Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Food Safety Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Staff recommends permanent permit relocation for Plaza del Sol after repeated failing inspections; owner asks for accommodation

Garland Property Standards Board · January 22, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Environmental health staff recommended permanent relocation of Plaza del Sol's permit after multiple inspections with repeated priority violations; the owner and counsel said cultural cooking methods and cooling practices make compliance with the new threshold more difficult and asked for time to adapt.

Environmental health staff told the board that Plaza del Sol (3125 S. 1st Street) has a history of failing inspections, including recent scores of 57, 56 and 58, with priority violations such as improper cooling, expired food and potential cross‑contamination. Staff recommended permanent relocation of the facility's permit after the property accrued three failing scores within 24 months under the updated threshold.

"Due to earning 3 scores of 16 hour lower lower than 24 months, the permit was pulled," a staff supervisor said while reviewing photos of high‑risk violations, including hot food held at 64 degrees. Dahlia Reyes, one of the inspectors, noted that some items showed organic buildup and that bleach concentrations in one area were at levels staff consider toxic for food‑contact surfaces.

Owner Luis Huerta and manager Max Dan said the operation is a long-standing community restaurant that uses traditional Vietnamese cooling methods, which they said can look nonstandard under the new scoring rubric. Huerta said he would consider changing managers and improving oversight but asked the board to weigh the cultural cooking practices and to allow more time rather than immediate relocation. An attorney for the business argued the October 2025 scoring change (effective Nov. 2025) raised the threshold and asked for time to adapt.

Board members debated the effect of the ordinance change; a motion to accept staff recommendations was made and passed with one abstention recorded on the final vote. The board's action affirmed staff's record of repeated priority violations and left any relocation or administrative timeline in staff's hands for implementation.