Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening and welcome to the March 25th 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. One moment, we have a little interference here. Thank you. President John Trusvino will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Vice President Rebecca Soroyan and Commissioner Robin Abad-Ocubillo. Commissioner Jose Lopez is absent tonight. At the controls is the board's legal assistant, Alec Longway, and I'm Julie Lamar, the board's executive director. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. Up front, we have Jennifer Calabort, Director of Environmental Health, Department of Public Health, Megan Ryan, Deputy City Attorney representing the Department of Public Health, Michelle Vega, Principal Environmental Health Inspector with DPH, and Ivy Fang is joining us, I believe, remotely. She's a Code Enforcement Investigator with DPH. The board meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. No eating or drinking in the hearing room. The rules of presentation are as follows. Appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Mr. Longway, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Since we have a vacancy on the board, three votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules, or hearing schedules, please email board staff at boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. SFGov TV is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. To watch the hearing on TV, go to SFGov TV, cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast on Fridays at 4 PM on channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sfgov.org forward slash boa. Now, public comment can be provided in three ways, one, in person, two, via Zoom, or three, by telephone. To attend via Zoom, go to our website. And under the calendar, click on the link next to today's date, and then click on the blue rectangular box that says Zoom link for hearing. If you want to attend by telephone, please call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 918-0315-9722. And again, SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or broadcast. To block your phone number when calling in, first dial star six seven, then the phone number. Listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. You may have to dial star six to unmute yourself. you will have three minutes. Our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and livestreamed on TV and the internet. Therefore, it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their TVs or computers. Otherwise, there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants or attendees on Zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to Alec Longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. Please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. Now, we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the Sunshine Ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

OK, thank you. If you are a participant and you're not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. So commissioners, we have one announcement. I have rescheduled items 4A and 4B to April 15, since we don't have a quorum for those items. Vice President Soroyan must recuse herself from hearing these appeals. And Commissioner Lopez is absent. We do have two housekeeping items. In the first matter, the parties for item 5, jurisdiction request number 26-1 at 158 15th Avenue, have asked that this matter be continued to April 15th so that they have more time to try to resolve their issues. I will need a motion to continue this matter, but first I will call public comment. Is there any public comment for item 5 continuation? I don't see any, so I do need a motion.

Then move to continue item 5 to April 15th.

Okay, on that motion, Vice President Soroyan? Aye. Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

That motion carries three to zero, and that matter will go through April 15th. The second housekeeping matter, the parties for item six, appeal number 26-008 at 460 to 462 Vallejo Street, have requested a continuance to April 29th, so they have more time to work on their issues. I will need a motion, but first I will call public comment. Any public comment for item six? I don't see any. Nobody on Zoom. So do we have a motion?

Move to continue item 6 until the April 29 meeting.

Okay, on that motion, Vice President Soroyan? Aye. Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

That motion carries 3-0, and that matter is continued to the 29th, April 29th. So we are now on item number one, general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda? OK, I don't see anybody on Zoom. So we're going to move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. I just want to welcome everyone to this meeting this evening and express my appreciation on behalf of the board for accommodating our time necessity. And without any further ado, I have no further comments. And my colleagues? Well, we can move forward to the next item.

OK. Let me just check. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any. So we'll move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion on possible adoption are the minutes of the March 11, 2026 meeting.

So moved.

OK. Is there any public comment on this motion to adopt the minutes? I don't see any. So on that motion, President Trasvina?

Aye.

Commissioner Abad?

Aye.

That motion carries three to zero and the minutes are adopted. So we are now moving on to item number seven. This is appeal number 25-059, Jing Wang and Leon Wang versus Department of Public Health. Subject property, 3446 Balboa Street. Appealing the issuance on December 19, 2025 of a director's order from the Department of Public Health, which was issued to Richmond Serenity Spa. Revocation of massage establishment health permit and imposition of... $7,500 in administrative fines for solicitation of lewd conduct or prostitution and engaging in lewd conduct or performing sex acts. The business owner shall be ineligible for a massage business permit for five years from the date of permit revocation. This is permit number ME120465. And as a preliminary matter, I believe the attorney for the appellants would like to make a request to continue this matter. So the parties will have three minutes to address the board on that request. You can choose to vote on this matter, or you can choose to not take any action.

Thank you, Julie. Welcome. I'm Paul Horcher, a retired city employee, now an attorney, and my clients are here. I want to introduce them. Jing Wang, can you stand up?

And Lian Wang.

I'm calling asking for a continuance because, not to be an obstructionist, but some things happen in the next 24 hours. Unexpected, there was a, hope I'm doing this right.

Overhead, please.

Thank you. Something was published in the Mission Local, somewhat inflammatory. And some things were good, some things were very, very negative. It's a mixed bag, but it's the things I have to deal with and address. It has had an impact. I've had some calls today, as a matter of fact, from people who would like to get involved. Talk's cheap, but we'll see what happens. They've had some dealings with Sergeant Glenn. and perhaps would like to testify and or supply a declaration. And it takes time to do that. And obviously, I don't have time to do that overnight. This article was published last night at 4.57. And if you want to take time to read it, I know it's up to you. But it's something I have to deal with and something I need to address on behalf of my clients. So another thing I was worried about, also I have an expert witness, Lieutenant Kilroy, who's retired vice officer of San Francisco. I hope he's online now on Zoom. I know that the preference of the board is to have people here live vis-a-vis Zoom, and he would prefer to be here also live. So that would, I'm not talking about a long continuance, but just maybe at the next meeting or sometime in April, I would think, would be fine. These people have spent 10 years on this business, and there's a very strong... I hate to see them lose their business for expediency. I also found out this morning that there would only be a bare minimum here of quorum three. Now, I expect to be opposed in this motion by the city attorney, and she has told me she's going to oppose this motion. All she needs to do is get one person to agree with her, and my client sunk. So I'm going to ask you for a continuance on this matter. to the next available hearing. That's all. I don't think I need much. Also, I wanted to also, there were some, in the city attorney's opposing brief, there were numerous misstatements and, frankly, cheap shots that I would like to address. It would take me like 10 minutes of talking. And if I have another chance, I can address that in a brief. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now hear from the Department of Public Health.

