Tony owns a building + an awkward little triangle of land at 2127 S 10th St that is literally old Union Pacific (ex–Southern Pacific) railroad land, still stuck with a “Heavy Industrial” label.
He wants the City to recognize SBST’s youth-sports / recreation use and cut or waive the heavy rezone / study fees on that remnant parcel.
① the parcel is under 2 acres (clean in-Plan path) · ② it’s historic railroad + deep family roots (strongest justification) · ③ the City displaced SBST before with no relocation help (strongest fairness point).
San José’s Discretionary Alternate-Use Policy (2020 GP p.251) lets a parcel 2 acres or less be approved for a different use without a full conventional rezone, if it’s compatible with neighbors.
Tony’s triangle is 0.89 ac (or 1.19 ac disputed) — both under 2.0, so it qualifies under every reading. The acreage argument can’t be used against us; the discrepancy is a non-issue. This is the lowest-friction way to the use change. ✅ verified
“This parcel is well under two acres under any measurement, so the City’s own alternate-use policy lets us recognize this use without a full rezone.”
🚩 unverified Confirm the live Envision-2040 equivalent of the 2020 Two-Acre Rule (2040 is the operative plan; the concept is the lever, the current mechanism must be cited). Pull exact p.251 text before any filing.
The land IS former Union Pacific (ex–Southern Pacific) rail right-of-way — proven by the parcel’s own 2015 UP quitclaim deed (Pueblo Lot No. 6 / Chaboya Partition; “0.909 of an acre”; the deed’s curves ARE the spur arcs). Family roots run through the LoBue–Taormino orchard/cannery line, and the surname Pepitone appears in BOTH the family narrative AND the parcel’s recorded 1951 deed chain (Joseph M. Pepitone → County of Santa Clara). ✅ deed 🟦 family narrative
San José’s landmark criteria reward heritage tied to “agriculture, commerce, or industry … 1777 to present” — orchard + cannery + railroad fits by name. The City’s own context statements treat rail spurs as documented heritage features. This turns the rezone from “developer wants a label change” into “owner stewarding San José’s railroad and family heritage.”
“This is documented Union Pacific railroad land with my family’s name in its own 1951 title chain — recognizing this use honors San José’s history, it doesn’t ignore it.”
SBST was forced out of its prior location by the housing crisis / a City-backed conversion of employment land to housing, and got NO meaningful relocation assistance from the City. 🟦 Tony’s account — corroborable
It’s the fairness hammer: the City’s own actions displaced a job-creating local business and offered no help — so it shouldn’t now load full rezone / study fees on the awkward remnant parcel. Pairs with ongoing harm (below) and the jobs pillar.
“The City displaced my business once with no relocation help — I’m not asking for a handout, just don’t pile full fees on the remnant parcel I had to rebuild on.”
🟦 Attach: relocation-assistance records (or proof none was offered); the employment-land → housing conversion that displaced SBST.
⏳ to-export The full narrative (incl. the ~$26.5M FCH bailout and $4M-vs-$5.5M outbid) is in the not-yet-on-disk memo — re-export and splice.
SBST is a job-creating use on Central-City land. The City’s own 2020 GP says it uses “incentives to attract industrial development,” that “land uses that generate jobs … typically generate greater revenue than residential use,” and keeps a Central Incentive Zone (p.285). ✅ policy backing
It backs the fee-relief ask as legitimate economic-development incentive — and it’s the live, current harm: two tenured instructors lost to cost-of-living — a ~20-year founding employee moved to Elk Grove, and a returning team member is leaving for Missouri. 🟦 corroborable
“SBST is exactly the local, job-creating employer the City says it wants — but the housing crisis is already pulling out our most tenured people; helping this site keeps those jobs here.”
🟦 Payroll/tenure records + current addresses for the two departures; the employment-land conversion record.
The parcel/area’s prior recreational uses support recognizing SBST’s sports/recreation use as consistent, not novel.
Removes the “this is a brand-new use on industrial land” objection — there’s precedent for recreation here.
“Recreational use here isn’t new — it fits what this land has already supported.”
⏳ to-export Full detail is in the not-yet-on-disk memo — re-export and confirm the specific prior-use facts/dates.
SBST’s property drew an unfavorable bank appraisal — the parcel was treated as weak collateral, which made financing harder and cut available capital (the loan still closed). 🟦 corroborable
Concrete proof the Heavy-Industrial label + awkward remnant caused real financial harm — reinforcing the equity/fee-relief case with a document, not just a story.
“The current designation made the bank treat this as weak collateral — it already cost us capital; the City shouldn’t add to that with full fees.”
🟦 Attach the actual appraisal document. ⚠️ Use the corrected wording only — unfavorable / weak collateral / loan still closed — never “worthless.”
