City official got paid by architecture firm while approving its projects

A longtime San Francisco planning commissioner supported the development of at least two projects in the city by a well-known architecture firm from which she also receives income, according to city disclosure forms, an arrangement that appears to breach the city’s conflict of interest rules.



Kathrin Moore, who was appointed to the planning commission in 2006 and currently serves as the body’s vice president, has reported earning between $10,000 and $100,000 each year since 2012 from the global firm Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill, also known by the acronym SOM.



In a 2012 financial disclosure, Moore reported that she retired from the company in 1999 and described the income as a “retirement payment.” Since then, she has listed herself on the forms as a retired associate partner.



Meanwhile, Moore voted in September 2021 to approve the firm’s <a href="https://sfyimby.com/2022/02/som-designed-san-bao-temple-redesigned-and-approved-for-1750-van-ness-avenue-nob-hill-san-francisco.html">San Bao Temple</a> at 1750 Van Ness Ave. This May, she cast a vote supporting the company’s initial plans for a <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/06/25/related-california-office-development-jackson-square/">building</a> at 520 Sansome St./447 Battery St., a project still making its way through the commission.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="1667" width="2500" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?w=2500" alt="A person in a hat speaks at a podium in a wood-paneled room, addressing seated officials at a long desk. Laptops and flags add to the formal setting." class="wp-image-387286" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg 8059w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=300,200 300w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=768,512 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=2500,1667 2500w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=1536,1024 1536w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/8907937419_housingmapsf_004.jpg?resize=2048,1366 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The city&#8217;s seven-member planning commission has significant sway over the look and feel of the city&#8217;s development plans.</figcaption></figure>



The city’s conflict of interest rules <a href="https://sfethics.org/laws/conflict-of-interest/conflict-of-interest-other-prohibited-activities-regulations-san-francisco-campaign-and-governmental-conduct-code-section-3-200-et-seq#:~:text=of%20general%20application.-,Regulation%203.214%2D4.%20Disclosure%20of%20Personal%2C%20Professional%20%26%20Business%20Relationships%20%E2%80%93%20Determining%20Whether%20an%20Individual%20has%20an%20Ownership%20or%20Financial%20Interest%20in%20the%20Subject%20of%20a%20Governmental%20Decision,-An%20individual%20has">prohibit</a> city officials, including planning commissioners, from making decisions that involve entities from which an individual has received more than $500 in the past year. The <a href="https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/conflicts-of-interest-rules.html">state</a> has similar regulations.



The seven-member commission advises the mayor and board of supervisors on land use, transportation, and development in the city and votes to approve project permits.&nbsp;



Sean McMorris, an ethics expert from the good governance nonprofit Common Cause, said Moore’s votes appear to be a conflict of interest because she was paid by the firm.&nbsp;



“If there is anything that you could presumably be involved in that even gives the appearance of enriching yourself, then you need to recuse yourself,” McMorris said. “That’s why we have conflict-of-interest laws. Our representatives work for us, not for themselves. The public trust is diminished when things like this happen.”



In an emailed statement received after this story&#8217;s publication, Moore defended her votes on Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill projects.



&#8220;Having retired as an Associate Partner of SOM in 1999, I receive a pension from SOM which I report on my annual public financial disclosure,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;In accordance with legal advice from the Office of the City Attorney given to me many years ago, because my pension is unconditional, I have been&nbsp;assured&nbsp;that there is no conflict of interest and do not need to recuse myself from voting on matters involving SOM. My fixed pension does not influence nor is&nbsp;it&nbsp;effected by how I render my decisions. I will continue to hold myself to the highest legal and ethical standards as I have since I first was appointed to the Planning Commission in 2006.&#8221;



An inquiry to Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill went unanswered. 



During a May 15 hearing on the 520 Sansome St./447 Battery St. project, Moore thanked a Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill representative after his presentation and lauded the plans, saying they would positively impact the city’s beleaguered downtown.



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-posts-container">
<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>



<div class="wp-block-sf-standard-related-post"></div>
</div>



“This project addresses all the critical points, including the major investment of the <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/06/transamerica-pyramid-renovation-beacon/">refurbishing</a> of the Transamerica Pyramid,” she said. “I think you’re doing that very skillfully.”