Good evening, commissioners. Megan Ryan from the city attorney's office on behalf of the Department of Public Health. The Department of Public Health opposes the continuance of this matter. I would say the most important reason is that we have evidence that this business is operating as a brothel. And at present, given the appeal, the permit revocation is stayed. So they are continuing to operate at present. And we would like to get a resolution on this matter and move forward, given the city's grave concerns about what is happening at this business. I'm not sure of what the relevance is of the Mission Local article brought up by Mr. Horcher. I read the article. People file appeals, and those appeals are put on a publicly accessible web page. Sometimes the press takes notice and writes articles. And I imagine this is not the first time the press has written an article about some matter that is before the Board of Appeal. I personally did not see anything in the article that looked like it wasn't something that came directly from the pleadings filed by appellants or filed by respondent DPH or filed by a member of the public. I see that there's five public comments that were filed in support of DPH's position on this. I think that press happens and there's no reason that we can't continue the hearing tonight. In terms of the professed expert for appellants, Mr. Kilroy, it sounds like he's available to testify here on Zoom. I didn't hear any reason given for why he couldn't be here in person. So I think we're prepared, and we should get ready to proceed. And in terms of a quorum, we have a quorum here tonight. The Board of Appeals is permitted to move forward with a three-person panel, and we're ready to go on. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? Anybody on Zoom? Commissioners?

Vice President Soroya, you're recognized.

Thank you very much. I'm looking at our board rules, section 7. It says, at the time of hearing upon the request of any party, the board may grant rescheduling requests or continuances for good cause shown. May I ask the deputy city attorney to provide us with a working definition of good cause for purposes of this request for rescheduling, please?

Jesse Minardi, deputy city attorney. I mean, that's really within the board's purview to determine. It's not a set definition. It's more, has the party given you what you think is a legitimate reason that both the parties and the board could benefit from the extra time?

So there's no working definition of good cause?

There's no standard, no. It's a determination the board has to make that it's something constitutes good cause, yeah.

All right.

Well, I thank the requester for making the request and asking us to consider it. My inclination is that we should go forward today. But I say for the record, with regard to the particular article, I was made aware of it late yesterday, probably right around the time it came out. If you say it came out at 4.57 p.m., I made a point not to read it. Typically, when matters are, when there's extra information beyond the record, we have, I think, 245 pages in front of us. I make it a point, and I won't speak for my colleagues, but I think in general we try not to look at things beyond what's there before us. That being said, I have looked at the 245 pages, and I have a lot of questions. And I anticipate, without prejudging the testimony and the materials that we already have or the views of my colleagues, I anticipate that it's going to be very difficult for us to have everything that we need in front of us to make a decision. tonight. We have, in the past, continued matters. We've heard testimony. We've heard the initial arguments. We asked questions. And then we send the parties away with a list of things that we need, including asking the city attorney for legal analysis and research. There's a good chance, I won't say, I'm not going to prejudge and say this is the way we're going, but I may have a lot of questions. So what I would like for us to do is to proceed as far as we can tonight. If we have enough to make a decision, then we will. Under our rules, the fact that we have not five members here is not ordinarily acceptable. I think to quote the rules, it's not generally a reason for continuance. However, if the vote is such that the absent member or members would make a difference on any dispositive motion, then we would typically continue the matter for that commissioner to review the testimony, the video testimony. assure us that he or she has read the record, and then they can come back and we would proceed at a later date. So those are some of the ground rules, some of the parameters within which we work. So my inclination would be to move forward today, but I will entertain a motion if there is one forthcoming in response to the request. If there is none, then we will proceed. OK.

Thank you. It looks like they're not going to vote on that. So we're going to move ahead with the case. So you will have seven minutes to present your case at this point.

But you may proceed to the dais, Mr. Horcher. But before you begin, what I would like for the city attorney to do is to lay the groundwork for what this hearing is going to be about, not the substance of it, but what our approach is and what our obligations are to address the matter. So Deputy City Attorney Minardi, if you could discuss the approach that the board properly takes in a matter like this.

Thank you, President Tresfina. Yeah, so the board in this matter is considering the director's order, and it's considering it de novo, which means that it is essentially considering the determination and the findings anew and placing itself in the place of the hearing officer to look at the underlying findings and ultimately the determinations and the penalties. And so you're looking at it anew. Qualification to that is that the director's order does contain administrative fines. Those are not within the scope of what the board would be considering. The board would be considering the underlying violations and then the penalty with respect to the permit, which in this case was a revocation and the ineligibility.

Vice President Soraya.

Thank you, Mr. Minardi. Could you please outline for us what is within our power to do in that de novo review in terms of action that we could take?

So the board may grant the appeal and overrule the hearing officer's determination and so overrule the order. It may deny the appeal outright and uphold the order in full. And then it may modify the order, but only to the extent that the hearing officer could have. And so that potentially could fall within basically two categories. One is the ultimate determination of the violations. And then ultimately, potentially, and this is an issue for, I think, discussion, the penalties that were assessed.

Okay, so modify. You said determination and penalty. So what exactly do you mean by determination?

So the penalties were assessed based on an understanding that in this instance that there was a solicitation of lewd conduct and then lewd conduct. So the board will consider whether, in fact, both of those, there was either a solicitation or lewd conduct or both.

Okay, prior fact. So we stand in prior fact.

And then at that, then you would move to the penalty phase as well.

And then do we have any ability with the penalty or is, I mean, I think that might be something down the road, correct?

That is, that may be an issue that we may want to discuss at some point, yeah.

Okay, thank you very much.

And if I could just follow up, Deputy City Minority, we are not necessarily looking at or finding error in the hearing officer's decision. We are reviewing, as the hearing officer was required to do, reviewing the department's determinations and order.

Correct. Yeah, that's correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Horcher. You have seven minutes.

Mr. President, you mentioned the hundreds of pages, and you're right about that. Would you rather just ask me questions, or is that it, and go rehash all the evidence and all the pages? What is your preference? How would you like to structure this?

