Uncategorized

For the second time this month, Morgan Hill Police found a body of a man who died in a public area, apparently due to illness or a medical condition, according to authorities.On Saturday morning, June 16, police responded to an area beside Rite Aid, 16000 Monterey Road, for a report of an unresponsive adult, according to MHPD Sgt. Troy Hoefling.Police arrived and confirmed the man was dead. Officers do not suspect he died of foul play. Hoefling said the man was transient and had a “plethora of medical conditions.”“You could tell where he made his bed for the evening, and never got up,” Hoefling said.The Santa Clara County Coroner’s Office identified the man as Victor Goehner, 63, of Morgan Hill.The death is the second body found in a public place in Morgan Hill this month.On June 6, Kevin Hart, 54, of Morgan Hill, was found dead outside a commercial building at 16975 Monterey Road, at the intersection of Spring Avenue. Nothing was suspicious about Hart’s death either, and police think he died of unspecified medical issues.Man struck, killed by trainAn Amtrak train hit and killed a pedestrian in north Morgan Hill the evening of June 17.Just after 8pm, the train reportedly struck an adult male who was sitting on the tracks in the area of Monterey Road and Cochrane Road, according to Hoefling. Just before the train hit him, the man had been sitting on one of the track rails, with his legs stretched to the side.The coroner’s office as well as Amtrak police assisted MHPD in gathering evidence and investigating the scene. Foul play is not suspected in the death.On Tuesday, the coroner’s office identified the man as Victor Lopez-Granados, 33, of Morgan Hill.Authorities are continuing to investigate the death to determine why Lopez-Granados was sitting on the tracks as the train approached, Hoefling said.

Morgan Hill City Councilman Larry Carr is scheduled to appear in court again July 11, for a pre-trial conference on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge, according to authorities.Carr, 49, was scheduled for a pre-trial conference hearing June 15 at the South County Courthouse in Morgan Hill. That hearing will continue July 11 at the same courthouse, according to Santa Clara County Supervising Deputy District Attorney Vishal Bathija.Carr has pleaded not guilty to the charge of domestic battery, which carries a maximum sentence of a $2,000 fine or one year in county jail, or both.The charge stems from a Nov. 25, 2017 incident involving his girlfriend of 11 years, with whom he shared a home in downtown Morgan Hill at the time.Morgan Hill Police responded to the couple’s residence that evening, and arrested Carr after taking statements from him and his girlfriend. The woman told police that Carr, during a lengthy verbal argument, “ripped the glasses from her face and threw them to the ground, causing them to break,” and pulled her hair in the process, according to the police report of the investigation.Carr told police at the time that any contact he made with his girlfriend during the argument was accidental.The victim did not exhibit any injuries or indicate a complaint of pain, according to police.Carr—who is currently serving in his fifth term as a Morgan Hill councilmember—was convicted of a similar misdemeanor charge in 2015, in relation to an incident at the couple’s previous home March 23. Carr pleaded no contest to domestic battery and completed a 16-week counseling program. The court later dismissed the charge from his record, at Carr’s formal request. Carr has also denied acting violently in that incident, and he pleaded no contest to avoid prolonged court proceedings.If Carr is convicted of the 2017 charge, the court can consider the 2015 conviction as a prior offense in his sentencing, according to authorities.

The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors approved a $7 billion budget and spending plan at a June 15 meeting.

Morgan Hill’s Randall Steven Curtis will serve a 10-year prison sentence for bringing child pornography into the U.S. from Cambodia, according to authorities.Curtis was sentenced in federal court June 8 on the charge of transporting and possessing child pornography. Senior U.S. District Judge Susan Illston handed down the sentence in the Northern District of California courtroom, according to a press release from the Department of Justice.Curtis, 62, pleaded guilty to the charges July 13, 2017, according to authorities. The investigation began when Curtis’ luggage was flagged for a secondary inspection at the San Francisco International Airport upon his return from Cambodia.In Curtis’ luggage, Customs and Border Patrol agents found six electronic devices containing child pornography, as well as a falsified identification card for an individual known as “C.C.” According to the plea agreement, Curtis admitted that the devices contained more than 600 images depicting child pornography, including images of toddlers and infants engaged in sexually explicit conduct, the press release says.Some of the images found in Curtis’ possession depict bondage and penetration of child victims, according to authorities.Curtis also admitted that his devices contained sexually explicit images of C.C. exposing her genitals. He told authorities he took these images on a 2016 trip to Cambodia. Authorities have further evidence that C.C. was 16 years old when the photos were taken, according to the press release.A federal grand jury indicted Curtis Dec. 15, 2016, charging him with one count each of transporting child pornography and possession of child pornography. Curtis pleaded guilty to both charges, according to the press release.In addition to the 10-year prison term, Curtis was also sentenced to a five-year period of supervised release and ordered to pay restitution to the victims in an amount to be determined at a future hearing. Curtis was immediately remanded into custody June 8.The prosecution is the result of an investigation by Homeland Security Investigations.

