History: Since opening last summer, the restaurant has had two regular inspections, receiving a good rating on the first and failing the most recent.
What the inspector saw: The inspector observed 11 priority violations during their March 2 visit, including an employee with an open drink while grilling, an employee not using soap after handling raw chicken, a prep board covered in meat juices and not being cleaned often enough, utensils stored as clean with food debris and inadequate cooling of prepared foods. Nearly every violation was corrected on site.
Follow-up: The restaurant passed a March 13 follow-up inspection.
Response: Michelle Mejia, one of the restaurant’s partners, said an action plan has been put in place for all employees ,and all managers have registered for a food course.
“We take all of this seriously, and that’s why all the codes or violations were taken and addressed seriously,” Mejia said, adding later: “We made a copy of that report, and we go over that report daily, and go over procedures.”
History: Since 2014, the restaurant has received two excellent inspection ratings, one good and one needs improvement. This was its first failed inspection.
What the inspector saw: The inspector observed two priority violations: a hand sink blocked by a coffee pot and a cooling device not keeping foods at safe temperatures. Normally a minimum of five priority violations are required for a failing probationary rating, but in this case Brawley’s received that rating because similar violations had been observed in at least three of the previous five regular inspections.
Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on March 28.
Response: Samantha Boggess, the restaurant’s general manager, said the cooler in question has since been fixed, and added that the inspector did not consider the food to be hazardous. It was moved to another cooler, not tossed out, according to the inspector’s report.
“We take food safety very seriously and we have definitely implemented new policies and procedures to make sure this never happens again,” Boggess said.
History: Since the early 2000s, the restaurant has exclusively received inspection ratings of good or excellent. This was its first failed inspection.
What the inspector saw: The inspector found two priority violations, short of the typical five required for a failing probationary rating. However, because similar violations had been seen in at least three of the last five inspections, it received a probationary rating. The repeat violation had to do with food cooling issues, stemming this time from a walk-in refrigerator keeping food above the mandated 41 degrees. The inspector also observed several shelves in the restaurant encrusted with food debris.
Follow-up: The restaurant passed a follow-up inspection on March 15, the day after the first inspection.
Response: A message was left for an owner or manager, but was not immediately returned by deadline.