Both sides are entitled to seven-minute presentations. You are not obligated to use all of it, but I can assure you if this hearing is like every other hearing, the questions will come following your presentation.

OK. In other words, there'll be time afterwards for your questions in addition to my seven. Is that correct?

That's correct. All right.

Did you want me to restart his time since he spoke?

Yeah. We can restart your time at 7 a.m.

Excellent. You know, I look back at the preliminary statement appeal, which is probably in your file as well. And that was done like three months ago. And it holds up quite well as far as a very distilled statement of the facts of what happened and didn't happen. Now, first of all, I want to introduce Mr. Paul Heide. He's the attorney in fact for Jing Wang. He wanted to address, there were some comments that were made. You're on.

I'll try to be quick here. I'm a San Francisco native. I've owned a house in Richmond for years. My girlfriend and later domestic partner and I got couples massages at the Serenity Spa. When Jing bought the commercial unit in the building with three residential units, I saw some red flags. They have no budget, no reserve fund, and when Jing greets people, they turn away and snub her. Basically, she gave me power of attorney to deal with the HOA. Reading their letter, I see that the residents have wounds and are lashing out in fear. I read all the letters that people provided. And they all expressed fear and basically write, we'll feel safe once we force these Chinese women's business out. But all the letters describe illegal activity that only exists in their imaginations. None of the complainers have ever been inside the spa nor spoken with the owners. They have a real fear of the business attracting predatory men. And that's the spa owner's fear, too. The spa has been advertising. They spent $7,000, $8,000 in ads advertising to women and couples, and that also tells the predators, we don't want you here. If a patron asks for a sexual service while staff can point to the sign on the wall and tell them, you've come to the wrong place, we don't do that, they still have to fear what that person's response is going to be. And this is where I think the city has failed everyone. Has DPH stepped back and considered, what's going on? The allegations of human trafficking and exploitation that we had a raid for are false. The raid yielded nothing. It's just a small business serving the neighborhood. Now, DPH could assist all spa owners by doing a couple things. Requiring spa clients to provide identification, same as if you go in a cannabis store. And then also giving spa owners a way to report inappropriate client behavior, whether it's blocking a driveway, demanding sexual services, or making threats. The fear of predators is genuine and shared by neighbors and spa owners alike. And DPH revoking the permits and licenses does nothing to address that. So I urge you to overturn DPH's decision and to revoke the spa's permits.

Thank you, Mr. Heide. Would you put on Lieutenant Kilroy, please? He's on Zoom, I believe.

Yes, Mr. Kilroy, please go ahead.

Lieutenant Kilroy.

He's, we'll pause the time. Mr. Kilmer.

Time is paused.

We see his name and he was there earlier. Maybe he stepped aside. Do you want to text him or reach out to him, somebody? Yeah. So we paused your time. Can we get, sir, can we get you to fill out a speaker card for the minutes? Because I haven't heard your name before. Thank you. While we're waiting.

Right to the right of the podium, there's a little card, thanks.

Mr. Kilroy.

Was he on earlier?

He's yes, his name is there. Raymond Kilroy.

Yes, I'm on.

OK, great. I believe Mr. Horch would like you to speak.

Lieutenant Kilroy. Yes, Sir. Paul Horcher. Would you begin your testimony now, please?

Yes. Good evening. My name is Ray Kilroy. I'm a retired lieutenant from the San Francisco Police Department, former officer in charge of the Vice Crimes Division. Over many years, I supervised numerous investigations into massage establishments, including cases that resulted in closure With that background, I reviewed the case against Serenity Spa with serious concerns. This entire action appears to be based on a single alleged incident. And importantly, the district attorney declined to file any charges on either a misdemeanor against the misuse involved. That strongly suggests the evidence was insufficient or the incident report itself was unreliable. There are clear problems with that report, It contains factual errors, including the wrong business location. It mentions recordings and photographs. However, none of these were given to the defense. It also claims the masseuse touched the undercover officer's genitals, something I never saw necessary to substantiate a violation that I was advised. What concerns me further is the DPH moved to revoke the permit after only one alleged violation. When I was in vice, we were required to establish at least three separate cases before determining that establishment was operating as a house of prostitution. The officers truly believed Serenity Squad was engaged in ongoing illegal activity. There should have been follow-up investigations. The owners also were notified for 30 days that a complaint had been filed. That delay prevented them from responding promptly or correcting any issues. Finally, the hearing process did not appear impartial. I was not allowed to testify, and Mr. Horcher was not given a fair opportunity to present his case. That falls short of due process standards that should guide any action as serious as shutting down the business. For all these reasons, I strongly recommend the appeal for Serenity's photography crowning. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lieutenant. I realize I don't have much time left. Would you please put the projector on, please?

Overhead, please. Thank you.

What you see before you is an incident report request that I filed with SFPD. I had to file it because DPH refused to give me the incident report. And when I asked for the incident report, they increased the penalties on my client from a fine to 60 days suspension. So I had to file this. And I got this nice reply from the police department telling me to get lost, which is why it was impossible and fruitless to even ask to get the recordings that Sergeant Glenn said he posted, I would never have gotten them, contrary to what was put in that brief. That's one of the reasons I need more time to brief that. One of the many things wrong in that brief that was done by the city attorney. Now, You'll see many, many errors in the incident report. They can't even get the address right. Four or five times, this was done by a sergeant, reviewed by a sergeant.

30 seconds.

You should have got it done right and didn't do it. That's the first page there. You'll see this repeated over and over again. Sergeant Glenn said the woman was like in her 50s. There were no women there under 60, 60, 65. Who knows what happened? Because he didn't interview anyone. He didn't get anyone's names. There's no proof. Apparently, all they were there for was overtime and DBH for revenge.

That's time. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We do have a question from President Chesvena.

Thank you, Mr. Horcher. I think I'm going to follow up your statement with my own questions. Your question was, who knows what happened? My question is, when did your clients know about the incident that we're here for?

Thank you for asking that. They waited 30 days before they told my client about this incident. They waited 30 days. They didn't give a hoot about public health. They didn't give a hoot about public. OK, you've answered my question. They waited 30 days. They waited 30 days.

