Board of Appeals upholds Entertainment Commission permit for Castle SF after split vote; commissioners flag ownership and enforcement concerns

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Sept. 3 declined to overturn the Entertainment Commission’s conditional grant of a place-of-entertainment (POE) and extended-hours premises (EHP) permit for Castle SF at 550 Fifteenth Street, leaving the permits in effect after a tied vote and the underlying decision was upheld by operation of law.

The board heard an appeal from Lorenzo Tenney, who argued the permit was issued on an incomplete or misleading record and that Creative Art Group’s ownership was disputed. Tenney’s attorney asked the board to suspend or remand the permit so the commission could reassess record evidence, including Secretary of State filings and a lease amendment that Tenney said removed his operating authority. “We don’t oppose a lawful nightlife. What we’re opposing is the issue in the manner it was issued,” Tenney’s counsel said during the hearing.

Why it matters: commissioners repeatedly flagged a narrow factual question — whether the Entertainment Commission had a “full and accurate description of ownership” under the police code when it issued the permit — and whether the commission had sufficient evidence to rely on corrected filings submitted under penalty of perjury. The commission and its staff said they had followed code requirements, relied on updated Secretary of State filings and an amended lease, and lacked authority to adjudicate private partnership disputes.

Caitlin Azevedo, deputy director of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission, told the board the commission “acted well within its statutory authority and followed all procedural and legal requirements to ensure permit integrity.” She described the permit review timeline: a joint application in May listed both Tenney and Chris Yazlik as 50% owners; in late June Yazlik submitted filings and an amended lease listing himself as sole owner; on Aug. 5 the commission conditionally granted the POE and EHP permits and the permits were issued Aug. 8 after outside agency sign-offs.

The hearing also focused on enforcement. Azevedo told the board that EC field staff had observed activity at Castle SF while the permits were under a stay, and that inspectors issued citations after observing entertainment and beverage service in violation of the stay. She said the venue received multiple citations within a week and that, if the permits are reinstated, the repeated violations “now meet the threshold for administrative suspension of permits.”

Permit holder Chris Yazlik said the dispute is a private disagreement with a former associate and that he corrected ownership filings under penalty of perjury when EC staff asked. He urged the board to deny the appeal and let the commission’s decision stand. “This appeal is not about public safety, zoning, or compliance. It’s simply about a result of a private dispute with a former associate,” Yazlik said.

Board deliberations turned on whether the commission’s reliance on corrected, signed filings and an amended lease was a sufficient factual basis for granting the permit despite Tenney’s objections and contemporaneous emails showing disagreement. Board members voiced concern about the ease of changing Secretary of State statements of information and about evidence that the permit holder continued operations while permits were suspended.

The board considered a motion to grant the appeal (which would have nullified the permit) and then a motion to deny the appeal. After a tie among commissioners, the board did not reach the votes needed to overturn the commission’s action; by operation of law the commission’s decision remains in effect.

What’s next: EC staff told the board the venue remains subject to continued regulatory scrutiny and that multiple citations observed while permits were stayed may support administrative suspension or other enforcement actions if noncompliance persists. The board did not remand the permit for further fact-finding; it left enforcement and any further permitting questions to the commission and to other appropriate city processes.

Ending note: The hearing highlighted limits of permit review: City agencies may accept documents signed under penalty of perjury as a basis for decisions, even where private ownership disputes persist, and the board emphasized that such private disputes may be more appropriately resolved in civil court while enforcement of code conditions is handled administratively.