South Bay Sports Training · San José District 7
Two parcels · the rezone · the violation · the easement/parking finding · the financing · the 6/24 intake
The situation
Tony owns two adjacent parcels on S. 10th St., operated as one site: the 0.91-ac LAND lot (APN 477-21-075 — turf field, cages, containers, gate) and a ~9,644-sq-ft industrial CONDO UNIT at 2127 S. 10th (APN 477-27-030, 1 of 12 in "South of Tenth"). Both bought from Scott Cooley; owner of record South Bay Sports Training LLC (with VAST Properties as the holding entity).
The trigger
Code Case #202510357 hit the LAND parcel — the turf/cages/lights/structures are a training-recreation use that isn't permitted in the current HI (Heavy Industrial) zone. The cure: rezone both parcels HI → CIC (Combined Industrial/Commercial), which legalizes the use in place.
The KEY easement/parking finding
✅ The recorded Reciprocal Grant of Easement and the recorded CC&Rs (Doc #19635855) are both FOUND. The hard truth: the easement grants NO parking rights in the HOA lot ("Parking rights by the dominant tenement are not included") — it's an access / loading-dock right only. Your parking right comes from UNIT OWNERSHIP / the CC&Rs, not the easement. Keep the two sources separate. The loading-dock fight is now on the August HOA board agenda.
The financing
Original Enterprise Bank → refinanced to an SBA 504 stack: Celtic Bank (first lien) + TMC/Capital Development Corp (504/CDC). Building 504 note: $1,834,000 @ 4.64%, P&I ~$11.76K/mo, funded 3/11/26. Long-term debt ≈ $4.04M vs ≈$4.46M assets.
The 6/24 meeting
Virtual intake with a Planning Technician — the start of the clock, not a decision. Run by consultant Andrew Crabtree. Meeting TIME still unconfirmed. Before it: confirm time, ask the GPA-vs-rezoning-only question, get legal descriptions + owner signatures, pick the CEQA consultant.
Bottom line
A 19-year community institution, displaced from its prior home (995), found an industrial site that fits its noise/use profile — and now needs zoning to match reality. The same physical items (containers, turf, gate, dock) recur across three fronts — City code, HOA parking, the rezone — and they all resolve the same way: legalize the use cleanly. Fighting them sloppily hurts all three.
Source: 00_TONY_INTEL_NOTES · 01_ZONING · 02_HOA_PARKING · 06_LOAN_FINANCIALS · 08_BUILDING_GENERAL · 09_ARCHIVES · 10_EASEMENT_PARKING.
⚠️ The #1 strategic question (ask Andrew first)
Is a General Plan Amendment actually required — or can we file a conforming Rezoning-only? The site arguably already sits in the City's "Monterey Business Corridor" employment area. If it conforms, you skip the GPA → far faster (months vs to-2028) and far cheaper. This single question drives timeline, cost, and the whole path.
Why CIC fixes the violation
HI (current) bars private instruction / personal-enrichment / recreation (SJMC §20.50.100) — exactly what the City flagged on the land. CIC (proposed) is a mixed district that allows those uses. The City's own notice points the cure to CIC ("allowed in CIC and TEC, but not in HI").
Tension to resolve: a separate Oct-2025 memo argues the bat/metal/leather manufacturing belongs in HI. Confirm with Andrew that CIC preserves the heavy-manufacturing side — "Combined Industrial/Commercial" is designed to hold both, but don't let the rezone outlaw the welding/lathe.
The planner headwind + your counter
Alexandre Hughes (City Planner III, 4/10/26): "Rezoning the property is not likely to be approved. I do not see any code violations on the subject APN." Division Mgr John Tu: staff will struggle under industrial-protection policy FS-4.5. Andrew's odds: ~50/50.
Counter (the integrated two-parcel employment site): the unit + lot function as ONE ~1.08-ac site via the recorded easement — employment-generating, fits the corridor. Hughes "sees no violation on the subject APN" only because the case is on the OTHER parcel — tying both APNs into ONE rezoning converts that confusion into your strongest point. Surroundings (fairgrounds, cricket stadium, The Plant, Costco, Sharks Ice, VTA) = mixed business corridor, not pure heavy industry.