So PD and public health waited 30 days. And as I recall from the record, The way they informed your client was through a visit.

A visit with a love letter called NOV, Notice of Violation.

As I recall from the document, it states that it was a routine visit. Is that correct? Yes, sir.

They found it. They did a sort of a health inspection, found everything was in order. It's a nice place. Everything was clean. Good hygiene, I think that was the word they used. And oh, by the way, here's NOV.

So do you know how often the, I'll ask the city of this, but do you know how often what are described as routine visits occur?

I've been handling these cases for a while. Generally, every six months they inspect a place. They can speak for themselves, but I think if they have a problem place, it's more often. But I think the general rule, every six months they inspect.

So is it your understanding that the visit, the routine six-month visit, that your client being informed of what occurred was triggered by a visit rather than by the incident itself?

I'd be speculating. That's a smart question, but I would have to be speculating.

I will have more questions later on. Vice President Soroyan.

I have a question, and I think I know the answer. But do you have a copy? of the recording from the police officer?

I never received it. The answer is no, I don't. I never got it. I asked for it repeatedly. I never got it. It would have cleared the air.

And when was the most recent ask either to the police department or the Department of Public Health?

I asked them several times. It's in the documents. I can tell you the exhibit number.

It's okay. So you do not have the copy?

I never got a copy. I got stonewalled.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

I just want to follow up Vice President Soroyan's question about what you have received in terms of audio and video. In the something of a transcript of the hearing officer's hearing, which was difficult to understand. But one thing I did read, which I want to ask you about, and it says, on page 96 of our record, this hearing is being audio and video recorded and will constitute an administrative record for each case. My question is whether you have received either an audio or a video record of that hearing in order for you to prepare for this hearing.

Yes, I received the video. I'll make a notation, though. All previous hearings are like the ones here. There's video of me when I'm speaking. There's video of you when you're speaking. In this case, there was no video of the hearing officer. And I think for the good reason she was making faces at me and scowling. She was totally hostile to me. I knew almost, Mr. President, I knew in the first 30 seconds I didn't have a prayer in that hearing. It was that obvious.

Mr. Horch, I did read that in the record, and you answered my question that you have a video record of the hearing. I have the video.

Yes.

Because we don't.

Oh, I think, no, sir, I included that in, it's an exhibit. You remember?

It was added as a link tab on one of the pages. It was too big to actually add as a video, but there was a link that you could click on and you could watch it.

It's a tab exhibit. I don't know how he did it. He's very clever. I stand corrected, but that is something that I have not seen. I don't know how he did it. I'm not sure whether my colleagues have. It's very clever. But you've answered my question. Thank you.

OK, thank you. No further questions. Or do you have a further one, Vice President Soraya?

Yes, I have one more question. Who provided the transcript of the hearing? Did you have it transcribed or was it provided to you, like the written transcript that was in the record?

It was more, I like your question, it was more of a captions vis-a-vis a transcript. So, I'm sorry. It was poor. It was almost, it was laughable. But I did get a laughable transcript. Inferior transcription.

OK. So my question really, and I think you answered, is my question is, who provided it to you? Did you have it transcribed? Or did the department provide you with the trans?

To answer your question directly, DPH.

OK. Thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We will now hear from the Department of Public Health.

No one's. May I proceed? I'm going to address a few points that Mr. Horcher made, but I would like to start with what I see here as a fairly simple matter, which is that in June of last year, we had an undercover officer go into Serenity Spa based on community complaints that had been passed from multiple city agencies to Department of Public Health, to police, from community members. And the officer at the time received both a sexual solicitation and the masseuse engaged in lewd conduct with the officer. Both of those are violations of Article 29 of the health code, and they come with serious consequences for a massage establishment. The Department of Public Health went out to following the receipt of getting this information from the police. They went to the business. It was approximately a month later. And they served them with a notice of violation that did outline in this inspection notice we were, Mr. Horcher was just discussing from July of last year, that laid out all of the allegations that were in the incident report, all of the description of the facts of what happened, which included a solicitation for a hand job and touching of the genitals of the police officer. This then progressed through the process and we ultimately had the decision from the hearing officer and I'll address some of the points that I heard earlier. But the facts here are fairly straightforward in the department's mind and if the appellants are trying to make some kind of argument that the police officer is lying, I have not really heard that exact argument to date. I'm hearing a lot of critiques, but I'm not hearing any evidence that directly contradicts that. So for example, one of the appellants in her declaration said that there were two massage therapists working on the day of the police undercover operation. There's no declaration under penalty of perjury submitted by either of them that such lewd conduct and solicitation did not occur. There was no testimony at the Department of Public Health hearing that such lewd conduct and solicitation did not occur. They are not here tonight. So there's a lot of critiques. And I hear an expert saying, oh, maybe the police were motivated by overtime pay. And if they do a late operation, they get overtime pay. But that doesn't really bear on the question of, did the lewd conduct and did the solicitation happen? And the police officer filed the incident report. repeated the same information in a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury, and testified at the hearing under penalty of perjury. And by the way, there is a link. And actually, it was quite a robust hearing. It was almost an hour-long hearing. Mr. Horcher had a chance to cross-examine the police officer, and he did so. And while the transcript that DPH provided does have some errors, the actual video hearing is pretty good. It's not 100 is every word. There are a few words I can't hear in it when I listen to it, but it's pretty good in my opinion. That's what happened. I think the facts here are really straightforward. And under Article 29, the consequences for a massage business when one of their practitioners engages in lewd conduct is permit revocation for five years. That's the consequence, as well as with the penalties that are discussed. That's the law and that is what the DPH is seeking and that is what the hearing officer awarded. To address a few of the points that appellants made, first this is my first time hearing I think his name was Paul Hyde. Apologies if I got that wrong. And I'm a little confused about his testimony, but I did hear him say that he represents the owners in dealings with the Homeowners Association. So he's their agent. particularly seem like a neutral party to me. And it sounds like he's sort of saying that some of the, you know, this spa is on the ground floor of a building. There are some units up above. But when I looked at the community complaints that were submitted to the Board of Appeals, I see quite a few complaints from people who say they live across the street from the spa or elsewhere. So there are some comments where people seem to indicate that they are not living in the actual building. As for retired Lieutenant Kilroy, I want to point out that his declaration is part of the record here, considered by the hearing officer. He retired from SFPD in 2001, so his information is 25 years old. And he's not familiar with the current practices of police and undercover operations in San Francisco in trying to get information to prove both solicitation and lewd conduct. And furthermore, while he may have an opinion about how one violation maybe shouldn't lead to permit revocation, that's not the state of the current law in the health code in San Francisco. Lastly, there's a bunch of allegations from Mr. Horcher about retaliation by the department. That didn't happen. There were some mistakes made, administrative mistakes, and you can see in the record there's a few different notices of determination that were made. about what the actual consequences were supposed to be for a massage business. 30 seconds. Thank you. And those were corrected. And each time Mr. Horcher was given full notice, the hearing was moved back to accommodate those changes. And in terms of the, I think I'm going to get asked anyways, about the recording from the police, the Department of Public Health doesn't have that recording. So they were asked for it, but they don't have it. And in terms of the request to the police, the request was for an incident report.

