Planning Commissioner Kathrin Moore was paid up to $100k per year by architecture firm while approving their projects

Planning Commission VP Kathrin Moore earned up to $100K annually from Skidmore, Owings & Merrill — yet she voted to greenlight their projects, spurring calls for an ethics probe.

The Facts

An investigation by Gabe Greschler at the Standard found that Planning Commission Vice President Kathrin Moore has been paid between $10,000 and $100,000 annually by the global architecture firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill since 2012. Moore retired in 1999 and was appointed to the Planning Commission in 2006, but she only started disclosing the payments as "retirement income" in 2012.

Lydia So, the commission president, has called for an ethics investigation of Moore.

The Context

The City's conflict-of-interest rules bar city officials from participating in decisions involving entities from which they received more than $500 in the past year. Yet Moore did not recuse herself from votes on Skidmore, Owings & Merrill projects, including 1750 Van Ness Ave and 520 Sansome St./447 Battery St. developments, which she voted to approve in May 2025.

Planning commissioners wield significant influence over land use and development, and some have used their authority as a way to extract favors or payments. In 2024, commissioner Frank Fung was fined $24,000 for entering into a contract with a City department and receiving payments from an architecture firm he owned while being a commissioner. And in 2002, commissioner Hector Chinchilla was charged with a misdemeanor for accepting $182,500 from various developers while serving on the commission. Commissioner Dennis Richards wasn't fined, but he was an owner in a development company that was redeveloping a building in the Mission District while he was a commissioner, and engaged in behaviors that he regularly voted to oppose for other developers. Richards later sued the city for $12 million, claiming he was retaliated against.

The GrowSF Take

The Planning Commission is a powerful body that can make or break development projects in San Francisco, and it is a tempting target for corruption. Moore may have been legally receiving legitimate retirement income, but even in that case she ought to have recused herself from votes on Skidmore, Owings & Merrill projects. Not doing so is not just unethical, it's also illegal.