Palo Alto planning commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson has resigned just before City Council was scheduled to discuss whether to remove him from the commission after it became public that he tried to get special treatment from a tow company.
After the incident with the tow-truck driver in January, City Manager Ed Shikada hired a law firm to investigate the allegations against Peterson. Council received the firm’s report in April, but declined to release it, citing attorney-client privilege.
Later in April, council split 4-3 on whether to reappoint Peterson to the planning commission. Voting for Peterson were Vicki Veenker, George Lu, Greer Stone and Julie Lythcott-Haims. Those who didn’t vote to reappoint him were Pat Burt, Keith Reckdahl and Ed Lauing.
Then, last week, Burt and Reckdahl sent a memo to the rest of council saying they wanted the report to be released.
Council members Lauing, Stone and Veenker agreed to have a discussion tonight on the Peterson report and whether to remove him from the planning commission.
At that point, it appeared that five of the seven council members were no longer in Peterson’s corner, and it appeared obvious council was going to fire him from the unpaid, volunteer planning commission post.
That’s when Peterson resigned.
The controversy began Jan. 6 when the 1994 Ford Mustang belonging to Peterson’s daughter was impounded by police because of a DMV registration issue.
At the tow yard, 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, according to a complaint by the tow yard owner to City Manager Shikada.
“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 the complaint. The city removed the tow yard owner’s name from the document obtained by the Post in order to provide him with anonymity.
The investigator’s report, which would have identified the tow yard owner and other details, was kept from the public.
“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 an interview on July 10.
Veenker, Lu and Stone all changed their minds about Peterson once it became obvious that the report would be released.
Why did it cost $50,000 to investigate this incident? The tow operator had all the details readily available. First the council majority ignored the red flags and appointed Peterson, then threw money away investigating what was obvious.
“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 an interview on July 10.
Of course she did. Just like she quietly reinstated incumbent Lythcott-Haims to the committees from which she’d been suspended for one year after the outrage died down AND then appointed her to more committees and the most influential ones without once reprimanding her when — to cite just one example — JLH was caught “misrepresenting” things like the PALY student petition which cost us big bucks exploring closing the Churchill crossing after staff finally documented the chaos it would cause.
“Veenker, Lu and Stone all changed their minds about Peterson once it became obvious that the report would be released.”
Of course they did. But what were they hiding before?
Peterson was pro-development. The 4 council members who reappointed him are pro-development. Veenker, Lu, Stone and Lythcott-Haimes were protecting one of their own.