theory. we have funding programs for all of the services in the city, but we do have policies imbedded for allocation plans that ask us and require us to mandate or target services to highest need populations in high as need neighborhoods. within our own policy documents, we have outlined what those are, based on needs assessments, an index that we worked closely to develop with service agencies. so, based on that information, it is how we make our allocation plan. i realize the san francisco went through their planning process and during that time it was determined that preschool for all initiative was to be universal. we were not going to be means tested. we believed in the framework and

the idea that we would want to blend child care programs with children of all economic status. because we believe that it was and is the best practice. making sure that all of our children will learn and grow together. supervisor avalos: i am concerned that despite peerage in terms of preschool programs universally, there are kids that are low-income on the waiting list with access to funds and funding not being available. you have to wonder, if we do have a universal program for kids from very low income families who are not able to get into preschool, but it is not universal. a way to assess that, whether it is the right policy, we can apply a universal child care

program across all of our different populations based on their income. but the scale might be more effective in making sure that low-income families do not fall on the waiting list with programs that are universally applied. >> i agree. i think that the questions you are raising are particularly important, especially during the economic downturn that we have right now. i think that a conversation around how many slots we have available for high as need families, and the other part of this, the quality of those slots. i think we're the psa initiative came in -- i think that where the psa initiative came in initially, i know that some

commissioners have different opinions on this, but it was not to expand and increase slots. it was built upon available and existing slot. i would love to engage in a conversation about how we more effectively use funding for child care throughout the city so that we can make sure that we increase the number of slots, but also improve quality. i think that cassandra, in her leadership, has done just that, where we worked very closely with the school district and said that you have earned the funding that goes into the programs. so, if we work together to leverage those dollars, building upon the school district dollars so that we can increase the loss and qualities of those slots. because at the end of the day one of the findings in the

report is that only 57% of the can of artists are actually entering kindergarten ready. that is not ok. we have a huge problem in terms of quality and the number. i know that my peers would miss them under your leadership further. supervisor avalos: thank you. i appreciate your comments in your presentation. i know that deep down in your heart you wish that our society really cared about kids. based on the ways that we make decisions that on funding in all levels of government, i think it be better at the local level. i am glad that we have folks like you doing the work. providers who are making these really difficult decisions about how we spend our resources. thank you for that. we will go on to public comment.

we are open for public comment on item #6. seeing no one come forward, we will close public comment. this item we can move forward with recommendations and without objection. madam clerk, could you please call our last item? >> item number 7. ordinance amending san francisco transportation code, division i, by amending section 7.2.30 to establish a two hour maximum time limit for parking at inoperable or broken parking meters for on-street parking, and adding section 7.2.65 to establish a two hour maximum time limit for parking at inoperable or broken parking meters for off-street parking.

supervisor avalos: welcome. >> good morning. thank you for hearing this item this morning. we are here before you to change the policy for the city as we are implementing sf park. we are experimenting with time limits in certain areas that have no time limits at all. one of the issues we have identified it is the fact that if we are to do that, there could be broken meters with parking for more significant about the time. trying to tighten up, creating city-wide policies for parking meters that are broken, giving you a parking cap. for example, if there is a 30 minute time limit in the city,

this is particularly important for the areas that will not have time limits to create a use for a citywide policy to show that there is free parking in some of the areas and to issue fairness. we are asking for approval on this policy. we had originally recommended a 1 hour time limit, the board suggested two hours. supervisor avalos: was there discussion over this being implemented only in areas of the city where the park program was in existence? >> there was some discussion, but we have expanded the citywide time limit. we have moved at the city wide standard to two hours across the

city as well. we are trying to give citizens more time to do what they need to do. right now the city wide standard is two hours. supervisor avalos: under the current parking meter program that we have, outside of park sf, how long does it take for a leader to get fix medicared? >> it depends on the exact meter. it takes us about 24 hours to 48 hours, once we are notified that the meter is broken. right now we do not have the backup software to tell us, in the background, and someone has

to call us to tell us that the meter's broken. on sf park we can tell immediately. timing for those are much shorter. for the other city-wide meters, it takes 2448 hours. supervisor avalos: how often according to a collection? >> it depends on the routes. some routes we go there daily. other routes, we go there less frequently. we deploy the forces as they fill up. supervisor avalos: so, generally it is about one week? when does that go citywide

again? >> we are working currently from project experience. that should be out in the next 12 months or so. we expect to see this parking program in the city as consistent within the next 18 to 24 months. supervisor avalos: what about a system without meters where there could be ways of paying online or with your credit card? where you would not have a physical leader doing the work, monitoring how long you are staying parked? how what with this policy interact with that system? >> there are some areas, particularly england, that have experimented with broke

ringleader -- removing meters complete. a space where they would propel through their cell phone. the important feature is that an individual must have access to a cell phone. so, it would have to be an area where individuals would not have that be available. it would be significant work for the citizens as many of them do not have the technology available. supervisor avalos: what is the -- i do not know if it is an estimate, but the expectations of the mta of how many meters will be out at any given time? you have factor that into the

cost of the program and what you can expect to get in terms of revenue in the change in law? >> what is so much better with these leaders is that you can tell easily when they are broken. the frequency is less and we are expected to see a much higher frequency. we actually have a pretty good track record of broken meters. several years ago there were a lot, but technology and the infrastructure has changed. 1.2% of broken meters is not a lot right now. in we do expect that to go down over time. supervisor avalos: the most

common ways that one will break down? >> the most common is someone puts something in their that does not belong. paper or some other kinds of calling. the biggest issue is someone putting something into the slot. not allowing anyone else to put anything into that leader. supervisor avalos: the meters in the program, do they have other common things? i have had some difficulty at some of them. others are fairly straightforward. >> i think that that is one of the things we are seeing. the sensitivity of the meters, the credit cards, we have had similar complaints. there seems to be a jiggling of the card in some of the meters. this is why a pilot is so