Thank you. That's time.

OK. Thank you. I see a question from President Tresvino.

Thank you for your presentation. I apologize. Can you remind me, are you with the department, or are you a deputy city attorney?

I'm a deputy city attorney.

OK, great. So please feel free to call on your colleagues on some of my questions. How many massage licenses are there for the city?

I'm definitely going to have to get some help on that one.

Hello, Michelle Vega with the massage program for DPH. We have roughly approximately 120 massage establishments currently permitted with DPH at this moment.

So is that to say that the party here is one of 120 licensees?

Correct.

And how many violations have been found or issued in the past year?

I can't give you a ballpark number for that, but I can tell you for this location, this is the first.

I'm not speaking about this location. I'm speaking of the 120. How many have been found to violate Article 29?

I don't have that number for you at this moment.

Okay. And then would you also, my other question is how many have been penalized with the revocation or the five-year, is it five-year revocation?

Yes.

How many revocations have been issued?

Zero this year, with an exception for this case.

Okay, great. And for the, thank you, for the Deputy City Attorney, you mentioned that the other employees of the establishment are not here. Is the officer here?

The officer is not here. Again, and that was purposeful, and let me explain why. When he testified at the Department of Public Health hearing, we had him testify via Zoom with the video shielded. And that's because he's the only officer who does these kinds of operations in San Francisco, and we want him to be able to continue to do undercover operations in the city. But his declaration, we have in the record both his declaration, the police report, and his direct testimony and his cross-examination testimony and redirect that took place at the director hearing level that's in the video and in the transcript.

OK. And is... Okay, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. I don't see any or we ask Commissioner Abad.

Yes, thank you. Hi. Hi. So I'm just trying to understand the procedure, I guess, and the tactics that the departments or the department's public health police department deploy in order to try and establish that, you know, activity or conduct at a business is in violation of safety codes, of health codes. So we do have the sworn declaration from the undercover police officer stating what he experienced or he says transpired. Is there any kind of contact or an interview that's conducted with the other person in the room whose behavior is allegedly untoward? And how is that documented?

Do you mean does the police officer generally have a conversation with the masseuse after receiving a solicitation?

No, I mean, the undercover police officer makes a statement. This is what happened in the room, right, and submits that. Does the apparatus, whether that's the DPH apparatus or the police department, also interview the person who the police officer says engaged in this activity? Is that a part of the course of how these incidents are investigated?

I'm happy to turn to my colleagues on this as well, but my understanding is that generally, no. Generally, we get the evidence, and part of the goal here is generally not to prosecute or go after the woman who has made the solicitation. There's a lot of reasons for that, and sometimes it's not her choice. But to rather go where the people who are making the money from the woman's work and to focus on that. And so usually we get that evidence, and then a notice of violation is issued to the owners of the establishment. It's actually similar in occasionally, well, it doesn't matter on that. It's how it works for DPH generally. Is there anything you want to add to that?

Hi, Jen Calloworth, the Director of Environmental Health for DPH. I just want to add that it is also common that during the director's hearing process, that is also the opportunity to hear from any of the testimonies that maybe the business owner would bring. So we have heard testimony from the actual massage practitioner at the hearings as well. So that's another avenue in general to give due process.

Thank you. That's really helpful. I'm just trying to understand if we ever hear from the practitioner, not because I think that there should be some route to prosecution of that individual, but just trying to understand how truth is established about what happens in the room.

And we do have standards when we go in and issue notices of violation, where we do try to speak with the practitioners. It is very difficult to have practitioners speak with our investigators due to multiple reasons based on their situation.

Absolutely understood. Thanks for clarifying.

Thank you. We have a question from Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening. Hi. So I'm trying to connect the dots. And I was hoping maybe you could walk me through section 29. I quickly looked at it. And I did find that in 2917, it speaks about lewd conduct and solicitation. And then I go to the violations and administrative penalties under. And I'm just trying to understand. And so please tell me where I'm wrong. So section 2945, violations and administrative penalties under solicitation. Let's see. I'm at. Number three, A3, section 29.45, solicitation of lewd conduct or prostitution in violation of section 29.17, where we are. A, administrative fine, $5,000, which we are not able to address. It says B, permit penalty, mandatory 60 to 120 days suspension of massage establishment permit. And then repeat violations, revocation, permittee ineligible for a subsequent massage establishment permit at any location for a period of two years. So please tell me, where am I wrong and where is the automatic trigger that I understood from the pleadings where you get to five years where I see a more progressive discipline if I'm in the right section? Maybe I'm not.

You actually are in the right section. You just have to scroll down a little bit more or go down a little bit more. So you're looking, 29.45 is the right area. Yes. And A3 is what I think you're just discussing, which is related to solicitation, right? Like the act of asking someone for money in exchange for sexual services.

Well, it's a solicitation of lewd conduct or prostitution. So it's both, I think.

