Planning commissioner followed city rules, review concludes

By Linda Taaffe, Town Crier Staff Writer

There was no misconduct on the part of Los Altos staff or the planning commissioner with financial ties to a condominium project on El Camino Real, the personnel committee reported last week.

Commissioner Penny Lave followed city rules, the committee determined. Any failure to comply with California’s conflict-of-interest laws was “unintended and due to an unfamiliarity to new California law,” the committee concluded.

The committee recommended that staff update and redistribute educational materials given to appointed and elected officials to reflect recent changes in California’s conflict-of-interest laws as part of the city’s revamp of its code of ethics.

The city should drop the matter and take no further action, the committee recommended.

The Los Altos City Council asked the committee to review an informal complaint that a resident filed against Lave earlier this month for allegedly violating California’s disclosure laws. According to the complaint, Lave failed to disclose the details of her conflict of interest in the meeting minutes after she recused herself, and didn’t include her interest in the project on an annual economic interests statement.

The council agreed to accept whatever findings the committee recommended.

“It is undisputed that Lave properly and voluntarily recused herself” when the condominium project at 5100 El Camino Real was on the agenda, according to the committee findings.

The reason she recused herself, however was not reflected in the minutes as required under recent changes made in California law at the start of this year.

The committee could not determine if Lave did not state a reason or if the minutes failed to reflect the reason.

The committee could not determine if Lave violated any laws when filing her annual financial interests with the state.

The committee received “conflicting opinions from Fair Political Practice Committee that cannot be relied upon. The committee does not give opinions on past events.”

The committee concluded, “We do not recommend this question be pursued. Any wrongdoing was due to a lack of awareness, not the intent to deceit if there were any violations.”

The committee interviewed other planning commissioners and determined that Lave had “no undue influence on the other planning commission members.”

The council unanimously accepted the committee’s findings.