Board committee forwards Ryan Brooks planning nomination after days of public concern over billboard ties
Loading...
Summary
The Rules Committee heard a contested nomination for Ryan Brooks to the Planning Commission, with multiple neighbors and advocacy groups pressing that his employer, CBS Outdoor, creates inherent conflicts with planning duties focused on advertising enforcement; the committee sent the nomination to the full Board without recommendation.
Ryan Brooks, the mayor’s nominee to the San Francisco Planning Commission, told the Board of Supervisors’ Rules Committee that his years working on federal base reuse and in city government qualify him to help the commission, but public opposition and supervisor questions centered on his ties to CBS Outdoor, a major local outdoor‑advertising firm.
Brooks described experience at PRC/Tetra Tech and the Department of Defense and said he would recuse himself from any matter that posed a conflict, adding: “If there is any small chance whatsoever it could be a conflict, I would just recuse myself.” He said the city attorney had reviewed his appointment and told him there was “no conflict of interest” on the narrow legal question raised during his vetting.
Community speakers and advocacy groups urged supervisors to reject the nomination. Didi Workman of San Francisco Beautiful urged rejection, saying Brooks’s position as vice president and local representative of CBS Outdoor posed “a gross conflict of interest,” noting recent enforcement activity and placing a notice of violation dated 02/27/2008 into the record. Milo Hanke and other speakers described the appointment as “fox guarding the henhouse” and warned that frequent recusals could leave the Planning Commission unable to enforce billboard rules effectively. Several speakers referenced Proposition G (2002) and subsequent enforcement priorities as a reason Brooks should not serve.
Supervisor Tom Ammiano pressed Brooks on how he would handle advertising, developer fees and affordability issues in the Eastern Neighborhoods plan; Brooks said he would recuse where needed, favored multiple funding sources for affordable housing and emphasized listening to communities. Other supervisors and witnesses debated whether recusals alone would sufficiently address appearance‑of‑bias concerns; Supervisor Daley (chair) said he was not comfortable with Brooks for this particular commission but moved to forward the items to the full Board without recommendation so the full Board could weigh the objections and Brook’s responses.
The committee did not record a roll‑call tally in committee minutes; it moved Items 2 and 3 (the appointment and a rejecting motion) forward to the full Board without recommendation.