During a September 2021 hearing to approve the Buddhist temple at 1750 Van Ness Ave., Moore similarly advocated for the Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill design.



“I am in full support of the project, and I consider the project thoughtful, and as one of the [public] speakers just said, inspirational,” Moore said. “I think it will be a wonderful addition.”



Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill is an internationally renowned firm behind <a href="https://www.som.com/">iconic buildings</a> such as 7 World Trade Center in New York, the Sears Tower in Chicago, and the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the world’s tallest building. Its San Francisco designs include One Maritime Plaza and the San Francisco International Airport trusses.



Lydia So, the planning commission’s president, said she was “shocked” to learn of Moore’s connection to the architecture firm and called for an investigation.&nbsp;



“We need to restore public trust in our government,” she said.



The Ethics Commission, which enforces the city’s conflict of interest rules, declined to comment.



“All complaints and enforcement matters are handled confidentially as required by the City Charter,” Michael Canning, the Ethics Commission’s policy and legislative affairs manager, said in a statement. “This requires that we do not disclose any information about any enforcement matters we may be handling, including if we have received a complaint or are carrying out an investigation.”



City officials <a href="https://sfethics.org/disclosures/city-officer-disclosure/notification-of-recusal">regularly</a> recuse themselves from votes due to conflicts of interest, actual or perceived. More than 20 city officials have withdrawn from government decisions this year, including a San Francisco Retirement Healthcare Trust Fund member who in June recused himself from a vote to invest in a company because he had worked there over a decade ago.&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" height="2500" width="2186" src="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?w=2186" alt="The image shows a dense cityscape with tall skyscrapers, including a shiny, cylindrical tower. Streets and lower buildings are visible in the foreground." class="wp-image-349056" srcset="https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg 4191w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=262,300 262w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=768,878 768w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=2186,2500 2186w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=1343,1536 1343w, https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/20241112_smogday_aar_9_97746f.jpg?resize=1791,2048 1791w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2186px) 100vw, 2186px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The architecture firm Skidmore, Owings &amp; Merrill is behind multiple San Francisco projects, including One Maritime Plaza. </figcaption></figure>



In 2023, Moore recused herself from approving a project on Taylor Street because she resides within 500 feet of the property.



Moore’s links to the architecture firm come to light amid recent turmoil that has shaken the planning commission.



Mission Local reported last month that three commissioners, including Moore, <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2025/06/walkout-planning-commission-san-francisco-lurie/">walked out of a closed-door meeting</a> to appoint a new planning director. The members said they left the meeting in protest over frustrations with Mayor Daniel Lurie’s process of choosing Sarah Dennis Phillips to lead the commission as director. Phillips was later <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/planning-director-sarah-dennis-phillips-20384050.php">confirmed</a>.&nbsp;



Moore then <a href="https://missionlocal.org/2025/06/sf-planning-director-process-illegal-commission/">accused</a> So of violating a state law that requires local agencies to hold open meetings for public access.



Update: This story was updated with a response from Kathrin Moore.

SF paid $25 million to revoked, suspended, delinquent nonprofits

San Francisco doled out more than $25 million in taxpayer dollars last year to dozens of charities that were blocked by state law from receiving or spending funds, an investigation by The Standard has found.



In what appears to be a citywide lack of due diligence, 18 departments—including Children, Youth and Their Families; Public Health (DPH); and the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development—failed to notice that they were paying out millions of taxpayer dollars to organizations whose nonprofit status had been revoked, suspended or tagged as delinquent by the state Attorney General’s Office prior to the payouts.



This negligence occurred as San Francisco gave more than $1 billion to 600-plus nonprofits last year, relying on them to help solve some of the city&#8217;s most intractable issues. Polling by The Standard has found widespread <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/politics/sf-voters-turn-on-breed-as-confidence-in-city-hall-slumps-further/">discontent with city government</a> and its seeming lack of progress in addressing homelessness, drug overdoses and poor-performing schools.



Meanwhile, the city has become an international punching bag over quality-of-life issues, gaining a reputation for throwing money at problems without showing results.&nbsp;



As of early December, the city had active contracts with nearly 140 nonprofits that failed to comply with state registration requirements, potentially leaving San Francisco on the hook for over $300 million with scofflaw charities.