But if you go down to 29.45A12, that's specifically about lewd conduct. So if... The act of lewd conduct occurs, which here was touching the officer's genitals and perineum. That then triggers the five-year suspension.

I see. So that's why you tacked on an additional $2,500. Did they not realize that both penalties were triggered at the time? Is that why there were subsequent notices?

Oh, the department? Yeah. I think there was just confusion about that 29.45A12 was triggered. And it's actually, as written, it's not discretionary. It's mandatory.

Okay. Well, thank you for helping me find the right sections. I guess I'm a little perplexed because if we're supposed to act de novo and review what was at the hearing, I do feel that it would be helpful for us to have some resources that are additional as if we're standing in the shoes of the hearing officer having the officer available. Whether it's on Zoom, he can darken himself out. And to stand in the shoes of the hearing officer, which is what I understand our duty is under de novo review, I'm feeling like I don't have all the resources to stand in the place of the fact finder. That's just my opinion.

I guess I would just make the argument that even when I go to court, we often are able to sometimes submit evidence via sworn declaration. And certainly when we're on appeal in the Court of Appeal, even though a Court of Appeal also may have a de novo standard to review the underlying record, we're actually generally limited to the underlying record, and the Court of Appeal will review, for example, the testimony that happened below. So certainly I think the Department can respond to the Commissioner's wishes in this case, but I would just make the argument that the full record below, including the testimony and cross-examination, is there.

And so because DPH does not have, from what you said, a copy of the officer's recording, have you yourself been able to listen to the recording of the officer? Supposedly, I think he had a hot wire or something like that.

I don't have that either, no.

So you yourself haven't reviewed it? Correct. I mean, really what I'm saying is to verify the accuracy or the veracity of the incident report.

That's correct. I have not listened to the recording. The department hasn't either. We generally often rely on the officer's declaration and report. and go that way. And I would also say that the burden here was on appellants to make that request of the police, which they did not do. OK. OK. Thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. We're going to move on to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who wants to provide public comment? Anybody on Zoom, please raise your hand. I don't see any public comment, so we're going to move on to rebuttal. Mr. Horcher, you have three minutes to address the board.

She couldn't resist getting that last cheap shot in. As I mentioned before, I did ask the city police department for the incident report because DPH would not give it to me. Police tore me down, told me to get lost, so I meant if they're not gonna give me the incident report, they're not gonna give me the photographs or the recording. The recording exists. If they got the incident report, they can get the audio report. Obviously, I can't. I showed you the love letter they sent me. They told me to get lost. They're never going to send me anything. So I don't appreciate the cheap shot. And once again, that was bid me few. One important thing she said, they never, DPH, never. And I would like to thank you very much, Commissioner. They never interviewed the masseuses over there. Never. And furthermore, without that recording, they never met their predominance. They never predominated. They cannot prove what happened. All I can see there, you had four officers working from 4 PM, exactly when overtime started, from 4 PM to 7 to 7.30, making thousands of dollars in overtime. without making an arrest, without determining who was there. They chastised me. Well, why didn't you get a statement from their witnesses? How could they? They didn't identify them. We didn't know who was in there. How could they make that statement? It was so easy for the office. They waited, as you pointed out, Mr. President, they waited half, 30 days before we even found out about it. When everything's stale, we don't know. They should have told us immediately. If they were concerned about public health like they say they are, if they were concerned about public safety like they say they are, they would have told the owners immediately so the owners could have taken action and fired that person before the public is harmed. They didn't do that. They were blinded by greed to get overtime, by revenge to even something out that happened four years ago.

30 seconds.

As I said before, within a few seconds, 30 seconds in that hearing, I knew I didn't have a chance. That thing was never, that thing was, I had no chance of getting a fair hearing. In fact, during a hearing, I told that hearing officer at least four times, maybe five times, you'll see that on the record, You've got to give them a fair hearing. It was like talking to death. And she says, stop interrupting me. Stop interrupting. I'm not interrupting. I'm objecting. Thank you.

That's time. Thank you.

OK, thank you. We will now hear from DPH. You have three minutes.

Thank you. I would just urge the commissioners to uphold the decision of the director, the director's hearing order issued in January revoking Serenity Spa's permit for five years and assessing penalties. I think the evidence here is fairly straightforward. We have an incident report, a declaration under penalty of perjury, and about of the hour hearing, and by the way, that was supposed to only be seven minutes each side there, but it was an almost an hour hearing, about half an hour of that is testimony from Sergeant Glenn and his cross-examination. There's quite a bit of evidence of him giving testimony. What I hear Mr. Horcher saying, him giving testimony about the lewd act and the solicitation that occurred in June at Serenity Spa, what I seem to hear Mr. Horcher saying is that the standard here should be that the department somehow needs to get the massage practitioners to make an admission on the record that they engaged in these acts. And A, that's not the legal standard, and B, that's completely impractical. I don't think anyone's ever going to do that. In particular, we would be concerned if that were the standard, because frankly, I think many of these women sometimes are under pressure to say certain things based on their employer being in the next room. So I think the evidence here is quite straightforward. There was a robust hearing, and I There's a lot of allegations being thrown around. I don't think there is any basis to them. And again, in terms of misconduct on the part of the city side, I think these are efforts to try and come up with an argument when there has not been evidence presented to counter the testimony of sergeant glenn and the department of public health so i would just urge the commissioners to uphold the order from the director from the director's hearing thank you okay thank you you can be seated there are no questions so commissioners matter submitted