Firefighters contained a grass fire near the San Martin Airport before it spread to the nearby animal shelter Monday afternoon, according to authorities.About 2:15pm June 11, CalFire received a call reporting a fire on the southbound side of U.S. 101, opposite the northbound CHP scales, according to Battalion Chief Jim Crawford. When crews arrived they determined the fire was burning vegetation on the county airport property, spreading south toward the animal shelter located at 12370 Murphy Ave.“Crews were able to do structure protection on the animal shelter—no damage there,” Crawford said.Although the animal shelter was briefly threatened, no structures burned in the Monday afternoon fire. A little more than nine acres of vegetation burned before firefighters contained the blaze, according to Crawford.Some employees at the animal shelter suffered “minor injuries” while they hurried to rescue some of the animals housed at the county facility, Crawford added. No firefighters were injured.

Few players have had quite the journey that Mitch Hickey has been on. The 2014 Live Oak High graduate was a 28th-round selection of the New York Mets in the recent Major League Baseball Draft, the latest milestone in a career filled with them. The amazing thing is, Hickey’s story is far from finished.

From San Jose south down U.S. 101, most folks who live in the valley have little idea what happens in the hills that surround them. The rolling hills are full of life, though, and the cattle industry practiced since the Spanish Vaqueros still thrives.

Local residents and public agencies have until July 30 to comment on the first-draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the Cordoba Center mosque and community center proposed in San Martin.Singled out in the document summary as a “significant and unavoidable impact” are the proposal’s “project-generated greenhouse gas emissions.” These are associated with both the construction and ongoing operation of the Cordoba Center, according to the EIR. The document proposes a number of “mitigation measures” for this impact, as well as all potential effects of the project on the environment and its surroundings.A May 30 public notice from the Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development welcomes “your comments regarding the significant environmental effects of this project and the adequacy of the draft EIR.” Comments can be submitted in writing by mail or email, or by telephone.The county has scheduled a public meeting to receive verbal comment on the EIR draft for July 12 at 7 p.m. at the Morgan Hill Community and Cultural Center, 17000 Monterey Road.The Cordoba Center is proposed by the South Valley Islamic Community on a vacant 15.8-acre parcel at Monterey Road and California Avenue in San Martin. The 230-page draft EIR, commissioned by the county as a required step in the ongoing project approval process, lists all the potential impacts of the proposal on the local environment and public facilities—including impacts on groundwater, carbon emissions, vehicle traffic, visual surroundings, cultural resources and noise.The Cordoba Center is proposed as a “multi-use religious and cultural center to serve the Muslim community of south Santa Clara County,” according to a letter from county staff introducing the draft EIR.Proposed structures include a two-story mosque (about 9,000 square feet), a two-story community building (about 14,500 square feet), outdoor community plaza (about 15,000 square feet), cemetery located on 3.55 acres on the western side of the property, maintenance building, caretaker’s dwelling, youth camp, playfield/playground, orchard and associated site infrastructure including a bioretention swale and connected retention pond.After the public comment period on the draft EIR ends July 30 at 5 p.m, county staff will spend the next several weeks responding to each comment submitted by the public and the applicant. After that, the project will be filtered through the San Martin Advisory Committee and the county planning commission before the board of supervisors votes on the center’s site plan. County staff have said the public hearings before these bodies could begin this fall.If the county approves the project, SVIC can begin to seek permits. The applicant estimates it can complete the Cordoba Center’s construction by 2021.The draft EIR includes photos of the current state of the property as well as simulated images of how the Cordoba Center would look at the San Martin site. It also includes drawings and elevations for the project, as submitted by SVIC.SVIC spokesman Hamdy Abbass said he has “thumbed through” the draft EIR, which was released to the public May 30. He said so far through his reading of the document, nothing stands out as unexpected other than the potential greenhouse gas impact. Overall, he calls the draft environmental assessment “positive” for the SVIC and the community of San Martin.“We’re not seeking any variance from anybody. We never did and never will. We’ll follow the advice and guidelines of the county, to do what is right for all of us,” Abbass said.The SVIC represents about 400 residents of South County. Members currently pray and worship in a renovated barn in San Martin.