<iframe title="San Francisco Remaining Contract Awards to Delinquent, Suspended and Revoked Nonprofits" aria-label="Table" id="datawrapper-chart-Xc0rH" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Xc0rH/2/" scrolling="no" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important; border: none;" data-external="1" height="660" frameborder="0"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var a in e.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r<t.length;r++){if(t[r].contentWindow===e.source)t[r].style.height=e.data["datawrapper-height"][a]+"px"}}}))}();
</script>



Experts on nonprofits and government ethics who were contacted for this story expressed alarm at the scale of the city's apparent lack of oversight, and they questioned local officials’ rigor in vetting these contracts.



The contracts identified in The Standard’s review deal with confronting some of the city’s biggest crises: homelessness, drug addiction, assisting disadvantaged schoolchildren and offering subsidized health care to low-income residents and communities of color.



“My first reaction is that the public interest is not being served in San Francisco with the amount of money going to nonprofit organizations that don't have current licenses,” said John Pelissero, a senior scholar in government ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.



The Standard launched its review after the <a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/housing-development/city-audit-finds-serious-problems-at-government-funded-homelessness-nonprofit/">United Council of Human Services</a>, an organization responsible for providing homes and shelters for homeless people in the Bayview, was referred to the FBI and District Attorney’s Office for criminal investigation.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1667" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-2500x1667.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-112936" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-2500x1667.jpeg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-300x200.jpeg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-768x512.jpeg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-1536x1024.jpeg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-2048x1365.jpeg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-650x433.jpeg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-370x247.jpeg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-800x533.jpeg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-450x300.jpeg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-20x13.jpeg 20w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-185x123.jpeg 185w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-740x493.jpeg 740w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-400x267.jpeg 400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-1600x1067.jpeg 1600w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-225x150.jpeg 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-900x600.jpeg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Westbrook-72x48.jpeg 72w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Gwendolyn Westbrook, the director of the United Council of Human Services, hosts an event at Mother Brown's Dining Room in 2011. | Carlos Avila Gonzalez/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images</figcaption></figure>



In November, the City Controller's Office released an audit that found the organization had mismanaged funds and operations after receiving tens of millions of dollars in city and federal grants. Along with the City Attorney's Office, which reviewed the findings, the agency recommended a criminal investigation. City officials&nbsp;<a href="https://develop.sfstandard.com/politics/sf-homeless-nonprofit-status-revoked-fbi/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">were surprised to later learn</a>&nbsp;that the Attorney General’s Office had suspended the United Council of Human Services’ nonprofit status over the summer.



The Standard’s new findings were confirmed by the City Controller’s Office, which noted that it is now working with the City Administrator's and the City Attorney’s offices to issue guidance to departments to make sure the nonprofits either come into compliance with state law, or risk losing their city funding.



“Our grants and contracts require recipients to comply with local, state, and federal law,” City Controller Ben Rosenfield said in a statement. “City departments should not do business with organizations that are not permitted by the state government to operate in California.”&nbsp;



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2500" height="1666" src="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-2500x1666.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-112927" srcset="https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-2500x1666.jpg 2500w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-300x200.jpg 300w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-768x512.jpg 768w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-650x433.jpg 650w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-370x247.jpg 370w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-800x533.jpg 800w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-450x300.jpg 450w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-20x13.jpg 20w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-185x123.jpg 185w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-740x493.jpg 740w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-400x267.jpg 400w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-1600x1066.jpg 1600w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-225x150.jpg 225w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-900x600.jpg 900w, https://content-develop.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GettyImages-14087689591-72x48.jpg 72w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2500px) 100vw, 2500px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">City Controller Ben Rosenfield works in his office at City Hall in San Francisco in 2018. | Paul Chinn/The San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images</figcaption></figure>



Beyond the $25 million the city paid since last summer to nonprofits after they lost their good standing, another $65 million was issued to organizations that eventually lost their good standing. However, it’s unclear whether or not the payments to the latter group came before or after they fell out of compliance.&nbsp;



Jen Kwart, a spokesperson for City Attorney David Chiu, said the city’s lawyers will work with the controller to “ensure grant and contract recipients are in good standing.”



“The City Attorney’s Office is committed to rooting out waste and making sure public dollars are spent fairly and efficiently,” Kwart said.