Thank you for both sides presenting tonight and presenting the materials that you have provided to us. I am not convinced by the city's presentation that this severe penalty should be upheld. According to Ms. Vega, This is the only – we've got over 100 licensed massage establishments in San Francisco. This is the only one where the city has found a problem. Incredible. This is the worst one, apparently. And we also have testimony that it's based upon a complaint or a series of complaints that, as I read the record, the complaint started in December of the previous year. No police action, not until June 17. And then the incident occurred. We don't have the officer here. Officer was the earlier hearing, but not at this hearing. I think I and others would like to know what occurred there. What happened after the act was, I guess, consummated, if that's the right word. I don't know how it ended in terms of the officer just walks out. No checking on who the individual was. These women are often victims. You know it. You're professionals in public health. No asking your name, no giving a piece of paper saying, if you're being trafficked, if you're being victimized by an employer, call a nonprofit organization. Call the victim services. No parent follow up, not even any name for anybody to follow up. And then, again, in the record, it takes a month for public health to inform the proprietor of what happened the month before. How is anyone going to defend against that? And even at that point, it's luck that it occurred a month after or that the visit occurred, which says on the DPH record, it says it's a routine visit. Not a complaint-driven visit, but a routine visit. If the calendar cycle had been different, maybe this would have gone on for months before they said, oh, by the way, we have this problem. No follow-up in terms of the criminal side. And as the city witnesses or representatives alluded to, the sensitivity on the part of San Francisco to the plight of sex workers, if that's what is here, So they don't go down the criminal line, but that's a recognition of a potential victimization, but no follow-up. So then we get into the allegations about ramping up ramping up the penalties, not really addressed, in my view, well by the city. And then we get to the underlying hearing with the hearing transcript the witness that were there, I don't feel that in this de novo hearing that the city has met its burden, that the incident occurred the way it stated, and that given the level of penalties that are before us that this proprietor is the worst offender of all the masseuses in San Francisco. Because as Ms. Fannin said, this is the only one that has this sanction, that is facing this sanction. So there's so many questions I have here that I cannot uphold the sanction. Vice President Soroyan?

I concur with you, President Trasvinia. Five years is a long penalty. And I know the city attorney says it's simple, but it seems like an awfully severe penalty. And I don't think that what we've seen, at least what I've seen in the record presented, meets the burden. We have a couple options. We can ask for a continuance, gather some more information. give the city another chance, or we can entertain a motion to grant the appeal. Am I putting you on the spot, Commissioner Abad? I think I'm going to.

I would concur with both of you. I'm really interested in listening to this recording. I mean, there's a recording of the past hearing, and we have the statement submitted by our undercover police officer, Officer Glenn. And so I don't know if there's any impediment or if requesting and having recourse to hear that for ourselves is a possibility. As I stated earlier, I'm having a hard time understanding what the protocol is for establishing the facts and the truth. And I do feel like several degrees removed from any of that primary information or testimony. So a continuance with more information is something that I'm very inclined to agree with.

Thank you, commissioners. I do think that a continuant, we'd like to give the city the opportunity to present more, but both sides candidly to present more. I am, and I asked Vice President Soroyan and Commissioner Abad, the city has stated that the department has not listened to the underlying audio recording and neither has the city attorney's office. That suggests to me that while it may be important to the defense of the proprietor, and I believe it is of interest to us, the fact that they have not listened to it suggests that they are solely relying on the incident report. And so I'm not sure whether we would need to review or hear that underlying recording, I do think we should either see the video or hear the audio of the underlying hearing. I don't know why anybody presented to us that so-called transcript I don't, nobody went through it to edit it. This is something that if it is owned or under the control of the city, there should have been much better done, much something better. It says, it purports to represent the hearing, including the hearing officer saying, do you swear under penalty of mercury? The lead is due prior to making a decision. Any relevant, plausible evidence will be considered unadmitted and will be given. It is unintelligible. It suggests to me that that's not worth reading. If there's a video or an audio, that might be better. But I really have a hard time putting, I think we are not at a stage where we can either dismiss the hearing or give that transcript much validity. So let's decide what it is that we want to get from either side or both sides and have them share that and share it with us so that we can have a more fuller understanding of what occurred both in June of 2025, as well as the underlying proceedings. And then we will proceed from there.

I agree. Vice President Soraya. I agree. I mean, at a minimum, I'd like a revised copy and transcript. I understand the link is in the brief. But I mean, again, to reiterate, it says line 44.16. It's my one million daughter would say it is what it is. So this testimony is ridiculed with inaccuracies. And if that is what you're asking us to rely on to support the department's determination, it is not in a place where we can do that. And I think, so I would like a revised transcript. And I will make sure I watch the video myself. I am curious as to if we could get a copy of the police recording. I think I would like at least the city to listen to it to verify the incident report. If it's impossible to get that, I think at a bare minimum, we should have the officer who conducted the sting on call for a Zoom conference so that if we have questions, we're able to engage in an intelligent dialogue to answer our questions. Because we do have a responsibility to conduct a fair de novo review. So at a minimum, those two things. Can you think of anything?

Just the recording, curious about what

Both? Or the police officers? And have you had a chance to watch? I haven't had a chance to watch the video.

I have not had a chance to watch the hearing recording. Yeah. Although we have a, there's a, it looks like an AI transcription maybe of that recording. That's what that is. No, but your question was, can I think of anything else in addition to what you had just mentioned? Really the only other thing that I think I would like to hear is that hot wire recording. But I don't know if we're constrained or if there's a silo around that material.

I think the first step is to ask for what we need in order to fulfill our responsibilities and have the officer make a request to the city attorney's office for the officer to appear. And they can respond. Yes, no, or under certain conditions. And I'm wondering when either side would be ready to proceed with these, to fulfill these requests.

Our two hearings in April are full. I can check tomorrow to see if this room is available on April 22nd. Vice President Sorin is not available that day, but I do know Vice Commissioner Lopez is available as well. So either April 22nd or May 20th is our next one after that.

I would like to have it on a regularly scheduled hearing date. Ideally by that time we will have five commissioners, so that will help. The other commissioners can review this hearing. And I do believe that given the importance of the matters that we are, the one in particular recording we are requesting, that it should be provided to the appellants as well. So I think we want to have a deadline for submitting and then a deadline for briefs for us to accompany those matters and then a hearing date.

Okay. I believe Deputy City Attorney Minority wants to add an item.

Well, I would just suggest to the board that the board might also request with the briefing a discussion of the penalties under Section 2945A3 and A12 and the extent to which those are discretionary versus mandatory.

I concur. That would be excellent to include. Thank you, Mr. Minardi.

Okay, so we need to check with the parties. Would May 20th work for you? Mr. Horcher and DPH, May 20th?

