inspection, the notice said there were three issues here. only in english. you have an abatement hearing because we have a notice of violation. they did not say this is a notice of a historical problem and you have not cleared this. i know that this is the department's position. their position does not conform with the notice the issued. the notice they issued, there is an issue of whether it was understood or whether it was understood to present the documents. the notice says three issues. three violations on the 22nd. it did not say whether you fix them or do not fix them you are done. we had enough. you need to show us that you have a new operational plan in place. there was none of that. that is the basis and that is a fairness basis for a rehearing.

there were only three items that were listed. vice president fung: we have heard this argument. thank you. >> i want to thank the people who came out to speak. that was compelling and very moving testimony. frankly, i am moved on one of these -- i one of these kind of people who want to give people another chance, but i have the images from the work done by the department to assist this individual, and those images are not going to disappear from my memory write off. the compelling testimony here by the public, i think is

important in informing my decision that it is going to have an impact on the community. this is something that is very important to many people that this restaurant stay in business. the problem from both -- if this were a hearing on the merits, the problem is it is too late. the rehearing request does require more material -- new material. this evidence existed at the time of the last hearing. from that standpoint and the standard we need to apply for purposes of granting a rehearing request has not been that -- met. i am not sure whether i would be persuaded to allow this business

to continue at this time. vice president fung: i have some comments, also. i would agree that the bar on rehearing requests is quite high and most of the presentations that were made really brought back most of the same discussion that occurred in the first hearing. the one part that was not focused on and perhaps can be considered to be new information relates to and it is only in the brief. it was only rarely discussed by the people here. talking about perhaps an infusion of for their finances. perhaps -- for their finances --

further finances. there is no doubt on a couple of things. the department has not been unsympathetic in the number of times they have proceeded to try to work out the situations here. the number of inspections, the number of abatement hearings, all these kind of things leads, i accept what they said in terms of what it meant and have not been accomplished by this operator. it is difficult for me to accep t that it is totally a language issue. it potentially could be. the number of times that this occurred leads me to not accept

that tollway. i do except, however, that it was a difficult economic time. i have no comments on what the construction did. most of us who know construction know that when you are dealing with old buildings adjacent to new construction, there is a difficult interface, whether it is from pests or dust and shaking of the facilities. and i considered what was presented in the brief in terms of financial infusion and additional management support to be new information. i would support a rehearing but i would add a caveat. only after the department has gone through and given it a clean bill of health.

>> i agree with what a lot of people said. it seems like the department of public health should not be in the present -- business of closing down restaurants. they -- or educate businesses on how they should run their business and it seems the department has done less -- done this in this case and it has given an opportunity for the situation to be abated. it is unfortunate that a lot of what has happened, the community that has come together here were coming at a late hour after a significant work by the city and the health department trying to fix these issues. >> would -- what i would add is

we did hear this case previously when we voted to uphold the revocation. given thehistory -- the history of that case and what we heard at that hearing, the fact that now a language barrier is being raised does not seem to me to be something i can rely on to find extraordinary circumstances. the fact that there is new economic support does not go to the heart of the issue to me, which is is about public health and protecting the public from dangerous good conditions. i don't see any basis at this point to grant every hearing in this case. it is very unfortunate, the economics? -- economic circumstances that

may be prevented this gentleman from fixing the problems and it is unfortunate the campus was built in his vicinity and affected his business, but all that does not go to the heart of the matter to me, which are the persistent violations over years and years. my feeling is that perhaps something should have been done earlier to force this restaurant to address these violations. the word reaches. they are egregious violations. i do not see any basis to grant a rehearing. i would vote to deny the rehearing. >> if there is no further comments. i would propose a motion. i will move to grant a rehearing with the condition that before the rehearing occurs that the health department inspection in

its entirety has to be completed before we reschedule the hearing. >> do you mean an inspection or they would have to pass an inspection? >> an inspection. >> an inspection would occur before the hearing date. >> we have a motion to grant this rehearing request with that condition. the dba to inspect this restaurant one more time. prior to the scheduling. -- the dph to inspect this restaurant one more time. on that motion, president hwang. >> to grant a rehearing on the inspection that takes place prior to the actual hearing?

all right. ok. aye. >> commissioner hillis, no. commissioner h -- hurtado, no. absent another motion, this rehearing request is denied. vice president fung: i would pose another addition that we continue this case and requests the department of public health do an inspection and then vote accordingly after that inspection. president hwang: i think it is

too late for that. >> no. vice president fung: move for a continuance. >> 3 votes would be needed to continue this case. on that motion, -- president hwang: we need a date. do you want to hear from the department on how soon they can do that? >> we have that, too. i am not sure about the composition of this board. perhaps we can hear from mr. hong. president hwang: how quickly could you reinspect the restaurant? >> probably sometime next week. with my supervisor's permission.

