Many Belmont and San Carlos residents oppose a plan that would allow a school for dyslexic students to expand and accommodate 30 more students, stating it would worsen traffic, ruin the integrity of the neighborhood and create too much noise.
The Charles Armstrong School, located in Belmont but close to the San Carlos border, hasn’t made significant changes to its campus in over 20 years, after the City Council rejected a similar expansion plan in 2005, largely in response to neighborhood concern. Recently, the school came back to the city requesting permission to increase enrollment from 260 to 290 students, citing increasing demand for dyslexic education and outdated facilities. The proposal also outlines two phases of expansion. The first would include a nearly 12,000-square-foot academic wing — comprising, in part, nine classrooms, a science lab and conference room — while the next phase would consist of an 11,000-square-foot gym and a kitchen.
Neil Tuch, head of school at Charles Armstrong, said the school expects to see a wave of new students, especially since Senate Bill 114 went into effect, which requires public schools to implement early-stage testing to screen for reading challenges. He added that requesting an increased enrollment of 30 new students was a purposely modest number.
“We really wanted to put forward a modest number that people couldn’t argue was a big number when we’re surrounded by 4,000 other students at other schools literally within a mile of us,” Tuch said, adding that they’d also like more access to their campus during nonschool hours as well.
“We live with constraints that no schools in Belmont live with,” he said.
But much of the neighborhood sentiment from the early 2000s remains. During a Planning Commission meeting Jan. 6, one resident said the plans would change “the integrity of the neighborhood.” Another resident, Ri chard Koenigsberg, said the proposal would create noise “far beyond what is reasonable.”
“This is a neighborhood where families, seniors and longtime residents rely on a peaceful environment,” Koenigsberg said during the meeting, adding that approving the plans would “materially diminish the quality of life for those who call this area home.”
Another, Ed Geise, said he was concerned about the view from his backyard if the gymnasium were built.
Recommended for you
“Twenty years ago, we almost stopped our construction [on a pool] because of this gym that was going to go back there, and I just hope you guys aren’t looking to put in a gym behind our house again,” Geise said during the meeting. “We love our house, we love the view, we love the trees. It would ruin us if we had to look at this.”
Others were concerned about potentially downgraded emergency access as a result of more congestion, however, Community Development Director Carlos De Melo said the San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department did not indicate any access concerns when reviewing the project.
“Claims that our fire department is precluded from providing emergency services doesn’t appear to be a correct assessment,” De Melo said. “Just like with any other street in the city or elsewhere, cars can’t block travel ways when a fire [truck] or ambulance is trying to navigate our city streets to get to an emergency.”
Charles Armstrong is close to several other schools, and supporters of its plans said it was unfair to deny it the right to expand on account of traffic conditions for which it is not the main source, adding that the school provides vital education services and does a thorough job mitigating traffic and respecting neighbors.
Resident Warren Gibson was on the Planning Commission when it rejected the original 2005 proposal — though he voted in favor of it — and said the school should be able to expand after decades of using the same facility.
“I believe an injustice was done when a similar proposal was denied in 2005. ... It’s bothered me ever since,” he said. “I believe the sound of children at play within limits is a joyful thing, not a nuisance.”
While the Planning Commission was generally supportive of the project, some commissioners were concerned with the gymnasium’s proposed design and distance from a few homes. The City Council will make the final determination on the project.
The NIMBYism expressed is unbelievable. The resident who said his pool should be privileged over the adequacy of the educational facilities has misguided priorities. And those complaining about noise are just Grinches. I live within yards of a schoolyard and the sound of children playing - which is not continuous, mind you - is joyous.
The issue of concern here is not the 30 added students. It's the 23,000 added square feet of building, impinging on public access to a park. Residents justifiably suspect that the true ultimate enrollment capacity would nearly double. Keep in mind that the ONLY access to this site it via a residential neighborhood, which is already overwhelmed with school traffic from two large high schools.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
The NIMBYism expressed is unbelievable. The resident who said his pool should be privileged over the adequacy of the educational facilities has misguided priorities. And those complaining about noise are just Grinches. I live within yards of a schoolyard and the sound of children playing - which is not continuous, mind you - is joyous.
The issue of concern here is not the 30 added students. It's the 23,000 added square feet of building, impinging on public access to a park. Residents justifiably suspect that the true ultimate enrollment capacity would nearly double. Keep in mind that the ONLY access to this site it via a residential neighborhood, which is already overwhelmed with school traffic from two large high schools.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.