that is the best we can do. >> you can also refer to it by putting it on the overhead projector if you want the board members to have a quick look at it. >> thank you for your courtesy. >> [foreign language] >> he agrees with all the findings of the public health department. he agrees with all the findings of the public health apartment. >> [foreign language] >> he asks to give him another chance in cleaning up the pl ace, which he has been doing constantly. his restaurant is a construction of the city college on the corner of washington street. for the last four years, his business has been dropped because of the construction he . he continued to open his business for the last four years. he realized that there is a health problem. he just asked for that we open this business and continue cleaning up. i will pay lots of attention to the health hazards. president garcia: would you ask your friend to comment on the fact that he now says when he is faced with revocation -- let me start it over. he talks about cleaning up when he is faced with revocation by dph, but how about all the other years when they were over and over and over again, pointing out what the problems were and ask him to take their problems and show a great deal of leniency. why didn't he do it in years past? >> [foreign language] >> he did clean up, maybe not thoroughly, but the problem is the construction of the city college right next door. all the blocking of his traffic right in front of his store. that will be his response to your question. >> thank you. we can hear from the department now. >> good evening, president garcia, commissioners. \ i am a senior environmental health inspector, i have a better restaurant inspector for over 12 years. food safety inspectors are charged with protecting public health by educating operators on the health code. we do so because patrons have the right to expect clean, sanitary, uncontaminated food. even more so for the elderly. in the fall of 2010, and i was upside to the southwest quadrant of chinatown. his restaurant was already on probation for severe and ongoing rat, cockroach, and sanitation violations. at an abatement conference, the department came to an agreement that if any of the violations returned, he would immediately be sent to the director of public health for permanent revocation. in april of 2011, i began my series of inspections. the condition i found was negligent, not only of violation of the prior year, but the intensity had increased. there were more rodent species in more places, more debris on the floors and walls and on the equipment. at that point, i have the authority to close them and send them to the previously mentioned director. i chose not to. we chose to give another chance to our restaurant that had just used up its last chance. typically, when i go there, we went back and i told them what they had to do. typically, he tells me that it is because of the decline in business. i've always had great sympathy for that. i expressed to him that the cause and effect between business and sanitation is a weak one. i think that if he really had a decline in business, he would have more time to clean and increases the better sanitation. a typical restaurant in good standing gets to inspections a year. it took eight inspections by this department and won the abatement conference to force him into compliance. i would like to show just a few pictures, right here. i just want to point out that obviously, there was a rat problem. they have packages that are more thorough in terms of my stint in this district. again, not so clear from the overhead projection, but the corresponding number of page 36 in the package, rat droppings in the dining room is very rare. at the very least, they would want to hide that. and we have the condition of the kitchen floor, you can barely make out that it is still the kitchen floor with the debris covering it. i want to move forward now to february 2012, i would say that i have been in every kitchen in chinatown either as an inspector for a chinese translator. i would have to say that on february 12, the conditions found is the most egregious i have ever seen. i was saddened that in reading his letter to the board, he mischaracterized my findings as the inspector found a small, a dead mouse. the photos that you have in front of you are an accurate microcosm of how he runs a daily operations. at that point in time, i suspended his permit to operate. i also want to show a few photos from that inspection. what you see in front of you, commissioners, a couple that rats in front of a mouse in tree holes. we also have an accumulation of rodent droppings. again, the kitchen floor that you saw a year later, after it was cleaned up and returning to that condition, i want to show you a picture of the that least 100 or 200 cockroaches under the freezer yet it. he is going to present you with his own photos. the health department has images like this to before. much like a realtor that stage is a house showing, it is sort of a facades of sanitation. it will the carrier rate again back to the conditions we have seen before. recidivism is not a matter of if, but how soon. he plays an endless game of cat and mouse with the department and with public safety at risk. the department has a due process system intentionally designed to give owners assistance. this owner has long exhausted these resources to no avail. on the fourteenth of march this year, the permit was revoked. i would humbly ask this committee, this board, to uphold the directors' decision of permanent revocation. >> any public comment on this item? >> i know you're coming back to give him a card, but you can do that later. what is the normal threshold for revocation? how many instances of what you observed, it would of been tolerated before it would of been revoked. >> i was going to address those issues in rebuttal, but i will address those specifically. the photos you have in front of you are as intense as i have seen. the conference's are not as severe or punitive. to work out with the owner how they can get past it or improve, there are three of them. typically, we are out of options so we move with the recommendation. for this specific case, it was three conferences in three years. >> with an ordinary restaurant be given this many chances? it is crumbling that somebody would of been allowed, the someone could have operated and patrons could of been the restaurant with this degree of problems. >> that is a fair question, and i think that you do notice that i mentioned that we went to eight inspections -- inspections in three months, and we got him into compliance. it was the return of the same problems that was the straw that broke the camel's back. >> it seems a fair amount of equipment itself is a problem, and i don't know how you can abate that without having to replace the equipment. >> of my findings are that the equipment is fine. again, it is about the commitment, the sanitation, or if this operator had the understanding. >> a broken or rusted colander would not have existed every time you went? there is a new problem and you might have to do with a restaurant colander or storage bins pretty rusty, storage space was pretty moldy. >> i think at some point, we were looking for partners. i mentioned that there are good operations, it is only twice a year. our hope is that after we have left the conditions, you are able to maintain