Board of Appeals continues penalty hearing for Ike’s Place to May 25

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 6 continued an appeal by Forever Shehada Inc., doing business as Ike’s Place, over a notice of violation and penalty tied to operations at 3506 Sixteenth Street (also listed as 282 Sanchez Street). The board delayed deciding whether to reduce or uphold a penalty that the Planning Department calculated at $12,000 for 48 days of operation in violation of the planning code and set the matter for continuation on May 25 to allow a fuller board vote.

Appellant counsel Kenneth Fukuda told the board the business and its owner “suffered very expensive lessons” after they purchased the 400‑square‑foot store in 2007 and invested in equipment and permitting; he said the appellant spent about $5,000 on a conditional use application and was blocked from completing needed corrective work after disputes with the master tenant and the landlord’s counsel. Fukuda asked the board not to penalize the appellant and said the landlord “blocked Ike from making corrective actions.”

Arlene Helfrich, representing property owner Denman Drobich, disputed that characterization. Helfrich said the landlord stepped in after multiple nuisance complaints from residential tenants and pursued eviction when negotiations failed; she said the landlord incurred legal costs and obtained a judgment in September 2010. Helfrich told the board she had “no objection to Ike’s request that the fine be reduced or dismissed,” but objected to the appellant’s factual account that blamed the owner entirely.

Planning Department representative Scott Sanchez gave a timeline of enforcement: first complaint March 31, 2010; enforcement notice April 21; a conditional use (CU) application submitted June 2, 2010 but found incomplete because owner authorization did not match the property owner; notice of violation and penalty issued July 13, 2010; penalties became effective July 28; Ike’s closed September 14, 2010. Sanchez calculated the penalty at $250 per day for 48 days ($12,000) but noted the board may reduce penalties under Planning Code section 176 to a statutory minimum (he cited $100/day or $4,800 for 48 days) and recommended some penalty be retained to fund code enforcement and signal that violations carry consequences.

Neighborhood testimony favored the business: Dr. Mick Lee, a neighbor since 1988, described Ike as responsive to neighbors and attributed complaints to growing pains after TV exposure that greatly increased customer lines. Ike (the owner) told commissioners that closing would have forced layoffs of about 47 employees and that remaining open preserved jobs and tax revenue.

Commissioners debated in the round. Several expressed sympathy for a small, successful local business and discussed midrange penalty options (one commissioner referenced $150/day as a compromise). Others stressed that notices and potential penalties had been provided and said continuing operations in the face of known penalties was a business decision. Because the vice president was absent and the board discussed the likelihood a full‑board vote could change the outcome, Commissioner Fung moved to continue the matter to May 25 to allow the missing member to participate; the board approved the continuance.

The hearing record shows competing claims: the department presented an enforcement timeline and penalty calculation tied to Planning Code section 176; the appellant presented financial hardship, investment and relocation facts; the property owner described nuisance complaints and legal expense. The board did not resolve the penalty amount at the April 6 meeting and continued the hearing to May 25 for further consideration.

Next steps: The board continued appeal number 10‑131 (Ike’s Place) to its May 25 meeting for further briefing and a full‑board vote. Parties should expect the record and any proposed penalty parameters to be considered when the board reconvenes on that date.