Attorneys for the city of Morgan Hill argued before the California Supreme Court last week in a case that pits the people’s ability to challenge local elected bodies’ decisions against private property development rights.The case, City of Morgan Hill vs. Bushey, plunges deeply into the technical nuances of how the California Constitution allows cities and other government entities to apply land use designations when faced with public pressure through the established, uncontested ballot referendum process.The legal battle, which has reached the state’s highest court after more than three years, started when the Morgan Hill City Council in March 2015 rezoned a 3.39-acre parcel on the southeast corner of Madrone Parkway and Lightpost Way from industrial to general commercial. Riverpark Hospitality requested the rezoning, and planned to build a 149-room hotel on the site.The council later rejected a petition—filed by the Morgan Hill Hotel Coalition and signed by more than 4,000 voters—to repeal the new zoning or put the question to the voters in a general election.In January 2016, the MHHC sued the city for violating the state elections code by rejecting the certified, voter-initiated petition. In February 2016, then-interim City Attorney Gary Baum revisited the council’s original rejection of the petition. He recommended the council approve a ballot measure asking the voters if they wanted the Riverpark property to retain its original industrial zoning, but at the same time challenge the measure in court by filing litigation against Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Shannon Bushey.Santa Clara County Superior Court sided with the city in a March 2016 ruling.The MHHC appealed that decision, which was overturned in the coalition’s favor May 30, 2017, by the California Sixth Appellate District Court.The city appealed that decision, and on May 30 attorneys for the city, Riverpark Hospitality and MHHC posed their arguments before the state’s six Supreme Court justices, who followed up with a number of incisive questions of the three parties. The hearing took place at the Earl Warren building in San Francisco.The Supreme Court will issue its decision within 90 days of last month’s hearing.Riverpark Hospitality is listed as “real party in interest/appellant,” and the MHHC is listed as “real party in interest/respondent” in the case.  The case has been closely watched by some California land use attorneys, who are eager to see how the outcome could impact their municipal and private development clients.The City Council hired the firm Leone & Alberts to represent the council in the litigation and to present arguments in court.City Attorney Don Larkin commented on the significance of the case.“The court is reviewing a rule that’s been in place for more than 30 years,” Larkin said. “For the first time (in 30 years), they’re looking at weighing the rights of the voters against the property interests of property owners—two significant competing constitutional issues they’re looking at.”The city has consistently argued that if the council had approved the Riverpark zoning referendum and the voters decided to keep the property zoned industrial, that would create an illegal inconsistency between the zoning ordinance (industrial) and the city’s general plan (commercial).However, the MHHC has argued the city could rezone the Madrone/Lightpost property as one of 12 commercial classifications permitted in Morgan Hill’s zoning code—even if these other zones do not allow hotel use.MHHC, which represents a number of local hotel owners, also argued against the initial rezoning request, citing fears of the proposed hotel’s impact on the existing market.Attorney Asit Panwala, whose parents own the Comfort Inn in Morgan Hill, argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the MHHC.Experts offer thoughtsMegan Cesare-Eastman, a former deputy city attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, watched the May 30 arguments on the Supreme Court’s live webcast. She said the court’s challenge is to “strike that balance” between cities’ ability to “enact zoning that is consistent with the general plan (and) the people’s right to referendum, to shoot down different types of ordinances they disagree with.”Cesare-Eastman, who now works for the San Francisco-based firm Conrad and Metlitzky, added, “The people’s referendum power is a constitutional right that provides the people with a means of checking legislation before it goes into effect.”Historically, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to curb this right, she added.“I think the court has routinely shot down any sort of challenges to sweeping powers of referendum and initiative,” Cesare-Eastman said. “I find it unlikely that the court would restrict the right of referendum in this context.”Bryan Wenter—a Walnut Creek land use attorney who represents developers, property owners and public agencies—noted that in the Morgan Hill case, the Supreme Court could upend a 1985 ruling that established a clear “bright line rule” that has “created certainty for developers” for more than three decades.Wenter, who also watched the May 30 hearing online, predicts the justices will rule in favor of the MHHC, based on their questions in court.“This will lead to more referenda, more litigation,” said Wenter, who works for the Miller Starr Regalia firm and writes a blog on land use law. “Citizens could run forward with a referendum every time a public agency tries to create consistent zoning. What would happen to public agencies if the public is able to referend every decision?”He added, “It has the potential to make it harder to accomplish development.”“If you have a sufficiently motivated community that doesn’t like a certain project, that is a tool that is going to be used to prevent, repeatedly, the democratically elected governing body from moving forward with the project they chose to support,” Wenter said.Larkin noted that the Supreme Court, unlike the lower courts, “gets to determine the law” and therefore does not have to rely on established case law to make its ruling.“Our hope is they give us some clear guidance for the future, regardless of where they come out,” Larkin said.