For roughly 17 years, SBST ran its youth baseball/softball training program out of 995 E. Santa Clara St in San José — immediately next to Roosevelt Park and the Roosevelt Community Center, anchoring a historically underserved corridor at no cost to the City. 🟦 tenancy account
In 2020, SBST (Tony & Adam) made a good-faith, financed attempt to buy 995 outright to keep operating there long-term — Tony's account puts that offer at roughly ~$4M. 🟦 Tony's account — not yet matched to a written LOI or loan file Instead, First Community Housing (FCH), an affordable-housing nonprofit, bought the building for $5.5M, recorded 11/06/2020 — squarely mid-COVID. ✅ county record SBST was leased back for a period under the new ownership, then fully vacated 10/03/2024. The new owner's own Amended & Restated Lease §1.7, "No Relocation Benefit," put the no-help term in writing. ✅ documented — lease §1.7
Barely two years later, the buyer that outbid SBST needed its own City bailout: $13.0M (Dec 2022) so FCH could avoid defaulting on its Second Street Studios financing, plus $13.5M (Apr 2023) when the City purchased FCH's defaulted 258 McEvoy St property — $26.5M total (with roughly $87M directed to FCH over time). FCH's Executive Director resigned in June 2023 amid the financial trouble. ✅ sourced — The Real Deal, 7/27/2023, citing SJ Mercury News + City legistar The City backstopped the very buyer that outbid and displaced SBST; SBST received no relocation help and absorbed the loss itself.
Rather than fight a subsidy-backed buyer, SBST reinvested its own capital in 2022 at 2127 S 10th St — deliberately choosing the South 10th sports corridor (Fairgrounds, Sharks Ice, Tech CU Arena, SJSU athletics) to keep serving San José kids. No public money, no relocation assistance — just the owners' own capital, structured through South Bay Training LLC, which owns the building and the adjacent triangle land jointly, Adam & Tony.
What the deed didn't say going in: the parcel carries a Heavy Industrial (HI) General Plan / zoning label. HI doesn't just make a youth-sports use hard to permit — it flatly disallows it.
Confirmed directly against San José Municipal Code Title 20, Ch. 20.50, Table 20-110 — the zoning use table itself: for Recreation, Commercial (Indoor/Outdoor), the HI column shows "–" — not permitted, period, no Conditional Use Permit path exists in HI for this use. CIC shows the same use Permitted by right. TEC / IP / LI show it as conditional / General-Plan-gated. There's no CUP shortcut here — a General Plan Amendment plus rezone is the only legitimate route. ✅ code table, SJMC Title 20 Ch. 20.50
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications were formally filed with the City on 6/24/2026 (GP26-006 / C26-009 / ER26-101). ✅ signed applications on file
Planning staff has informally signaled the use may be permitted by right once the parcel is redesignated off Heavy Industrial — a positive signal, not an approval. The application is on track for the City's 2028 General Plan cycle. 🟦 working timeline A new wrinkle has also surfaced: an adjacent-parcel / HOA-signature complication tied to the "South of Tenth Business Center" industrial-condo HOA (CC&Rs recorded 10-31-2007), which governs permitted use at 2127 separately from City zoning — still being worked through. 🚩 new, unresolved
Per the City's own Code Enforcement, SBST can keep operating only as long as it's actively going through this rezoning process. This isn't paperwork for its own sake — it's the thing keeping the doors open.
“Recognize the sports/recreation use already here, and don't load full rezone and study fees onto the business the City's own housing policy displaced once already — and never helped.”
✅ on record The $5.5M FCH purchase (11/06/2020), the Lease §1.7 "No Relocation Benefit," the $26.5M FCH bailout breakdown, the FCH ED's June-2023 resignation, and the 6/24/2026 GPA/Rezoning filing are all documented — county records, primary lease PDFs, sourced reporting, and signed City applications on file.
🟦 Tony's account The ~$4M SBST offer for 995 has not yet been matched to a written LOI or loan file — stated here as Tony's account, not a verified figure.
🚩 open The exact sign-off (if any) the "South of Tenth" HOA requires; the final unit count for FCH's replacement housing project at 995 (sources disagree — not stated here for that reason); and the 2028 GP-cycle timeline is a working target, not a guarantee.
Adam & Tony (South Bay Training LLC) own 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.
They want the City to recognize SBST’s youth-sports / recreation use and cut or waive the heavy rezone / study fees on that remnant parcel.
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.
The S. 10th triangle is 0.89 ac (or 1.19 ac disputed) — both under 2.0, so it clears the size test under every reading. The acreage argument can’t be used against us; the discrepancy is a non-issue. This is the lowest-friction route to attempt the use change. ✅ acreage verified
Treat Two-Acre as the cleanest-path attempt, not a guarantee. Per the CIC technical summary, the Heavy-Industrial designation here may actually require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) — a bigger step than the small-parcel shortcut. So we lead with the Two-Acre path because it’s the least-friction option, but we plan around the GPA as the likely gate rather than assume the shortcut clears everything. 🚩 confirm the operative mechanism
“This parcel is well under two acres under any measurement — so let’s use the City’s own alternate-use policy as the cleanest path to recognize this use, and scope any General Plan step to the minimum the site actually needs.”
