🏟️ Property / Zoning Report

• Case #202510357 — on the land parcel APN 477‑21‑075.
• Violation: unpermitted turf field, outdoor batting/training cages, fence, sport lights, structures + storage shed — on HI‑zoned land where the use isn't allowed.
• City: Karla Caceres (Inspector #177E, 408‑795‑1629); Donald Timoteo; Zoning + Building Code Compliance inboxes.
• Order: cease use, remove structures, permit the sport lights + demo w/ electrical. Deadline Jan 9 2026, extension requested Dec 2025.
• Status: open; being cured via the rezoning. Keeping Karla updated = the holding strategy.

• Zoning: HI → proposed CIC (Combined Industrial/Commercial). Council District 7.
• Must file together: GPA + Rezoning + Site Development/Use Permit. Rezoning types: Conventional/Conforming vs Planned Development.
• Andrew Crabtree = land‑use planner / primary applicant contact (does app mechanics, not legal advice).
• Deadlines: June 1 soft deadline for 2027 cycle · May 29 slot declined · June 24 kept → officially tracks to 2028 (2027 still possible).
• CEQA: required; likely MND, possibly full EIR. Consultant from City's list of 14; identified on the Rezoning form.

📋 GPA application package (per the City PDF)

• Completed + signed GPA form (digital‑ID signature required).
• Legal description of the property.
• Vicinity map: site centered, surrounding streets named, all land uses within 500 ft labeled, north arrow at top.
• Both APNs comma‑separated on one app: 477‑21‑075, 477‑27‑030.
• Captures parcel size/gross acres, Council District (7), current zoning, current → proposed General Plan designation, amendment type (likely Land Use/Transportation Diagram), project description (existing/demolished/proposed sq ft + uses).
• Planner line: 408‑535‑3555.

💵 Process + fees

• GPA heard on an ANNUAL cycle (Planning Commission → City Council).
• Invoice comes AFTER you submit items; app is rejected until fee items provided + paid; review won't start until initial fees paid.
• Full fees due within 14 DAYS of the invoice — tight cash clock right after 6/24.

🎯 Early Consideration (EC) — strategic option

• Per GP Policy IP‑3.11, request an Early Consideration hearing before City Council without a development‑permit app up front.
• Council either denies or directs staff to continue. Lets you test Council appetite early before big CEQA/rezoning spend — relevant given "not likely to be approved." Adds time + fees. Discuss with Scordelis + Andrew.

🧩 Core strategy — Integrated Two‑Parcel Site

Frame the building parcel + adjacent lot as ONE integrated "Sports‑Industry Employment Site" (~50k sq ft concept) tied by a recorded reciprocal easement; fits the Monterey Business Corridor (fairgrounds, proposed cricket stadium, VTA), not isolated heavy industry. Support: clean 2022 Phase I ESA; historic Pueblo Lot No. 6 / Union Pacific rail‑spur map; Pepitone legacy‑use angle.

• Stephen Scordelis, Partner, Berliner Cohen — Stephen.Scordelis@berliner.com · 408‑286‑5800. Land‑use partner Jolie Houston; paralegal Rosie Moreno; consultant Andrew Crabtree.
• Handles: overall legal strategy + risk, the HOA/parking dispute, Code Enforcement coordination, the GPA legal framing. Engagement ~Sept 2025.
• Advice given: his land‑use partner advised Tony respond to Code Enforcement directly (softer posture); endorsed starting the GPA (fees hard to estimate); 2/27 action items — env consultant ASAP, tell City "actively working w/ legal," ghostwrite update letter, lobby Council, apply for building permit, gather neighbor support letters; explore Pepitone prior‑ownership angle.
• Split: Scordelis = legal/risk/HOA/Council. Andrew = GPA/rezoning mechanics + City process.
• ⚠️ Posture: framing is "show progress toward legalization" — the rezoning is partly a defense against enforcement, not a guaranteed win.

What it is: Your property is inside the South of Tenth Business Center (12‑unit industrial condo HOA, managed by Common Interest Management / Melanie Ferreira). The other unit owners object that your sports operation uses shared/adjacent space and doesn't provide enough customer parking.

The "guy" / who's pushing:

• Jessie Duong (duongqt@gmail.com) — lead complainant for the co‑owner group.
• Robert Tang — co‑owners' attorney (demand letter June 18 2025).
• Co‑owners: units 2121/2123/2129/2131/2137/2143/2159 — Terry Hu, Brando Duong, Bic Pho, Dan Thieu (ND Nail Supply).
• Scott Cooley — owner/board, sold you the land; cooperative; notes loading dock belongs on "the lot next door (owned by Tony)."

Demands (Sep 30 2025, deadline Oct 31): remove 4 of 5 containers, relocate box office, free space for parking, open access gate during business hours, remove artificial grass from driveway.

Status (Jun 2026): Tony relocated the loading dock to create parking; spots now marked. Shifted from legal‑threat mode to routine HOA business; no new Tang escalation in the record.