The Standard contacted 10 city departments with detailed questions on the findings. Officials refused to address why, in violation of state law, public funds were given to so many nonprofits that were out of compliance, or whether a status check with the state Attorney General’s Office i...

Asian Art Museum

Office of the City Administrator

Adult Probation Department

Airport

Arts Commission

Office of the Assessor-Recorder

Board of Appeals

Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

Office of the City Attorney

Department of Children, Youth and Their Families

Controller's Office

Planning Department

Civil Service Commission

District Attorney's Office

Department of Building Inspection

Department of Early Childhood

Department of Emergency Management

Department of Police Accountability

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Works

Office of Economic and Workforce Development

Environment Department

Ethics Commission

Fine Arts Museums

Fire Department

Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing

Human Rights Commission

Department of Human Resources

Human Services Agency

Health Service System

Juvenile Probation Department

Public Library

Municipal Transportation Agency

Office of the Mayor

Public Defender's Office

Police Department

Port

Public Utilities Commission

Recreation and Park Department

Department of Elections

Retirement System

Rent Board

Sheriff's Department Office of Inspector General

Sheriff's Department

Department of Technology

Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector

War Memorial

Department on the Status of Women

General City Responsibilities

General Administration & Finance

Culture & Recreation

Community Health

Human Welfare & Neighborhood Development

Public Works, Transportation & Commerce

Public Protection

SF Civil Grand Jury

The Abatement Appeals Board provides a final review process for City permitting decisions. It ensures fair and efficient adjudication of permit-related disputes before an impartial panel. The board holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals concerning notices of abatement.

Abatement Appeals Board

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 1

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 2

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 3

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 4

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 5

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 6

Abatement Appeals Board Commissioner 7

The Access Appeals Commission provides final reviews for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The commission holds authority to make binding decisions on appeals related to City permits.

Access Appeals Commission

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 1

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 2

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 3

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 4

Access Appeals Commission Commissioner 5

The Adult Day Health Care Planning Council advises on the development and improvement of adult day health care services. It provides expertise in healthcare planning, policy recommendations, and program evaluation. Key responsibilities include assessing community needs and advising on service delivery enhancements.

Adult Day Health Care Planning Council

Adult Probation Department supervises individuals on probation and facilitates their reintegration into the community. It provides reentry and rehabilitative services, including victim restitution and financial assistance for crime victims. The department values public safety, offender rehabilitation, and community partnerships.

Cristel Tullock

The Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners evaluates arts and crafts applicants and monitors program compliance. It conducts studio visits and public screenings to ensure adherence to established criteria. Members also revise program criteria and undertake additional tasks as needed.

Advisory Committee of Street Artists and Crafts Examiners

The Advisory Council on Human Rights advises on anti-discrimination laws and racial equity initiatives. It provides expertise on reparations and public policy impacts on Black communities. It guides efforts to establish partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and Universities in San Francisco.

Advisory Council on Human Rights

San Francisco Airport manages air traffic operations and ensures safe aircraft movement. It provides parking facilities and maintains airport infrastructure to accommodate travelers and staff. The department oversees ground transportation and coordinates with airlines for efficient passenger services.

Mike Nakornkhet

The Airport Commission oversees policy and strategic planning for San Francisco International Airport. It makes key decisions on airport development projects and financial management. It ensures compliance with regulations and collaborates on initiatives like terminal naming.

Airport Commission

Airport Commission Commissioner 1

Malcolm Yeung

Jose F. Almanza

Mark Buell

Susan Leal

Airport Director

Animal Care and Control Department manages animal sheltering, adoption, and emergency response services. It enforces animal-related laws and regulations, ensuring the humane treatment and safety of animals. The department also provides public education on responsible pet ownership and animal welfare.

Animal Care and Control Department

Virginia Donohue

Animal Care and Control Department, Director

The San Francisco Arts Commission oversees the integration of arts into city life and ensures public access to cultural experiences. It makes decisions on public art programs and allocates grants to support local artists and performances. The commission actively shapes policies affecting the arts ecosystem in San Francisco.