>> is there anything else, if you were to reinspect. it is not enough to look at the facility after and has been cleaned. what else could you require? >> hasenin repeating myself, the operational issues were proven over a long time and we have documented that and that has been prevented -- presented in front of the board. what i would be going there for its did someone clean -- for is did someone clean? we would not take a severe action we did if it was -- we did not think it was more than if you swept the floor or looked good for when i walked in. >> are there other things we can add to get more of -- something

that would help you, what you were looking for earlier at the abatement conference that could happen? >> i mentioned to commissioner fung, if he is determined to continue this. the most reasonable option would be to have him reapply for another permit. bring in partners who are accountable. the continuance of this would put mr. lei as a forefront person. if he should be the captain of a ship that has gone down on several occasions. if he wanted to come back in, to bring active partners, not just silent partners. the health department would accept the application. >> can we get at that through this motion? can we ask him to bring that information, not to apply for permits but commissioner fung

asked for reinspection. if they present you with an operating plan, a structure for the ownership and operation that is different and satisfactory to you. it would be he may bring additional partners. he has mentioned some of that now. but something, i am looking for help in crafting what i would like to see as an amendment. it is an inspection that you say it isand there is a new way of operating the restaurant. >> yes, and i appreciate your assistance, but i believe it would have to be built into someone who is replying. but we would go over all of those issues with someone who came in, and we're talking about sealing the entire basement area and waterproofing, and the operation, there's been

no way other than to deal with someone who had some sort of food safety experience and was an equal partner with him, so that is why i am suggesting that the new permit route would be the best option. if i am talking to someone, and they are not on the same, if this permit was reinstated, in my estimation, we would face the exact same problems. that is not to say that he could not apply again in some sort of partnership. if that person did have food safety experience and came to the meeting, they would be there seven days a week, as opposed to just putting my name on a piece of paper, that would go along way for the department to say maybe we are all starting anew. that can only be accomplished if we're talking about, you know, a new permit in my personal opinion. vice president fung: well, perhaps, that may have to happen

in that manner, but at this point in time, if they choose to respond to your previous comment, not only in terms of the sanitation aspects but also other things that you brought up related to how can they insure operational conformance to the health department's needs, that is up to them to convince you that they are bringing it forth in a believable manner. i would still like to see it come back here at this point in time. i cannot force them to do it. this is in addition to the standard cleaning of the facility, some level of operational planning that would

convince you that it is not going to repeat itself. >> commissioner fung, that has happened before. the whole reason we have to be convinced at some point, otherwise, as commissioner hurtado said, we were convinced. that is the reason we are here. we were convinced, let them, convinced again, let down, convinced again and let down. vice president fung: perhaps this board is full of optimists. >> i would just add on a personal note, being an asian- american appearing before this board, with a great support, the one less than i was a on a personal note is that one of the basement -- bravest things i have ever seen is my mother takes her car keys away from her 95-year-old father with tears in

her eyes. that was the right thing, and in many ways, that is why i am standing here, with the health department's decision. >> i think they understand that they have a hard road to hoe. president hwang: thank you for that personal attestation. something i was thinking about, and i have obviously been persuaded by my fellow commissioners' comments about this sort of very, very, very last chance possibility, but probation? is there some sort of probationary status where they must report to the health department, to you? in a particular way? >> to revoke their permit, we chose not to. for two years. president hwang: ok.

thank you. commissioner hurtado: i just to -- want to remind my fellow commissioners, we did vote to uphold. i do commend the the republic -- department of public health doing their job, for this restaurant owner, but, again, i would not vote to have a rehearing under any circumstances, given the testimony, given the prior testimony and the testimony we have today. president hwang: is your motion still pending? vice president fung: i would move to june 20. is that ok with you, madam director? director goldstein: that is ok

with me. it is a heavy calendar. it is the board's decision, and did you want to have a written report from the department or the other parties or just an oral presentation? vice president fung: i think they should be allowed to provide a brief, but given the time, can we accelerate it? director goldstein: so you want all parties to submit? vice president fung: same time. director goldstein: how many pages? vice president fung: 5 pages. director goldstein: this is to allow them to inspect the restaurant and to file a brief, five pages from all parties, and have them submitted prior to the hearing, all parties to submit at the same time. is that correct? vice president fung: ok.

