11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

the State curriculum program. She noted that the classes offered in the proposed facility are to enhance those skills not specific to meeting a State requirement or accreditation for elementary education criteria. In response to Chair Blank's inquiry regarding what the building's occupancy was at present, Ms. Decker replied that it is an office building under a B occupancy. In response to Commissioner Fox's inquiry if the building was currently fire-sprinklered, Ms. Decker replied that she was not certain but that this could be determined. In response to Commissioner Fox's further inquiry if the children are picked up from school and transported to the facility, Ms. Soo replied that they were. Commissioner Pearce inquired if a tutoring facility was not necessarily related to State-accredited standard facilities. Ms. Decker replied that there is a specific difference in that the tutoring facilities and centers engage in a process to enhance and provide better skill sets for children, but they do not teach and are not designed to teach the core fundamental criteria outlined by the State. She added that in this regard, this particular use falls under the B occupancy for training, skills, and learning, whereas a State curriculum-required facility would be an E occupancy. She pointed out that this particular tutoring program is specific to a niche that serves a certain population. Commissioner Pearce noted that the school was engaged in activities such as helping children meet math standards or STAR testing results and standards and inquired whether it would truly be classified as an academic setting. Ms. Decker replied that it would still be a tutoring center because the threshold is not based on the State curriculum. Commissioner Fox inquired if it is specifically stated in the California Building Code that E occupancy requires that there be a California Department of Education- mandated curriculum and if this could be also obtained along with the Title 22 citation. Ms. Decker replied that the Code does not state this but that the most recently adopted Code added a new classification in terms of a B occupancy that specifically states training and skills facilities, under which this particular use falls. Commissioner Fox noted that this use appears to be a classroom environment where the ratio is not one tutor to one student. She stated that she believed tutoring would be for a small or high ratio of teacher to child. Ms. Decker replied that the City does not currently have a definition that identifies the student-instructor ratio. She added that the Commission recently approved a tutoring facility for Amy Cheng, the MindBridge School, whose ratios were fairly typical at 1:4 and 1:6. She noted that the ratios for tutoring are not limited to 1:1 and would differ depending upon the enrollment and the complexity of the subjects, such that there may be more demand for one class where there may be six children. She indicated that staff does not look at the ratio and has seen tutoring schools with ratios as high as 1:10, depending upon the subject matter. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 10, 2008 Page 3 of 21