A real program EIR — SCH# 1994023031 — already covers Land Use, Hazards, Recreation, Noise, Transportation, and Cumulative Effects. ✅ EIR exists & cited
Lets the City tier off existing environmental review instead of commissioning new studies — directly lowering cost/time. (Live hook = the Envision 2040 Program EIR; the 1994 EIR shows the conversion was studied decades ago.) Seismic fits too: the parcel’s hazard is liquefaction, not surface fault rupture (valley floor; not Alquist-Priolo zoned) — a routine geotech item, not a development-killer. ✅ favorable
“The environmental impacts here were already studied — we can tier off existing review instead of paying for new studies.”
🚩 Confirm the operative 2040 EIR tiering hook; pull the exact parcel liquefaction zone on CGS EQ Zapp + SCC GIS.
A County-backed sports district is forming right next door at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds: a Major League Cricket stadium (14 ac, ~$50M, up to 15,000 seats; ENA Jan 2022), a San Jose Earthquakes 8–10-field soccer complex + pro training center (announced Dec 2023; in active negotiation), and an SJSU “Speed City” track & field facility (ENA Mar 2022; $9M secured). ✅ sources on file
A youth-sports training facility is the single most complementary use next to that cluster — a natural extension of the district, not an outlier on “heavy industrial” land. Strengthens the emerging-character land-use argument and the activation/community-benefit story (the area reportedly has no walkable park within 3 miles).
“Our parcel sits inside the footprint of the County’s emerging Fairgrounds sports district — youth-sports training is the most natural fit on this land, advancing the County’s own goals.”
🚩 Confirm parcel-to-parcel adjacency to the stadium site on an APN/site map; confirm 2025–2026 build status of each anchor.
Under Gov. Code §54221, a former street/rail-ROW/easement can be conveyed directly to the adjacent owner as “exempt surplus land” — skipping the full Surplus Land Act competition. Tony’s parcel IS deed-confirmed former UP/SP ROW, and he shares a fence with the VTA Chaboya yard (immediate-abutter status). ✅ deed-backed for Tony’s parcel
If any abutting surplus former-ROW strip ever exists, this is the cleanest path to acquire it. Frame it as a bonus acquisition route — it does not weaken or risk the rezone case.
“As the adjacent owner of former railroad right-of-way, I’m the logical party for any surplus remnant strip under §54221 — but that’s separate upside, not what I’m asking for today.”
🚩 Whether any abutting strip is also former-ROW and truly surplus (review on-file spur maps + a Sanborn/valuation map).
⚠️ VTA reality: Chaboya is an active yard mid-electrification — not surplus; a bus-wash sits in the target corner, making fee-acquisition low feasibility. Any realistic VTA move is an easement/lease, not a purchase. This whole strip play stays parked / low-feasibility.
The parcel is an awkward triangle that’s hard to use — the textbook basis for SJMC Ch. 4.20 “not independently developable.” Tony cleaned junk-strewn, blighted land and activated it with SBST. 🟦 Tony’s account
The triangle shape is a feature, not a bug, for the argument: it’s exactly the “can’t be developed without consolidation” case, and the cleanup is concrete public-benefit / infill-activation the City’s plans favor.
“I took a blighted, awkward remnant nobody could use and turned it into an active community-sports asset — that’s the kind of infill activation the City’s own plans reward.”
🟦 Before/after photos (held by M2; merge via Drive); confirm the exact triangle shape on the parcel map.
Approve SBST’s sports/recreation use via the in-Plan Discretionary Alternate-Use Policy (parcel <2 ac under every reading) without a full rezone, and grant fee waiver / reduction / deferral. 🚩 Confirm the live 2040 small-parcel equivalent. (Cleanest path.)
Ground the change in the rail-ROW + family-roots heritage, reuse the existing program EIR (SCH# 1994023031) instead of new studies, and recognize the mapping correction — the City’s own plan calls Central-City heavy-industrial “outmoded … for conversion.” (Strongest justification.)
On the record that the City displaced a job-creating business with no relocation help (+ ongoing instructor harm + the unfavorable bank appraisal), ask the City to not load full rezone/study fees on the remnant. 🟦 attach corroboration. (Strongest equity.)
Position Tony as the logical adjacent partner for a truly surplus, non-trail former-ROW edge strip of Chaboya — via §54221 conveyance or a Cerone-style lease/joint development — tied to the Fairgrounds sports-district + heritage-museum vision. Parked / low feasibility; a standing letter of interest only.
10TH_STREET_REZONE_FEE_WAIVER_CASE.md) — displacement / $26.5M FCH / $4M-vs-$5.5M / instructor-harm / prior-recreational-use / tiered resolutions. Not on disk.SBST_HISTORY_AND_COMMUNITY_IMPACT_DOSSIER.md) — re-verify the 1,040 alumni / 31 SJSU / 27 SCU / ~160 pro figures. Not on disk.10TH_STREET_LEGAL_OPTIONS_CONFIDENTIAL.md) to a separate, access-controlled location (keep OUT of this public walk-through). Not on disk.