In early September, when he announced his 2017 candidacy for Mayor, District 2 Councilman Bill Brand took a stand: When the Redondo Beach City Council meets to rule on an appeal made against CenterCal Properties’s Waterfront redevelopment project, he will recuse himself from the vote and the discussion.
“I’ve already made up my mind on the project,” Brand said. “I can’t go into a meeting and say that I’m open-minded.”
It wasn’t the first recusal this Council has seen from a vote even within the last year. However, while past recusals have been driven by monetary concerns, Brand’s is based on personal belief — a uncommon stance, even to experts.
Last year, then-District 1 Councilman Jeff Ginsburg announced, on advice from California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, that he would recuse himself from discussions related to the CenterCal project.
The reasoning was that Ginsburg, a property manager, had four real estate interests within three miles of the project site, including his home.
“The Political Reform Act of 1974 disqualifies public officials from participating in any government decision that affects their financial interests,” said Juliet Ann Musso, an associate professor at USC’s Price School of Public Policy. “This prohibition is generally understood to apply broadly to both objective and apparent financial conflicts of interest.”
Brand, however, has no stated financial conflicts of interest; his conflict is based in the process. The appeal, filed by frequent Brand ally Jim Light, challenges a decision by Redondo’s Harbor Commission to certify CenterCal’s Environmental Impact Report, created to meet California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
When ruling over the certification CEQA documents, the City Council must act as a quasi-judicial body, objectively determining facts and a conclusion based on those facts for their decision.
Brand believes that he can’t go into that vote with an open mind and make a vote from an unbiased place. To do so would both open up the city to a potential lawsuit and, he said, would be dishonest.
“I thought about it for a long time,” Brand said. “I don’t take abdicating my position lightly, but I couldn’t go into that hearing…I would come in feeling phony and disingenuous.”
His opinion on the project is no secret. He’s long been an advocate of conservation and “smart development,” especially along the Waterfront, and he’s been voted into office twice on that platform.
“And he’s going to run again based on his opinions,” said Pat Aust, former District 3 councilman. Aust noted that Brand’s large following of constituents believe he fights for them. “He’s their champion,” Aust said. “And now they’re going to be penalized, even though he’s worked for the last seven years to fight it.”
Brand believes that his voice will be as prominent as ever now that he’s recused himself, freeing him to author pieces sharing his thoughts on the project: that it destroys views in the harbor, that it doesn’t preserve space and that proposed traffic mitigations will be ineffective.
But recusing himself based on his opinion, Musso said, may have other implications.
“It seems he’s saying he’s opposed on grounds that may not be environmental,” said Musso, an expert on local governance. “He’s in the position of having to deliberate and review environmental impacts and potentially in having to certify the project from an environmental standpoint when he’s opposed on other grounds.”
Judges, Musso notes, have to make these decisions often, applying law in situations where it may conflict with their personal views.
“He still could decide to narrowly apply environmental impact procedures and set aside political objections,” she said. “But he’s choosing not to do that.”
Brand said that he’s just following his conscience and honoring the process, not playing political games.
“It’s not a political move,” Brand said. “If I was being political, I damn sure wouldn’t have recused myself.”
