At a glance
Where Council stands on the Peterson case
April 13
Four of the seven council members vote to reappoint Peterson to the planning commission, even though they had received the secret report about his dispute with the tow-truck driver.
Reappoint him
Vicki Veenker
George Lu
Greer Stone
Julie Lythcott-Haims
Didn’t vote for him
Pat Burt
Keith Reckdahl
Ed Lauing
Aug. 5
Two of the seven council members say in a memo they want the Peterson report released.
Pat BurtAug. 7
Keith Reckdahl
Three of the seven council members say they want to hold a hearing Monday, Aug. 10, on the removal of Peterson.
Those who want a hearing
Ed Lauing
Greer Stone
Vicki Veenker
Aug. 7
Five of the seven council members say they want the Peterson report released and/or they want to hold a hearing on whether to remove Peterson
Pat Burt
Keith Reckdahl
Ed Lauing
Greer Stone Vicki Veenker
BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Palo Alto City Council will consider removing a planning commissioner who was accused of trying to get special treatment after his daughter’s car was towed from a city parking garage.
The potential removal of Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson was put on Monday’s agenda by Mayor Vicki Veenker, Vice Mayor Greer Stone and Councilman Ed Lauing.
Councilmen Keith Reckdahl and Pat Burt were working on a separate memo to release a report on Peterson’s actions at the tow yard, but the memo hasn’t made the agenda yet. Peterson allegedly tried to get a discount, suggested that he could “change the rules” and said he had police friends who would agree with him after his daughter’s 1994 Ford Mustang was towed on Jan. 6.
“His repeated invocation of his role appeared intended to influence the outcome of a private commercial matter in his favor,” the tow yard owner said in a complaint.
City Manager Ed Shikada hired an attorney for $50,000 to investigate the complaint, and the attorney’s report was sent to council on April 7.
But the report hasn’t been released to the public. “If you refuse to release the report, then it may look like we’re trying to hide something,” Reckdahl said in an interview last month.
Questioned about ‘events’
Burt alluded to the investigation while publicly questioning Peterson on March 23.
“Forest, is there anything that you would like to share with us about events that might inform our decision on reappointing you?” Burt asked.
Peterson said he’s held to high ethical standards as a Stanford researcher and a labor standards investigator.
“For 20 years, I have had no deficits to my behavior,” he said.
Burt said he gave Peterson an opportunity to respond to the investigation, but Peterson “was unresponsive and even deceptive.”
Peterson, 49, has declined an interview on the towing dispute.
Split reappointment
Veenker, Stone, councilmembers George Lu and Julie Lythcott-Haims voted to reappoint Peterson as a commissioner on April 13.
“I did not believe there was a sufficient basis to conclude there had been an abuse of position, so I voted for the incumbents,” Veenker said in a July 10 interview.
Burt and Reckdahl said they were surprised to see a majority pick Peterson.
“We were supplied the same report, and I simply don’t understand how (Veenker) came to the conclusion that she claimed,” Burt said in a July 11 interview.
Negative review
The tow yard owner forwarded the city a negative online review that Peterson left for his business after picking up the car for $494. “Unprofessional and incoherent not just to others but to themselves as well,” Peterson wrote. “Shop looked like a mess. I doubt they are real mechanics.”
“For 20 years, I have had no deficits to my behavior,”
Who the TF says “deficits” when it comes to character traits? Except some narcissistic weasel… like Olaf Peterson.
You mean you lack certain leadership skills and overall accountability… this dude has to go.
Pat, well done as usual doing what needs to be done for some transparency.
What’s unsaid is that Peterson is a poohbah in the Santa Clara County Democratic leadership. Veenker and Stone are desperate to have the party’s clubs and committees support them when they leave council and seek higher office. They read the report, knew it would remain secret, so they reappointed him. Once they realized it would become common knowledge, they knew he would have no status within the party and it was OK to dump him.
The silence from George Lu and Julie Lythcott-Haims — both of whom voted to reappoint Peterson — is pretty deafening.
The decision by Mayor Veenker and Council Member Stone to publicly shift positions on Commissioner Peterson’s future status indicates that five of the seven council members are ready to vote to remove him, unless he resigns prior to Monday’s likely, late- night, final agenda item.
Either way, the council may decide, as a majority, to not press for public release of the Oppenheimer Investigation’s report, thereby tying a bow around this affair and moving on.
But if that happens, valid questions may still remain, and one was highlighted in the Daily Post lead article in the July 11-12 edition. In that reporting, PADP writes “Peterson sent [Oppenheimer’s Madeline] Buitelaar his call log showing eight calls to the Palo Alto Police Department that day.” That day was January 6 of this year, the day of towing.
Last month I filed a Public Records Request with the city for transcripts of all phone calls of January 6, 2026 between Forest Peterson and the Palo Alto Police Department.
Three days later I received the following response: “The City has reviewed its files and has determined that based on the information provided in your request, the Police Department conducted a search and did not locate any responsive records.
Do not what “responsive” means in this context, but is there anything of substance in those calls that should be known? And if not, why can’t we know?
Fred, I’m no expert, but it seems to me that the city lied to you when they denied your public record request. Peterson’s personal email, texts and phone records are public records if they involve city business. That was decided in the case City of San Jose vs. Superior Court (2017).
You should raise hell about it.
If the city is lying to people who file public record requests, we’ve got a real problem. Maybe something for the DA to look at.
There generally aren’t “transcripts” of phone calls. A transcript would be a written account of the conversation, like the script of a play. If you requested “records” or “recordings”, they might actually have some. Even if they had recordings, that was more than half a year ago, so they might’ve been routinely deleted in the meantime.