commission did not adopt this resolution. A motion to amend the DDP to strike Phase 2 (the gym) failed (2-4). A subsequent motion to approve the DDP as written also failed for lack of a second. The commission will forward to the City Council a split recommendation: majority support for Phase 1 (academic wing) but unresolved concerns about Phase 2, particularly the gym's mass, proximity to residences, and landscaping. The council is expected to consider the project at its January 27, 2026 meeting.
• Next Steps: The City Council will hold a public hearing on January 27, 2026, to make a final decision on all entitlements. The commission's deliberations and the divided vote will be included in the record.