other workers of the restaurant. they need to share in the original three minutes by the rehearing requestor. they are not outside part -- parties for public comment circumstances. president hwang: are there non-affiliated parties who wish to speak? >> how many workers are here? >> thank you. assuming there are no other members of the public who would like to speak. >> i have a few questions of

inspector hong. one of the points raised by the requestor's attorney that was not in any paper submission relates to the abatement hearing and the ability or the failure of the requestor to bring documents that would have shot that he had corrected those deficiencies -- sean that he had corrected those deficiencies. with that -- shown that he had corrected these deficiencies. would that have made a difference? >> we have seen these pictures before and they can be cleaned up and we have witnessed that and that is why we continued to work for the last three years. it is the custom return and cycle that does not end.

it was not about showing as a piece of paper. president hwang: -- -- showing us a piece of paper. president hwang: if you were to inspect today which has been suggested by the speakers, would that make any difference to you if it looks like a clean the shop? >> again, no. the reason we're here because -- are because of operational problems. a clean-up operation can be done over a weekend. we know that can be done. i am sure these pictures proved that to be the case. after working since 2007 and violations since 2010, it is the operational problems that lead to these structural or other for graphics -- photographs you have seen before you. president hwang: since this is

your jurisdiction for inspection purposes, you testified here today and at the prior hearing on the merits that this is the worst situation, worst case circumstances you have seen in 12 years you have been doing this work which is compelling testimony. i think one of the speaker stated a lot of other restaurants in chinatown are watching this case carefully. are you using this case in any way to set an example for the rest of the community? >> no, ma'am. i agree. they're watching this to see of the person so far out of compliance -- most of the restaurants are in compliance. to see that this allied air -- outlier would have a chance would send a reverse message. >> i have a question.

if you're able to answer this question. how dangerous is it to have these conditions where people are eating food out of an establishment like this, particularly for children or elderly people? how dangerous is it? >> dangerous for all people but you bring up a good point. we know scientifically that the immune system of children and the elderly and that is the predominant population in chinatown do not have the immune systems we have. when you get sick or you think you have a cold, it could come from food poisoning. probably the most underreported type of illness that people have. >> thank you. vice president fung: you had a long and extensive history with this appellate and his restaurant prebon -- appellant

and his restaurant. >> two years. vice president fung: during that time, is this the only person you have dealt with? >> no. vice president fung: are there other people involved on a management basis? >> the workers who have been there in the past or sometimes he has had people who have identified themselves as his friends who wanted to help him. vice president fung: no partners or anything like that? >> i have not met any. identify themselves as partners. -- identifying themselves as partners. >> you have been the inspector in this area for two years? >> i took over in late 2010. the documentation is mostly mine but the prior inspector.

the 2010 evidence was from the prior inspector. >> how many meetings or hearings did you have with the restaurant during that time, at least when you were involved? >> typically it would be as little of -- as to inspections a year. i made 10 inspections over the last two years and the last made 2 in 2010. one abatement conferences, we usually turn someone around. we have had three. we were trying to avoid were becomes more irreversible in terms of a decision. >> 3 abatement conferences and a hearing and -- >> i have had two and the

inspector before me also took him into an abatement conference. it was violated -- decided that the next violation would bring him in but we chose to string it along hoping there would be better compliance and partner in public safety and health. president hwang: thank you. vice president fung: i have a question for counsel for the rehearing requestor. you or whoever from your side. one of the largest issues here is whether your client after

multiple opportunities is going to be able to now toe the line, so to speak, with respect to something that is not rocket science. >> i understand that. i do believe at every hearing a plan will be in place. it is already in place to address those issues but part of the problem and again, it is a fairness issue. we're not judging the rehearing. what the department has come in and said is there is a systemic problem and i believe they said to the president's question, it is not a question if they did every inspection -- a re- 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,