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

Published July 3, 2025

https://growsf.org/news/2025-07-03-kathrin-moore-ethics/

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.

---

What's going on with ethnic studies in SFUSD?

Published July 2, 2025

https://growsf.org/news/2025-07-02-sfusd-ethnic-studies/

The Facts

Starting in the 2025–26 school year, SFUSD will pilot a standardized ethnic studies curriculum, already being used by other school districts, according to Jill Tucker at the Chronicle. The curriculum will meet California State Board of Education Guidelines and Common Core standards, and teachers are required to follow it closely. Any supplemental resources must undergo formal review.

The curriculum is required by state law, and this change will replace last year's locally developed program that drew criticism for its content. While this is the short term plan, SFUSD will undergo a comprehensive audit to put in place a strong long-term curriculum.

The Context

All California high school students are required to complete at least one semester of an ethnic studies course in order to graduate. However, Governor Newsom didn't allocate funding for the implementation of this requirement, so it remains an unfunded mandate. Many other state policies are also unfunded mandates, like universal pre-K and financial literacy education (which is also required for graduation, but not yet implemented in SFUSD). While the state only requires a single semester of ethnic studies, SFUSD's course is a full year.

Last year, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) required students to take a locally developed curriculum that drew widespread criticism over its content, including units on controversial movements like the Red Guard, which violently suppressed dissent against Mao Zedong's murderous cultural revolution.

In response to concerns from parents, educators, and community members, SFUSD Superintendent Maria Su is undertaking a significant shift in the district's approach. Since October 2024, Superintendent Maria Su prioritized solving a $114 million budget deficit and fixing operational systems, rather than curriculum review. But now that she's solved the budget crisis, she is turning her attention to curriculum and instruction.

Students may opt-out of the ethnic studies course, but they will still need to take it in order to graduate unless the district changes its graduation requirements and pushes against the state requirements. Last year, the first year when ethnic studies was required, only nine students opted out.

The GrowSF Take

You may have read about the controversy surrounding ethnic studies, and we think that most of the criticism from other political groups has been a bit over the top. Some groups on the right have attacked it as being too woke, while some groups on the left have criticized it for not focusing more on structural racism and other culture war issues. We think a balanced, fact-based approach is the best way to teach students about the history and contributions of different ethnic groups in the United States. In a multi-ethnic and multicultural society like ours, it's important for students to learn about communities different from their own.

Superintendent Su did the right thing by swapping SFUSD's curriculum with one already taught in other districts. Our locally-developed curriculum was highly politicized and full of flaws, which the new curriculum should avoid. While some advocates called for her to scrap the requirement entirely, we think she found the right middle ground.

A curriculum that fosters critical thinking over political bias will benefit everyone.

---

California passes 'Holy Grail' reform to speed up homebuilding

Published July 1, 2025

https://growsf.org/news/2025-07-01-ab130-ceqa-reform/

The Facts

Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 130 (AB130) on June 30, exempting most urban homebuilding from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews. The landmark reform will fix a long-broken rule that pushed new homes out of urban areas and into the grasslands and countryside, putting new homes at elevated fire risk and forcing people into megacommutes. The reform is a huge victory for the YIMBY movement, which has long advocated for reforming CEQA to allow more homes to be built in urban areas.

The Context

CEQA-mandated environmental reviews can run hundreds of pages and take years to complete, even for small apartment buildings and single-family homes! This well-intentioned environmental law has become the go-to choice for slowing down and blocking homebuilding over the last thirty years.

A 2022 study found that 50% of homes being built in California faced CEQA lawsuits in 2020, with interest groups using environmental lawsuits to delay or extract concessions from developers.

The reform defines urban infill projects broadly to include incorporated areas and unincorporated urban lands, excluding only coastal areas, historic sites, and environmentally sensitive zones like wetlands and fire areas.

The GrowSF Take

CEQA was a good idea when it was created in 1970 – after all, who doesn't want to protect endangered species, wetlands, and old-growth forests? But over the past thirty or so years, it has primarily served to spoil untouched wilderness. Rather than protect the natural beauty of our state, CEQA has pushed millions of homes and businesses out of cities and into the countryside, plopping down suburbs and office parks where there should be actual parks.

It's also pushed up the cost of homes in cities, clogged our highways with supercommuters, and lowered the quality of life for everyone. It's way past time that we fixed its flaws, and we're extremely grateful to Governor Newsom, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and State Senator Scott Wiener for their leadership

---

Mahmood proposes ending 5-person limit for co-living spaces

Published June 30, 2025

https://growsf.org/news/2025-06-30-mahmood-co-living/

The Facts

Supervisor Bilal Mahmood will introduce legislation tomorrow, Tuesday, July 1, 2025, to eliminate an outdated rule preventing more than five unrelated people from sharing a home.

Mahmood's bill would replace references to "family" in the planning code with "household," defined as a group of people with a maximum of nine lease agreements sharing living expenses. The change would focus on lease agreements rather than individuals, potentially allowing larger co-living arrangements in existing housing stock.

“This is about fairness – this legislation recognizes that today’s families and chosen families come in many forms,” said Supervisor Mahmood. “If it’s good enough for our inclusive values, it should be good enough for our zoning code.”

The Context

The current planning code defines a family as "not more than five persons unrelated by blood, marriage or adoption," which causes issues for people who need very low cost housing shared with many people

While the Planning Department has only taken 14 enforcement actions over the five-person rule between January 2020 and April 2025, it can cause people living in these situations to avoid requesting repairs from a landlord for fear of eviction. Additionally, architects and builders say they avoid building co-ops or shared housing because they worry about breaking city rules. So fewer types of housing get built as a result.

The legislation comes as young people continue to leave San Francisco after a dramatic pandemic-era exodus, while co-living spaces report overwhelming demand—one Russian Hill building received 400 applications for available spots last year.

The bill sets the maximum at nine lease agreements to avoid triggering inclusionary housing fees required for buildings with 10 or more units.

The GrowSF Take

This reform removes an arbitrary barrier that keeps housing off the market and prevents young people from renting homes.

Co-living provides affordable community-oriented housing that San Francisco desperately needs. Mahmood's practical approach focuses on lease agreements rather than bedroom counts, giving property owners flexibility while maintaining oversight. The Supervisors should pass this to help make it easier for young people and people with low incomes to afford living in San Francisco.

---