important. if you do want an upgrade program, we want them all to recognize credit cards affectively. the meter being tested right now is the only single space meter. vendors are working to figure out what is causing this sensitivity. hopefully that will be resolved by the time there is procurement. supervisor avalos: ok. supervisor mar: thank you for the proposal. i know the the december decision, you look at other variations and i am glad we are not taking a los angeles approach. sounds like a los angeles bars people from parking at broken meters. we are taking a more san francisco approach. but i know it will have to be a

cultural change. myself, like other drivers, i know that i feel like i have hit a jackpot when i come to a meter that appears to be broken. but i think that this will take a decent amount of education. i hope that there is a good community process that allows neighborhoods to know that this is a new policy. >> this was posted on various web sites. we have to find and of real estate on the meter to posted, but it will have a uniform policy. right now it could be a half- hour, two hours, three hours. supervisor mar: i agree that this seems to be an equitable and fair approach that will help to bring in the revenue for the

mta that is sorely needed. from the supervisors mentioning of the broken meters, most common experience is that it is the card slot that is getting jammed for some reason. so that using my mta card or credit card, sometimes it does not work. it is less of a cooling problem and now it is more with the cards. supervisor avalos: it is always something in san francisco. ok, we will stop for public comment. any member of the public? please come forward. seeing no one, we will close public comment. this item, i would like to move forward with recommendations. without objection. madam clerk, are there any other

items before us? >> no, mr. chairman. supervisor avalos: we are adjourned. thank you.

>> the meeting of the entertainment commission. please call the roll. [role being called] we have a quorum. >> members of the public may address the commission on members of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items, members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes as such time as the item is called. is there anyone here that would like public comment? seeing none, review and approve the minutes of april 26th, 2011. >> i move that we continue the

minutes of april 26th as we did not have a quorum to vote on them. we can vote on the minutes of may 10th. >> second. >> is there any public comment for commissioners comments on the minutes? same house, call. >> i want to identify if you have a proper quorum for the minute you're trying to approve. >> i move to approve the minutes of may 10th. >> second. >> any public comment?

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> number 3, report from the executive director. >> good evening, commissioners. quickly, i wanted to update you on ab74, previously called the rave safety act. i attached to this memo the latest version that was amended on may 11th of this bill and

now it is called the concert and music festival act. basically, this is a bill that requires any state facility seeking to hold an event with an expected attendance of over 10,000 people to create an event action plan which include specific permission considering health and public safety and law enforcement concern. this is fairly short. you can read it if you are inclined. commissioner mako, can you update the commission.

-- commissioner meko. there has been a request made by supervisor wiener to amend code section 1070 which is a police code section that we work with regarding extended hours permits. he is asking the city attorney to draft an amendment to exempt restaurants from security plan requirements. in 2009, when we had a schedule change, they were basically made it to mirror each other in terms of almost every aspect including security plans and the corrective actions we are about to do now. it has not happened up until recently that an applicant came

forward wanting to do basically food service after 2:00 a.m.. we have not faced this issue before. it was made clear to this applicant that we were previously the bagdad cafe. we will be required to have security and they requested that the supervisor make an amendment to the law. it has not been drafted but it has been assigned to -- because he has familiarity with 1070. i don't know anyone ceiling on whether this is appropriate or not but as this legislation comes forward, it will not go through its paces to have a discussion. i wanted to let you know that the staff participated in small

business week this year. it was last week. we had participated in the past at the taste of san francisco which was more of a social event. this year, we decided to have a table at the small business expo. lots of small business owners came through the expo and i repeated a lot of questions about what the entertainment question did and i handed out a lot of cards. -- and i answered a lot of questions about the entertainment commissioned did.

many get a bill from the tax collector, six or seven times of year for various licenses whether there is fire, entertainment, police. some businesses have quite a few of these things. they're trying to consolidate. one bill comes in march of each year and with that of the different licenses that they have to pay for. we will be working with the tax collector. we don't have that many in number like other departments have. we will be working alongside the other departments to make what i

believe will be a positive change for the city. it will not make it cheaper, unfortunately, but at least it will be more efficient. there's nothing to report for me on corrective action taken in the last two weeks. >> i have a question for the director. regarding this possible legislation, we have had a number of after hours restaurant who have come before the commission over the last many years. in several cases can you put

forward the applications for russians that have come for that, -- in several cases, can you put forward of the applications for restaurants that have come before us? and let's do a reality check on how this would impact the after hours restaurant businesses. >> just to speak to that for a second.

a restaurant operating before 2:00 is not its security, is that correct? >> if they don't have an entertainment permit. >> if they continue to serve food at 2:00 in the morning, security is supposed to show up. >> correct. we have the need for an extended hours permit and that permit allows them to have the public in that permit after 2:00 a.m. which also has security permits attached. >> anybody else? ok. commissioners, our report this evening which is in your binder, we are still waiting for the citation appeal for the citation we wrote to -- that decision has not come in, we're still waiting. once we have that decision, we will inform you of our decision.

the bureau of security and investigative services which is the bureau of conservative -- consumer affairs, we have been working with them and for about a year now and this last year we had their inspector down in the city and we were able to go and check a lot of different permitted venues for -- cards. the good news is that i think we found out of all the venues we visited, we only found one that did not have a card. the messages out there. we have seen a big improvement. this has been a concern to this commission, we are starting to see a tipping point going the other way. the bad news is that we're also doing following up on two different companies operating here in san francisco.