Arts Commission Commissioner 1

Arts Commission Commissioner 2

Arts Commission Commissioner 3

Arts Commission Commissioner 4

Debra Walker

Suzanne Ferras

Jessica Rothschild

Seth Brenzel

JD Beltran

Marcus Shelby

J Riccardo Benavides

Nabiel Musleh

Charles (Chuck) Collins

Lydia So

Arts Commission Commissioner 15

San Francisco Arts Commission invests in a vibrant arts community and shapes cultural policy. It enlivens the urban environment through public art programs and supports diverse artistic expressions. The commission facilitates meetings and discussions to engage the community in cultural development.

Ralph Remington

Arts Commission, Director of Cultural Affairs

The Asian Art Commission determines policy and administers the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It oversees museum operations and collaborates with the Asian Art Museum Foundation on fundraising efforts. Commissioners ensure the museum's strategic direction and financial sustainability.

Asian Art Commission

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 1

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 2

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 3

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 4

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 5

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 6

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 7

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 8

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 9

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 10

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 11

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 12

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 13

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 14

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 15

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 16

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 17

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 18

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 19

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 20

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 21

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 22

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 23

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 24

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 25

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 26

Asian Art Commission Commissioner 27

Asian Art Museum showcases Asian art and culture through exhibitions and educational programs. It offers diverse collections and hosts special events to engage the community. The museum fosters cultural appreciation and understanding by providing access to its extensive art collections.

Dr. Soyoung Lee

Asian Art Museum, Director

The Assessment Appeals Board #1 hears property tax assessment appeals in San Francisco. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine property values. The Board has the authority to make final decisions on assessments regardless of property type or value.

Assessment Appeals Board #1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #1 Commissioner 2

Richard Lee

Stephen Wasserman

Adena Gilbert

Paul Bellar

Quirina Mitchell

Hilary Winslow

The Assessment Appeals Board #2 adjudicates property tax assessment appeals for San Francisco taxpayers. It evaluates evidence presented by taxpayers and the Assessor to determine accurate property values. The Board exercises authority to render final decisions on residential properties and specific real estate assessments.

Assessment Appeals Board #2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #2 Commissioner 3

Claire Ervin Lee

Louisa Mendoza

Joyce Lewis

Nicholas Goldman

Michelle Domingo

The Assessment Appeals Board #3 provides a platform for San Francisco taxpayers to contest property tax assessments. It conducts hearings where evidence from both taxpayers and the Assessor is evaluated. The Board makes binding decisions on property assessments based on presented evidence.

Assessment Appeals Board #3

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 1

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 2

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 3

Marc Dickow

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 5

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 6

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 7

Assessment Appeals Board #3 Commissioner 8

Assesses property, applies exemptions, collects transfer taxes, and records official documents.

Assessor-Recorder

Joaquín Torres

The Ballot Simplification Committee ensures voter materials are clear and understandable. It reviews and revises ballot language to accurately reflect propositions and measures. The committee advises on simplifying complex legal and technical terms for voter comprehension.

Ballot Simplification Committee

The Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee provides policy advice on planning and land use matters in Zone 2 of Bayview Hunter's Point. It offers expertise in land use policies, zoning issues, and urban development. The committee advises the Board of Supervisors, City Boards, and commissions on relevant projects and initiatives.

Bayview Hunters Point Citizens Advisory Committee

The Behavioral Health Commission advises on mental health policy implementation and quality service delivery. It reviews and advocates for effective mental health services, ensuring policies meet community needs. It educates stakeholders to integrate mental health considerations into broader health strategies.

Behavioral Health Commission

The Bicycle Advisory Committee advises on making bicycling safer and more accessible in San Francisco. It provides recommendations to city agencies to address traffic violence and climate change. The committee advocates for cyclists and addresses biking-related complaints.

Bicycle Advisory Committee

The Board of Appeals provides final review for a wide range of City permitting decisions. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process through an impartial panel. The Board exercises authority to make binding decisions on appeals.

Jefferson Robert Eppler

John Trasviña

Jose Lopez

Rick Swig

Board of Appeals Commissioner 5

Board of Appeals conducts final reviews of City permitting decisions through an impartial panel. It ensures an efficient and fair permit issuance process. The department operates under rules established by the City Charter of 1932.

Julie Rosenberg

Board of Appeals, Executive Director

The Board of Examiners provides a final review process for City permitting. It ensures an efficient, fair, and expeditious evaluation of the permit issuance process. The commission operates as an impartial panel with quasi-judicial authority.

Board of Examiners