🚩 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.
🚩 Confirm whether a GPA is required for this Heavy-Industrial parcel (per the CIC summary) — and if so, the cycle/timing — so the Two-Acre framing is positioned as the attempt, not an over-promise.
🟦 context Private HOA CC&Rs — the “South of Tenth Business Center” industrial-condo declaration (recorded 10-31-2007) — also govern permitted use at 2127, separate from City zoning. 🚩 Pull the recorded CC&R PDF into the vault and check its use/parking terms before relying on it.
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 (995 E. Santa Clara St — its home for ~17 years) by the housing crisis / a City-backed conversion of employment land to housing, and got NO meaningful relocation assistance. This is now documented, not just narrated: the buyer’s own Amended & Restated Lease §1.7 “No Relocation Benefit” put the no-relocation-help term in writing. ✅ documented — lease §1.7 🟦 broader displacement account
Sequence: SBST negotiated in good faith to buy (2014–2019) → FCH bought 995 for $5.5M (11/06/2020, mid-COVID) → SBST was leased back, then vacated 10/03/2024 with no relocation help. The $5.5M FCH purchase and the ~$26.5M City bailout of FCH (Dec 2022 + Apr 2023) are now documented on disk (995 history & timeline). ✅ documented The ~$4M SBST offer stays Tony’s account pending the LOI/loan file. 🟦
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 our business once with no relocation help — we’re not asking for a handout, just don’t pile full fees on the remnant parcel we had to rebuild on.”
✅ on disk The displacement spine is now documented: the Amended & Restated Lease §1.7 “No Relocation Benefit” (in writing), the $5.5M FCH purchase (county record), and the ~$26.5M City bailout of FCH — all in the 995 history & timeline on disk, with the primary lease PDFs.
🟦 Still to corroborate: the ~$4M SBST offer (locate the LOI/loan file) and the employment-land → housing conversion record. 🚩 Do not assert a written/broken ROFR — discussed but never in writing.
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. The site’s 2022 Phase I ESA documents the eastern-adjoining land as a golf course (1968 aerial) and “Fairground Fairways” (1961 topo) — recreation-adjacent use is baked into the record. ✅ document-verified border
Removes the “brand-new use on industrial land” objection — the surrounding land’s recorded history runs orchard → rail → golf/fairways → transit, never heavy manufacturing. The building itself reportedly housed indoor recreation before SBST (dance, parkour/gymnastics, basketball, dog-training) — established recreation/assembly use. 🟦 prior-tenant account
“Recreational use here isn’t new — the land next door was a golf course, and this building already hosted indoor sports. It fits what this ground has already supported.”
✅ on disk Golf-course border is document-verified in the 2022 Phase I (1968 aerial PDF p.96; 1961 “Fairground Fairways” topo).
🟦 Prior indoor-recreation tenants — corroborate via prior business licenses / certificates of occupancy. 🚩 Keep “par-3 / part of fairgrounds” as family account until a historic map confirms it.
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). The appraisal documents are now on disk: the Revised appraisal (AC25-369), a Valuation Reconsideration, and a Rebuttal report. ✅ documented
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.”
✅ on disk Three appraisal documents are saved: Appraisal — 2127 S 10th St, AC25-369 (Revised), Valuation Reconsideration (Final), and the Appraisal Rebuttal Report. ⚠️ 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
The parcel’s own environmental report shows it bordered fairgrounds/recreation ground for 60+ years: the 1968 aerial shows the eastern-adjoining parcel “in use as a golf course,” and the 1961 USGS topo labels that same parcel “Fairground Fairways.” Two independent sources put golf/fairways land right on the eastern property line. ✅ document-verified · 1968 aerial + 1961 topo
Kept honest: the report says “golf course” and “Fairground Fairways,” but not “par-3,” and not that the course was formally part of the County Fairgrounds. The par-3 / part-of-fairgrounds detail is Tony’s family account — well-supported by the “Fairground Fairways” label, not yet independently confirmed. The land bordered the parcel to its line; it wasn’t inside the fairgrounds boundary. 🟦 par-3 / membership = family account
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. The owners’ parcel IS deed-confirmed former UP/SP ROW, and it shares a fence with the VTA Chaboya yard (immediate-abutter status). ✅ deed-backed for the S. 10th 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 owners of former railroad right-of-way, we’re the logical party for any surplus remnant strip under §54221 — but that’s separate upside, not what we’re 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. VTA here is an access-watch, not a square-off. 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.” The owners 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.
“We 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) as the cleanest path, and grant fee waiver / reduction / deferral. 🚩 Confirm the live 2040 small-parcel equivalent — and whether a GPA is the operative gate (per the CIC summary). (Cleanest-path attempt — scope any General Plan step to the minimum.)
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 the owners (Adam & Tony) as the logical adjacent partners 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.