>> deputy city attorney jon givner. through the chair, yes, two amendments that supervisor avalos is, is introducing today. one would amend page 8 lines 20 and 21st ordinance which is the definition of apprentice level position. ~ 21 of the apprentice level shall mean a [speaker not understood] a worker endentured in apprenticeship program approved by the state of california industrial relations. i understand the purpose of this amendment is to clarify that, that the definition covers he apprentices who are currently apprenticing, not apprentices who have graduated from an apprenticeship program. so, you capture a wider pool. >> great. >> and the second amendment is on page 13 lines 8 and 9 amending the definition of prevailing wage to make it match up with similar definitions elsewhere in the code. so, if the definition would read prevailing wage shall mean the highest general prevailing wage -- prevailing rate of wage plus per diem wages and wages paid for overtime and holiday work paid in private employment in the co

let me just defer to jon givner, our city attorney. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. so, what this ordinance does is it applies to e-cigarettes the same restriction as they currently apply under the existing smoking bans in the health code. there is a provision regarding smoking in common areas in public housing. in existing law it prohibits smoking in those common areas and, so, i imagine that's what you're referring to. there is an exception for -- in existing law for smoking in one's own private home. >> thank you. thank you for the testimony. is there anyone else that would like to speak? then through chair yee, i'd like to ask if we can close public comment. >> i guess public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> so, did you want to say something? >> i just wanted to say thank you so much to everybody that's come out. it's really been an educational experience. i would strongly urge support for the resolution or for the ordinance. but i did want to say on the medical marijuana issues, it's not targeting anyone, it's about protecting the health and the air. and it's m

. >> deputy city attorney jon givner. the answer is a little complicated. there are different categories of, of people who can fill seats on this board. the board has to have at least four consumers, that is, people who have received mental health services in san francisco, and at least for family members, which is adult, children's, domestic partners or siblings of people who have received mental health services in san francisco. the statute -- i'm sorry, the ordinance that creates the board doesn't actually specify who needs to sit in which seats. so, in a way it probably depends on how many family members are currently on the board. if there are currently four family members on the board, then there would be no problem with a consumer holding that seat. the clerk's office generally has a way of tracking seats in order to, to make sure that, that at least minimally complying with the ordinance. but there may be another seat where a family member is sitting already. >> maybe -- could you come up and maybe you might have some information? >> it's rather a c