so mr. flynn if you want to share with us some of the main amendments that we had today wore 40 are the ordinance and if my colleagues have questions >> thank you, supervisor. so package you have before you on page 6 in subsection 3 b adds 3 new exemptions for which the local hire policy requires it is exempting the tenant improvements estimated to cost less than $750,000 for the building permit where it is contracted by tenant >> that's effectively the projects at the port that's where the request are for the amendment. >> that's correct. the request came from the port it was a multi department meeting headed up by oewd and the mayors task force and they discussed this exemption and 3 others 2 of which are in the packet but the port was the one that was put that forgot and there was a concern that is smaller tenants on port property would have a little bit more trouble matching the needs around the local hiring and prevailing wage and about local hire >> okay. >> the second exemption for projects

mr. oh flynn and the pope street is here. i firmly believe that we less invasive in the united states of america and we should have a right for a hearing. thank you. >> thank you. >> so we can hear from the determination holder next and the department and then we'll take public comment. >> good evening, my name is dan kramer, here on behalf of wallgreens. so in 2009 about fives years ago wallgreens requested a letter for determination for all wallgreens in san francisco to highlight the zones and what is required for wallgreens elect to pursue alcohol beverage licenses at any of the stores. with the changes in the zoning code and frankly the complexity of the code, wallgreens thought it was important 5 years later to request another determination to answer the same thing but given that there were some changes. we are unclear on some of the issues. mr. sanchez' letter provided a great insight as to what the procedures and policies are that wall combreens would need to follow in the event that it did elect to pursue beer and wi

talked to pat mulligan and with the city attorney who ron flynn that worked on the legislation to address their concerns both pat mulligan and mr. undermining said they answered all the questions but local 16 was raising the same questions over and over again, i i don't believe this it has been fully not answered i think it hadn't quite sink in the way it needs to. we had a hearing when this protective was before us two weeks ago and local 16 was there and ms. desmond the business agent for the union mr. court of appealsly who is - they didn't come to the podium with concerns so its ready to go we want to make sure as we are doing the great work of the city and opening up our land for events to happen that people can find arc and stage hand workers can work on the project i believe they'll be paid a prevailing wage so colleagues, i urge tore support and hope you can support me >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you to the maker of the legislation supervisor avalos i appreciate the work and appreciate you're answering my questions around some of the questions that local 16 raised yesterday i'm becoming more faurm familiar with the qu