💰 Costs (Andrew's authoritative numbers)
| City planning fee | Est. |
|---|---|
| GP Amendment | $26,000 |
| Rezoning | $14,000 |
| Conditional Use Permit | $25,000 |
| Mitigated Neg. Declaration | $9,000 |
| Noticing / Internal / Other | $24,500 |
| City fees subtotal | ≈ $98,500 |
| CEQA consultant (separate) | ≈ $170,000 |
All-in pre-construction: ≈ $270K–$350K on the MND path; $450K–$600K+ if an EIR is triggered. Invoiced AFTER filing; full fees due within 14 days — have funds ready.
Cost levers: (1) Rezoning-only if conformance holds; (2) Early Consideration (IP-3.11) — test Council before the big CEQA spend; (3) a CUP-only path (~$100–200K) if staff allows.
The clock
✅ DO BEFORE 6/24 (ranked)
Source: 01_ZONING.md §1–9 · Andrew's GPA process & fee memo · Gmail zoning thread 19d07898797ad11a (Hughes 4/10, Andrew 5/19) · SJMC Ch. 20.50 (web) · sanjoseca.gov GP Annual Review (web).
🔴 The one truth to internalize
The recorded Reciprocal Grant of Easement says, verbatim: "Parking rights by the dominant tenement are not included in this grant of easement." The easement is an access / ingress-egress / loading-dock right — NOT a parking right.
Your parking right comes from UNIT OWNERSHIP — your undivided interest in the Common Area parking under the CC&Rs (§1.39, §3.2.A: parking of motor vehicles in the Parking Areas). Lead with unit-owner common-area rights on parking; use the easement for access/dock/gate. Conflating them is the mistake that weakens the position.
The dispute — what's contested
Lead complainant Jessie Duong (also runs 10th St Cannabis, the "pot club") reopened it June 2026 over the loading dock: she says it belongs on your land, not in the HOA's shared lot, and you "opened 7 spaces for the baseball field" while consuming one shared space. Three live questions: (1) may the dock sit in the HOA lot? (2) are the "7 spaces" yours or encroaching? (3) the unresolved 2025 list (containers, gate, turf in driveway).
Scott Cooley's history (your best framing): the dock/easement was "long ago a trade for a right of way to your lot next door in return for a loading-dock / semi-truck access." Manager Melanie Ferreira put it on the August board agenda (6/22).
✅ Verify list (before August)
How it helps the rezone
Parking adequacy helps the rezone — but only from the right source. The "7 spaces" are, to the City, evidence you're adding capacity. The easement is the backbone of the integrated-two-parcel argument. Just don't overstate the easement as a parking solution — it's an access solution. Resolving the dock/containers/turf cleanly serves both the HOA fight and the rezone.
Source: 10_EASEMENT_PARKING.md (recorded easement text, CC&Rs Doc #19635855, file index) · 02_HOA_PARKING.md (Gmail timeline) · 08_BUILDING_GENERAL.md. Flags: easement recording status, CC&R §8.5 allocation — unverified.
The condominium & the 7th St lease
South of Tenth Business Center Unit Owners Association — 12-unit industrial condo (2121–2159 S. 10th). Tony is on the board (signed as VP, Apr 2026); Scott Cooley is President; Jessie Duong the third. Managed by Common Interest Management Services (Melanie Ferreira, current; Tammy Forrest, prior). HOA dues described as "super high" — exact figure still OPEN.
Separate 7th St land lease: ~5,800 SF at 2070 S. 7th St from Chaboya Ranch Partners, $1,100/mo, for batting cages — held in Anthony's personal name, term ran 6/1/23–5/31/25 (renewal status unconfirmed).
⚠️ Do not conflate three Cooley transactions
| Parcel | Price | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 477-27-030 unit | $2.5M | Aug 2022 · SBA |
| 477-21-075 land | $1.8M | Dec 2022 · land refi |
| 2139 (Hastest) | ~$2.431M | Cooley carry · not confirmed closed |
Source: 08_BUILDING_GENERAL.md (Kidder Mathews appraisal) · 06_LOAN_FINANCIALS.md · 09_ARCHIVES.md · 01_ZONING.md.