I think so. April 22nd was not good, but I think May 20th.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. OK, well, yeah, I guess you can't check your calendar now. We can pause if you need to check your calendar.

I wish I had.

President Trasvinia? He's saying he would let us know tomorrow, but I think we should just continue it, and then he could make a request to reschedule if for some reason it doesn't work. We'll evaluate that request.

Anything can possibly go wrong. Well, we will reschedule it for May the 20th. And as you note from reading our rules, there can be requests for continuances granted. And I think given that it would be a calendar conflict, city attorney's office knows how to deal with those all the time. So if there's a problem, then you can work it out, we can work it out. But we'll set the next hearing on this for May the 20th.

OK. And so just to clarify for the record, the purpose of the continuation, what we have, so you're making this motion, President Trischina?

Vice President Saroyan, I believe, was formulating it.

I'm happy to make the motion.

OK, so Vice President Soroyan is making this motion to continue this matter to May 20 so that, one, we can get a revised copy of the transcript that is more accurate. Two, we can get a copy of the police recording Three, we can have the officer appear at the hearing on May 20th, either in person or via Zoom, however, whatever works.

However it's best for preserving his confidentiality. Right. Boy's face.

OK, thank you. And so how long are the briefs that are going to be allowed for this? President Chesina, three pages?

Not knowing what's there, I would say seven pages.

Okay, so you're going to allow a seven-page brief? Yes. Okay, and as part of the briefing, the commissioners would like a discussion of health code section 2945A3 and A12 and the penalties and a position on whether those penalties are discretionary or mandatory and what supports that. And anything else?

And any commentary on the... recordings that are provided right the briefs can discuss any commentary so okay on so the recordings either the new transcript of the hearing on the audio recording should be made available to the appellants prior to the prior to the Brief. Deadline of the brief.

OK. And when would you like DPH to provide a revised transcript? What date?

Well, we're now talking two months away, May 20 from now. So does the city know when that?

We should check. Are they able to make a corrected version of the transcript? Is that possible? I'm not sure how you generated that other one. If you could speak into the microphone. Thank you.

The transcripts, as were outlined, they come with the team's recording. So it's an AI-generated transcript. The department isn't required to produce a transcript. We're required, under the rules of director's hearing that are on our website, to produce the audio slash video. so we can make our best effort to take what AI has given us, because that was the public records request, so that's all we had. So we don't produce anything in that fashion. So I just want to clarify that.

Well, you don't produce it under the Public Records Act request, but I used to be a deputy city attorney, and I know you have access to court reporters. You can have somebody transcribe it.

Yeah, we don't do court reporters in our administrative hearings. But we can have it reviewed and edited if that's being requested.

Well, what's being requested is that the video or audio that you have of it already can be transcribed.

We can do that. We can edit what was produced by AI.

No, not what was produced by AAIA, but the actual, you're telling us you have, there's a video and an audio of the hearing, correct? Correct. And that can be transcribed by a live person who does that as a profession that the city attorney routinely hires.

Perhaps the city attorney's office could provide some resources for an accident.

That would take a live person. That video is not good.

OK, Mr. Horcher.

That's not going to happen. AI is not going to work it.

I've watched the video. I think the video is fine. I think that DPH can look at the transcript with watching the video simultaneously and make corrections to the transcript to the best of its ability. And that's how I think we should proceed. That would be my suggestion.

So then we are requesting a live person's transcript of either the audio or the video of the hearing.

Can you repeat that again, Commissioner?

Yeah, I'm trying to restate what you just offered to provide us, which is to have a member of the city staff listen to the audio and or watch the video and write down what's there, as opposed to what was provided by AI.

Yeah, I think that's right. We'll have a live person listen to the video and try and make sure there is as accurate a transcription as possible. That's correct.

Great. Thank you.

So now we're on to the date.

Just on the police recording, do you have an idea when you could have that to get to us?

I need to discuss that with the police department. Hopefully sooner than later.

Could you provide Julie with an update that she can share with us? Of course.

Wonderful. So Mr. Horcher should have that recording as well for his brief. So the briefs would, everything, obviously we want the briefs to reflect the review of the transcript and the recording. So since the briefs are due May 14th, Guess I'm the latest to give them two weeks to review maybe April 30th. I think that's That seems reasonable April 30th for the transcript and for the police recording and then you'll have two weeks to review those and incorporate your comments into a brief and

Whatever the board decides, of course.

But bear in mind, we'd like to- Come to the microphone if you're going to speak.

Thank you, Mr. President. I'll go with whatever the board decides. But bear in mind, we'd like to be able to rebut their brief. So maybe May 20th may not work.

Well, so do you want him to be able to rebut their brief? I mean, it's a simultaneous submission, right?

I can rebut mine. I'd like to be able to rebut theirs.

You will have a chance to rebut theirs at the next hearing.

It's a brief.

Well, your brief is going to be outlining your view of the police recording as well as the revised transcript.

We have intended to give both sides ample opportunity to address matters that we have asked for, asked about, as well as any other matters you want to address that you find relevant to your case that you'll be presenting on May the 20th. You don't necessarily need to rebut. Either one of you doesn't need to rebut, have a responding brief. That's what you can do at the hearing. So simultaneous submission of the briefs.

Okay. And so the revised copy of the transcript and police recording will be due by April 30th. And the briefs, the seven-page brief, double-spaced, minimum 12-point font with exhibits will be due by May 14th at 4.30 p.m. And I'll send an email to everyone with all this information tomorrow. But on, so what I did state the motion previously on that motion to continue this matter to May 20th for the reasons I just outlined. President Trasvinia.

Aye.

Commissioner Abad.

Aye.

That motion carries three to zero. So I will send everyone an email tomorrow just memorializing what was agreed to.

May I ask a clarifying question, please? Sure. As for the briefs, would the board like us to limit those briefs, both parties, only to the revised transcript, the police recording, and the penalty question? Or could the briefs be broader?

The brief can be broader, but we want the elements that we have described.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate your time.

Thank you very much. By the way, excellent staff. I haven't seen them in 10 years.

Thank you. That concludes the hearing.

There'll be no further business. We are adjourned. Thank you.