that. there are 363 days a year that the health department is not looking over your shoulder. >> if you have been doing this work for 12 years and this is one of the most egregious or the most egregious in 12 years, in other cases where you have gone into restaurants in the same neighborhood where you might have got an inspection, what typically happens? is it common for restaurant owners to get that warning? to have some assistance as to how to proceed in elmore safe manner? and that is the end of its? i want to get a sense of how often you see this recidivism because of people don't know how to keep up and the cleanliness and the sanitary conditions? >> is pretty powerful, we're talking about the director's hearing were the permit is revoked, but a lot of operators get it. it is set up much like a court room. you face a hearing officer. for lack of a better term, it takes someone up. we haven't taken them yet, but we want them that the next step is going to be a directors hearing. >> what is your rate of the effectiveness? i want to get a sense of where the appellant falls. >> in my 12 years, this is my first time appearing here, so i pride myself in getting something turned around. that i am here speaking for myself, the success rate would be very high, short of this case today. >> year history here go back to 2010, but there is history in this case before that? gosh yes. >> let me interrupt you. if you want to go sit in the back with your friend at translate all of this so that he understands, that is more than acceptable. give him one second to get settled. >> the problems, you know, the serious problems and high risk problems are documented as far back as 2007 when inspectors before me road the same violations and the same issues we are seeing over and over again. they are corrected, otherwise they wouldn't be doing -- hoping that we have a partner that has not gotten at the conference, showman there are steps that the permit can be revoked. we have to assume that someone gets it, and after that, a lot of it is in their court and next time. to answer your question specifically, 2007 is when i started to notice the high-risk violation on the inspectors' reports and took over in 2010. >> any public comment? i believe he would like to speak as a member of the public. >> i am a long-time resident in chinatown, 70 years. and lately, i go to a restaurant etiologic. i conduct meetings in chinatown , conferences and activities by the candidates announcing their candidacies, and i do visit the kitchens. sometimes we have to go into the kitchen for a small conference, and i have gone to this restaurant, typically is about the same. i am not an expert. most of the restaurants pass and have to clean up. due to the health problems that they have the close, they are doing a pretty good business. there are lots of fund-raisers for the candidates, for the issues. and it is pretty good business. all of these people really bonded to many times. the congressman was there, and i just tell you that until they start to build the community college right next door, a little community college, three airforce stores next to him in between, apparently, the mice have to find a little place. and mr. louis said repeatedly that he did not comply with all the warnings. he is head and limited health and he wants to reopen his business payback his back rent, and he owns the former employees' money payment. he decided to reopen one time. i hope that you direct the department to give him some time, and when he is ready to do what he wants to do. he realized he had to clean it up and before the health department. thank you. >> any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. the appellant has additional time for rebuttal if there is more that he would like to say. six minutes. >> he realizes that he should do his cleaning early, and he will continue to clean them up and he will ask the inspector to inspect, and there are employees getting unemployment now. his restaurant is not that small, it is 280 seats. >> any rebuttals from the department? gosh i just wanted to point out that there are approximately 300 restaurant facilities in chinatown and the vast majority of them are on compliance. they'll be looking at this to see how someone who has gone so far off the track will be treated. the philosophy is always to take care of violations and the problems of the lowest level. we want to do it at the time of my inspection. only a minority go to the abatement conference and even fewer still go to the director of public health. the was the first time i mentioned earlier at the director of public health for the first time in front of this board. it is unfortunate that it was revoked, but it is because of his own actions, the lack thereof. i want to point out a litany of sympathetic gestures that the department did take on his behalf. in the inspector that what they're spoke chinese and english. we were instructed never to go during the new year's celebration, i mentioned earlier three separate occasions we avoided the director of public health hearing and chose to take it to the less formal abatement conference to try to work with them. and we did invite the mayor's office of small business to come and suggest ways to pay the fee. it was the health department that some of the pest control meeting at his restaurant and i, myself, that his building owner and had her provide road improving at no cost to him. i want to reiterate that i am sympathetic to his plight, but i remain resolute in the believe that the directors' decision was the proper one. i ask that the board of pulled the a decision for permanent revocation. president garcia: what happens next to this individual? is he able to open a new restaurant in the future, reopen the same spot? >> i have never personally been in this position before, i would refer to the director of what possibly could happen. >> we have closed a few other restaurants, and i usually talk with the supervisor of that district. in that case he would be the principal inspector o'malley. we haven't spoken specifically about this case. if we did allow them to reapply, they would have to go get totally up to code in terms of their facilities. in this case, it has to do with an operator that is more negligent as opposed to a facility that is the standard. i can't confirm that until i talk. >> the matter is submitted. president garcia: i am very sympathetic to the operator of louise california chinese cuisine. one thing that is sad is the fact that his business probably was affected by the construction going on next door. he is in a great location next to the hilton or whatever hotel was there. but the idea that people have been eating in a restaurant with those of sanitary conditions, it is sad to think of anyone working in the restaurant, much less eating there. my intention is to hold -- uphold dph in this revocation. >> i would concur. i would point out that i've got a presentation at the case here, what you have done over the years, it is laudable in giving him a chance to make the corrections. >> i don't have a lot to atom, but i am inclined to all pull. i think the department's effort to really show great good faith to assist operators such as this one. i think the resources that are spent are probably worth doing and making those efforts because no one wants to put anyone out of business. and the community institution that might be impacted by this.