secretary pacheco: on that motion to continue from vice president fung, three votes are needed. president hwang? commissioner hillis? commissioner hurtado? he vote is 2-2. three votes are needed to continue. i believe the prior motion would stand then. absent another motion. commissioner hillis: we talked about continuing, i do not know if we can revisit this, but adding more than the inspection? president hwang: what would those conditions be? >> -- commissioner hillis: that they come back -- i am trying to get to the reapplication. they would approve an operating plan and an ownership structure

that meet the operating requirements. commissioner hurtado: that sounds like a new permit to me. commissioner hillis: yes. director goldstein: may be a point of clarification from the department is in order, because i understand that in order for a new person to participate in the permit, a new permit is required, that they cannot add an additional party to the permit. i do not know if that is a correct understanding or not. they indicated that that is correct, suggested piece of information. -- so just a piece of information. commissioner hillis: so he could not sell 50% of his business? he would have to get a new permit in order to do that? >> that is correct, regardless of what a restaurant, or whether they were in complete compliance or not. vice president fung: commissioner hillis, the issue

here is that kind of ownership item could always occur at a future date. at issue here is whether our actions may create an acceleration of the time that would allow the operator to get back. president hwang: here is another thought. one of the things that inspector hong stated is that there was a food and safety inspector who was an actual operator, and i do not know in terms of business versus consultants, versus on staff, whether that would suffice if they attract the services of someone with that

type of expertise, but that would satisfy the department for purposes of operating this going forward. can you speak to that, inspector? >> sure. i think short of an equal partner with the ability to make decisions, it would be in my opinion tantamount into -- to someone you read had their license revoked for drunk driving. this is why i prefaced the opening comments from vice president fung at the very beginning. what is the easiest way that you see? that question i answered honestly. that to me would be the best way to go about it and give some comfort to the department knowing that they would be on equal footing. if you hire someone, you can always fire someone. you are giving the keys back to

someone who got us here. to put on a show, and for lack of a better word, and i want to believe it. food safety knowledge on equal footing. the department would get a sort of consultants. -- consultant. president hwang: ok. secretary pacheco: the motion was withdrawn. i will repeat the motion to continue -- vice president fung's motion to continue failed. therefore, the prior motion stands, which is a 2-2 vote to grant the rehearing request with a couple of conditions. therefore, without three votes,

the rehearing request is denied, and the order shall be released. director goldstein: director goldstein: the department of building inspection, legal authorized to use, no new work proposes. we will start with the appellant, aged. >> good evening, commissioners. first, i would like to congratulate president hwang as

the new president, and as i was not here for the last meeting, i want to thank president garcia for his many years of service on this board. from his first hearing, he was one of the most interesting and insightful commissioners and made this process better for his presence. the reason we are here on this matter tonight is basically a very small, very inexpensive dwelling units that would cost more than it is worth to be legalized through traditional channels. i met the owner, who is the second owner of this building. they have owned it since the early 1960's. i met the other at his job at lowe's, and we were talking

about how we try to get a permit to remodel a dwelling unit and was told he could not get a permit because the house was listed as a single family and a store. he was instructed to get a 3r report, and the report came back with three addresses but still said facing all family plus store. i told him there was a reasonable shot and that there were things in the record that indicated the record is incorrect, and as you can see in the materials i submitted to you, there are materials that suggest the record may be incorrect. there was a permit issued in 1952 that did not really clarified what its work really was, whether it was on a new unit or the flat behind the store, and i would ask this board to use its discretion to

retain this housing. it is clearly only going to be affordable housing ever in the future. if they are unable to legalize it through this process through a correction of the record, there is very little option left for this family but to simply return this potential living space to storage or to service for the laundromat. there are a few pictures, if i can go to the overhead. thank you. come on. do your thing. ok. this is the planning information database, which shows, you can see the address is 801-803 russia and another on athens. down below when it says unit counts, it says