BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Palo Alto Mayor Vicki Veenker says the public’s reaction to a planning commissioner allegedly trying to get special treatment at a tow yard prompted her to reconsider her support for him.
In an interview yesterday, Veenker defended her vote to reappoint Commissioner Forest Olaf Peterson in April, despite seeing the tow yard owner’s complaint, and then her decision to consider removing Peterson on Monday.
Peterson resigned on Sunday night before council discussed removing him.
Veenker said the report on the tow yard dispute was missing two key pieces of information: an interview with the tow yard owner, and video from the tow yard that Peterson said would exonerate him. “That’s troubling to me,” Veenker said.
Peterson was upset after his daughter’s 1994 Ford Mustang was towed from a city parking garage on Jan. 6, costing him $494.
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.
“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 to City Manager Ed Shikada.
Shikada hired an attorney for $50,000 to investigate the complaint on March 9. The attorney’s report was sent to council on April 7 but hasn’t been released to the public.
A yes or no vote
Four council members – Veenker, Greer Stone, George Lu and Julie Lythcott-Haims – voted to reappoint Peterson on April 13.
Stone said that when council votes to appoint or reappoint a commission member, the actions are simple “yes” or “no” votes with limited opportunity for council discussion. So he supported the idea of considering Peterson’s removal on Monday.
“Given the heightened interest in this particular appointee, I thought it was appropriate to give my colleagues another opportunity to discuss the appointment and reconsider their votes if they chose to do so,” Stone said in an email.
On the commission, Peterson said parking has become his number one issue and specifically mentioned the garage where his daughter’s car was towed at a July 8 meeting.
“I would have been the last person in the world to say that public parking is my favorite topic,” he said.
“But it has become, to me as a planning commissioner, probably one the single most important urban topics we have in the commercial districts.”
The city released the tow yard owner’s complaint on July 9 in response to a California Public Records Act request.
A cloud over the commission
Veenker said Peterson was angry with the tow company and parking rules.
“I believe it could call his impartiality on those topics into question and could also leave a cloud over the Planning and Transportation Commission’s discussions,” Veenker said in an interview.
Report is still secret
Councilman Pat Burt isn’t giving up his fight to release the report, even though Peterson has resigned.
He wrote a memo with Councilman Keith Reckdahl pushing for the city to release the report.
“Maintaining public community trust requires transparency and public accountability,” Burt and Reckdahl’s memo said.
Veenker said she wants to have a broader discus sion about the benefits, implications and precedent of releasing the report.
Peterson hasn’t returned phone calls or emails, and he didn’t mention the tow yard incident in his three-sentence resignation email to Veenker.
“The depth of my appreciation for this opportunity to serve and of all I have learned during my time here is difficult to articulate,” he said. “I look forward to carrying those experiences forward and continuing to contribute to our community in new ways and across a broad range of issues.”
Veenker, Lu, Stone, Haimes were so eager to have a pro-development ally on the PTC that they were willing to overlook Peterson’s behavior. Council should release the report so we can see what he really did.
Mayor Veenker is troubled because there was no video from the tow yard and no interview with the owner. But shouldn’t she be directing her concern to the city attorney as to why those elements were not specifically included in the legal services agreement? Or have delayed the April 13 vote on commission appointments until those items were supplied or it was determined they could not or would not be provided?
And why, after a very serious allegation is made —Peterson’s referring to police friends while asking for a discount —does it take two months to begin an investigation or fail to contact authorities?
And so, after the vote to reappoint him, Peterson, possibly feeling his storm has passed, returns to the dais for another five meetings. It culminates in the weird moments on July 8, reprinted above, where he appears to be referencing his own circumstances.
It just might have been the last straw for someone in the know, as the press had the back story online two nights later.
As vacation break ended, the mayor had seen the light and made the right decision, moving directly with two other councilmembers to agendize his removal. No pre-discussion of the report; just vote him off.
As occurred in January with his online rant following the tow yard owner’s complaint, he again fired back. “Residentialists” were at fault and if council members did not release the report, it may have political ramifications.
Late the next evening, the day prior to the council meeting, he came to his senses and resigned.