Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Permits Castle Sf topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission Approves Castle SF Entertainment Permit, Limits Extended Hours Amid Ownership Dispute

San Francisco Entertainment Commission · August 5, 2025
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

The San Francisco Entertainment Commission approved Castle SF’s place-of-entertainment and extended-hours permit while limiting after‑hours operation to Friday and Saturday nights into the following morning amid a pending ownership dispute and prior unpermitted activity.

The San Francisco Entertainment Commission voted unanimously on Aug. 5 to grant a place-of-entertainment (POE) and extended-hours permit to Castle SF (550 15th Street) while limiting extended hours to Friday and Saturday nights into the following morning until 6 a.m.

The decision followed a contested hearing over documentary ownership and an unpermitted event at the venue in July. Staff presented the Castle application (EC 18-62) and said the submission met the documentary requirements under Municipal Police Code Article 15.10.60.3, even as a separate party submitted documents asserting a competing ownership claim.

At the hearing the applicant identified himself as Chris Shosnick and described plans to operate a mixed-use entertainment venue for DJs, drag shows, and cultural programming. Speaking to the commission, the applicant said of the unpermitted July event: “That was my fault… it was a total misunderstanding… I apologize.”

Laurence Chutane, who said he was cofounder and co-manager of Creative Bar Group LLC, urged the commission to delay or deny any permit that excluded him while a concurrent legal case proceeds. Chutane told the commission he had been locked out of the venue, said his attorney had submitted filings and requested that the commission “delay or deny any permit that excludes me until the legal dispute is resolved.”

Deputy director and staff counsel briefed commissioners that the city attorney had advised the commission to determine whether the application met the technical documentary requirements for a POE permit; staff said ownership disputes ordinarily fall to courts or other authorities and do not automatically bar a permit if the application satisfies the ordinance’s submission standards.

Commissioners expressed concern about the applicant’s recent unpermitted event and debated whether to grant broad 24-hour authorization. Several commissioners cited public-safety risks tied to unpermitted after‑hours venues and recommended limiting extended hours as a condition of approval. The motion that passed limited the extended-hours authorization to Friday night into Saturday morning and Saturday night into Sunday morning (until 6 a.m.), while approving the POE permit for the venue.

The vote was recorded as unanimous: President Blyman — Aye; Commissioner Davis — Aye; Commissioner Poggio — Aye; Commissioner Thomas — Aye; Commissioner Schlander — Aye.

The commission’s action was procedural: staff will follow up with the applicant on conditions, internal sound limits set by senior inspectors, and any further administrative steps. The commission noted that if the ongoing legal proceedings later produce a change in ownership that affects the licensee listed on the permit, the venue may need to return to the commission for review.