TRAINOR FAIRBROOK Errors on PAMF Sunnyvale Respondent Brief

TRAINOR FAIRBROOK gaping error, misses crux of source of the Shadow Complaint on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Respondent Brief. Contrary to Trainor Fairbrook’s misstatement for Judge Elfing, the petitioners did submit written comments (mine ~ 6 pages) and speak on February 23, 2009 during the Sunnyvale Planning Commission Hearing.

I spoke specifically about the issue of potential intense shadows on residential properties nearby from the Sunnyvale Palo Alto Medical Foundation building/s. Just how intense they will be is an issue in the PAMF Lawsuit because the Lead Agency would not provide more than a couple illustrations that posed additional questions that went unanswered. The Shadows are precisely a complaint and issue on the PAMF EIR lawsuit.

The respondent brief prepared by Sacramento based Trainor Fairbrook states that on the eve of Feb. 23,2009, during the Planning Commission Public Meeting that “notably, neither petitioner spoke.” Absolute rubbish as I drove straight to the meeting from work, missing dinner, and waited my turn to speak about Shadows and “The right to light.”

As a matter of fact, I was starving all night long! My friend Dianne gave me a box of licorice cough drops to hold me over through The Sunnyvale Commission Hearing that continued until almost midnight. I had submitted 6 pages of written comments/notes both email both by email and by handing to Trudi Ryan and proceeded to speak for my three minutes until I was told that my time was up.

Surprisingly, this misstatement is the crux of the shadow complaint.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s