🔗 How it connects:

• Same land — the containers/turf/gate the HOA is fighting are the same improvements on 477‑21‑075 that triggered the City case (a neighbor complaint likely started it).
• Same attorney — Tony came to Scordelis first for the HOA matter (Jul 2025); engagement then expanded to the City fight.
• Same cure — the reciprocal easement / parking is the same relationship the rezoning legitimizes. Winning the rezoning defuses the HOA parking complaint.

⚠️ Your zoning‑app draft labeled the parcels in the opposite roles (477‑27‑030 = the ~0.17‑ac condo unit at 2127; 477‑21‑075 = the ~0.91‑ac land). Acreages (0.91/0.17) are consistent either way — but confirm which APN carries which address on the legal descriptions before filing. They function as one integrated site (~1.08 ac) via recorded reciprocal easement. The City's "one record / no violation" confusion stems from exactly this.

What: virtual intake with a City Planning Technician to file the GPA (earliest slot Andrew could get). You kept it over May 29.

Consequence: filing after the June 1 soft deadline officially tracks toward a 2028 Council hearing (2027 still possible if CEQA moves fast).

Needed before the meeting:

• ✅ Completed + signed GPA/Zoning form (digital‑ID signature).
• ❗ Legal descriptions for BOTH parcels (Andrew needs these).
• ❗ Owner signatures — you're 40.5%; need the other 40.5% + 19% owners; resolve Scott M. Cooley Trust title‑of‑record for the affidavit.
• ❗ CEQA consultant from the City's list of 14.
• ✅ Location/vicinity map (Andrew provides), Phase I ESA, parcel reports — in the "get in the ZONE!" Drive folder.

Your team

• Tony Sanguinetti — tony@southbaytraining.com · 408‑612‑1239
• Adam Varteressian — adam@southbaytraining.com · 408‑828‑8313
• Ben Sanguinetti — ben@southbaytraining.com · 408‑655‑8354

Legal / consultant

• Stephen Scordelis — Stephen.Scordelis@berliner.com · 408‑286‑5800
• Jolie Houston — Jolie.Houston@berliner.com · Rosie Moreno (paralegal) — rosie.moreno@berliner.com
• Andrew Crabtree — a_crabtree@yahoo.com

City of San José

• Karla Caceres — karla.caceres@sanjoseca.gov · 408‑795‑1629
• Alexandre Hughes — Planner III (via ZoningCodeCompliance@sanjoseca.gov)
• John Tu — Division Mgr, Current Planning · Donald Timoteo — donald.timoteo@sanjoseca.gov
• Planner line: 408‑535‑3555 · buildingcodecompliance@sanjoseca.gov

HOA / co‑owners

• Jessie Duong — duongqt@gmail.com · Robert Tang (co‑owners' attorney)
• Scott Cooley — scottmcooley@hotmail.com · 408‑829‑4130
• Melanie Ferreira — mkferreira@commoninterest.com · 877‑904‑3080 x169

• 🔴 1. Confirm the meeting TIME with Andrew/City — not in any email. (it's tomorrow)
• 🔴 2. Legal descriptions for BOTH parcels; confirm which APN carries 2127 vs the adjacent lot.
• 🔴 3. Owner signatures — you're 40.5%; get the 40.5% + 19% owners; resolve Cooley Trust title issue.
• 🟠 4. Pick the CEQA environmental consultant (City list of 14).
• 🟠 5. Confirm with Andrew: forms filled live at intake, or submitted first? (your 5/23 question went unanswered).
• 🟡 6. Decide GPA‑only vs GPA + Rezoning together (Andrew's Options 2 vs 3).
• 🟡 7. Decide on Early Consideration (IP‑3.11); prep vicinity map; have fee money for the 14‑day clock.
• 🟡 8. Keep Karla updated that the app is being filed 6/24 (holds case #202510357).
• 🟢 9. HOA: confirm relocated dock + marked parking satisfies co‑owners so it doesn't re‑escalate.

• 🔴 "Rezoning not likely to be approved" — Planner Hughes said it outright; Div. Mgr Tu says staff will struggle; GP policy FS‑4.5 protects industrial land. Staff likely recommends against — approval rests on Council overruling staff. Andrew: ~50/50.
• 🔴 Timeline >1 year (CEQA) — heard once a year (Nov); MND/possible EIR is the long pole. Filing 6/24 → 2028 track; 2027 only if fast. Code case stays open meanwhile.
• 🟠 Cost + 14‑day fee clock — fees hard to estimate; City invoices after filing, full payment due in 14 days or it stalls. EC is the lever to limit spend.
• 🟠 Ownership/signature gap — only 40.5% owner; land still titled to Scott M. Cooley Trust of record; could delay filing.
• 🟠 Two‑parcel record confusion — City sees one record / no violation on subject APN; legal descriptions must clearly tie both APNs + right addresses into one rezoning.
• 🟡 HOA re‑escalation — co‑owners (via Tang) could revive demands while the use is unpermitted; same items as the City flag.
• 🟡 Defensive posture — counsel's framing signals the rezoning is the defense; if it fails, fallback is removal/cease‑use per Karla's order.