The loan stack, in plain terms
✅ The executed building 504 note (conformed — hard numbers)
| Loan # | 7918349109 |
| Amount | $1,834,000 |
| CDC | Capital Development Corp ("09-655") |
| SBA approval / note | 11/24/2025 / 12/12/2025 |
| Funded | 3/11/2026 |
| Rate / maturity | 4.64033% / 3/1/2051 |
| P&I / monthly | $10,327.29 / $11,758.57 |
Collateral assignment of life insurance on Anthony required. EPC/OC structure (holding leases 100% to operating co; OC occupies ≥51%).
Debt position on the books (QB, 6/19/26)
TMC SBA $1,810,244 + Celtic Bank SBA #1 $2,167,633 = LT debt ≈ $4,040,840, against ≈$4.46M fixed assets at 10th St. Tony's read: "asset-rich, cash-thin, over-leveraged."
Annual carry + the rezone spend
Carry (partly OPEN): SBA monthly $11.76K (building), land-refi monthly OPEN, HOA dues "super high" OPEN, SCC property taxes (~$36K/yr modeled for 2139), 7th St lease $1,100/mo (income), Mike interest.
Rezone/violation cost stack (the active new spend): ≈$98.5K City + ≈$170K CEQA = $270K–$600K all-in, plus Berliner Cohen legal, surveyor/plat, permit corrections.
Source: 06_LOAN_FINANCIALS.md · 09_ARCHIVES.md (conformed SBA Note, QB balances) · 00_TONY_INTEL_NOTES.md. OPEN: Enterprise terms, land-refi terms, HOA dues, current tax bills, 2139 close status.
The narrative (a formal doc already exists)
There's already a written "Historic Family Narrative for Use in Zoning & Land-Use Justification" (PDF, 11/22/2025) — fold it into the filing. The story:
SBST has been in the community since 2007. Its prior home was 995 [address] — 16–17 years building it there. When they tried to buy 995, they were outbid by a low-income housing project that then turned out to be completely mismanaged; the city had to bail out the nonprofit, the CEO left First Community Housing, and the property had to be sold again. After 995, they searched all over San José and landed by the fairgrounds — the 10th St site — which felt right.
Why an industrial zone genuinely fits SBST
Noise (bats, training, lights), active hands-on use, the kind of operation that belongs in an industrial setting — not retail/residential. This is a strong argument FOR the site being appropriate where it is: a legitimate employment/community use that suits the corridor. Plus a real manufacturing side (glove/bat/equipment, metalwork, leather) that authentically belongs in industrial.
The rezone framing: a 19-year community institution, displaced by a mismanaged housing project the city itself had to bail out, that did everything right finding an industrial home matching its noise/use profile — now just needs the zoning to match reality. Sympathetic + policy-sound.
⚠️ Fact-check before any public use
The dollar figure Tony recalls as "~$20 billion" is almost certainly $20 MILLION unverified — and the bailout / CEO-departure / resale details should all be confirmed against the public record before being used in a City filing. Strong story, but verify the numbers first.
Source: 00_TONY_INTEL_NOTES.md (history) · 11_CX2_FILE_INDEX.md (Historic Family Narrative doc, 10th St Vs 995). $20M figure + bailout details = UNVERIFIED, fact-check required.
Tony's team
City side
HOA / counterparties
Financing / entity
Source: 04_PEOPLE.md · 02_HOA_PARKING.md · 09_ARCHIVES.md · 00_TONY_INTEL_NOTES.md.
✅ Located (the gold finds)
🔴 MISSING / to chase
Source: 11_CX2_FILE_INDEX.md · 10_EASEMENT_PARKING.md (file index) · 01_ZONING.md §5/§5b · 08_BUILDING_GENERAL.md §8.
🔴 Before 6/24 (tomorrow)
🟠 This week / pre-August
🟡 Verify / confirm (data integrity)
Source: synthesized open-items from 01,02,04,06,08,09,10,11. Flags carried: easement recording, $20M figure, parking allocation — all UNVERIFIED.