Trees on parkland soon to be removed and replaced by a big firestation. Two other, smaller firestations, will be closed because, “These are difficult economic times…”

Blighted area nearby (Lincoln & Curtner) can’t be used for the new firestation because, “These are difficult economic times…”


MEASURE-L > City Departments > Clerk’s Office > City Election Information > November 4, 2008 > Ballots Measures

Fire Station Construction – Lincoln Glen Park

To improve fire suppression, emergency medical services and increase essential emergency facilities available for disaster response within the Willow Glen area, shall the City be authorized to construct a single-company fire station on up to 3/4 of an acre on a portion of the Lincoln Glen Park parking lot?

WGNA – August 13 Meeting

Willow Glen Neighborhood Association had its monthly Board meeting at last week.

A = Fire Station 6, B = Lincoln & Curtner, C = Foxworthy & Cherry
A = FS #6, B = Lincoln & Curtner, C = Foxworthy & Cherry

Discussion went well into the evening about Firestations 6 and 37, and if/how WGNA should respond to the forthcoming ballot measure.

Simply stated:

  • San Jose City Council wants to build Fire Station #37 on parkland at Lincoln near Curtner.  After that, Fire Station #6 would probably be closed.
  • WGNA wants to keep Fire Station #6 open and save the parkland.  If Fire Station #6 is to remain operational, then the city would do better to build Fire Station #37 at Foxworthy near Cherry.

It was decided that the WGNA should respond with a rebuttal to the measure. A prepared statement, crafted by Jean Dresden and read aloud by Harvey Darnell, was agreed to and applauded.

The final statement was (supposed to be) turned in before Tuesday at 4:59 PM. It was (soon to be) released to non-board members and posted to the WGNA website.

Let my parkland go…?

District-2 Councilman Forrest Williams voted in June to place on the upcoming ballot a measure allowing the use of District-6 parkland for the new Fire Station #37.  At the August City Council meeting a motion was made to repeal the measure because the future Fire Station #37 is somehow connected to the closing of the current Fire Station #6.  Here he is defending his stance not to repeal the ballot measure:

04.20.46 – start excerpt from City Council Meeting – 8/5/2008

>> Councilmember Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to try one more time.

It doesn’t matter, there are no absolutes. They’re totally separate.

And the way to get the council bound is to have the matter come before the council, regarding 6. If one were to have reconsideration, bring it forth for reconsideration, but don’t hold up.

We need the work that’s been done by the fire department in terms of locating the fire station, its serviceability, the range and all of those things. I mean, they’re telling us their idea. I’m not a professional fire person so I rely on their expertise to say, we’re – and especially for councilman Chirco. Let’s do that and then let’s talk about 6.

So, can you consider it in your heart and ask – discuss this to say let’s do 37 and let’s come back, let’s have staff come back to us in regards to 6? And I think we can achieve what we want to achieve, but we can move forward, as well. Because it takes a couple of years, and a couple of years and cost and all these things come up, and then we’re struggling. Right now we’re struggling for dollars. And if we postpone it a couple of years then that’s going to compound the matter. So I believe that we can get to where you want to go. But just let 37 go.

04.22.28 – end of excerpt

A Bitter Loss

From the San Jose Mercury News Website

Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio voted against placing a measure on the November ballot to convert parkland in his district into a site to build a new fire station.

Oliverio believed that building a new Fire Station 37 on part of a parking lot, next to the Willow Glen Senior Center at 2175 Lincoln Ave., would result in the closing of the existing Fire Station 6, less than two miles away.

Several residents were under the impression that the council was set on closing Fire Station 6, even though the city said the station will remain open indefinitely. Any future decision to close the station would have to go before the council.

Some council members were puzzled with Oliverio’s attempts to link the ballot measure with a closing of Fire Station 6.

“I think it is reasonable to get Fire Station 37 done and I am encouraging Councilman Oliverio to just be reasonable and logical about this,” said Councilman Forrest Williams.

Oliverio was attempting to get the council to undo its vote in June, when the council first voted to place the issue on the November ballot. Building the station requires voter approval because the site would be used for reasons other than park purposes.

Oliverio’s motion went down 6-5, with Reed and council members Williams, Madison Nguyen, Judy Chirco, Sam Liccardo and Nancy Pyle opposing, which keeps the issue on the ballot.

By Joshua Molina
Mercury News

A Better Way

San Jose City Council Special Ballot Measures Meeting
(MP3 Audio 6/19/2008)

Vice Mayor Dave Cortese commenting on Resolution No. 74459
Firestation #37 – Lincoln Glen Park

02:23:23 – start of excerpt

Vice-Mayor Dave Cortese

>> Councilmember Cortese?

I am going to vote no on this, and real quickly try to explain through a little bit of personal, old personal experience where my thinking comes from.

When I was growing up, most of you know this, I grew up in an agricultural environment here in San Jose, Santa Clara County. We had a business, it still exists, called Cortese Brothers which was interrelated entities that farmed a lot of different orchards and properties.

I will never forget for some reason, being a pretty small kid, my father needed a little bit of a larger water trough because he had some livestock that he was adding to one piece of property. He brought my uncle over who was managing the other piece of property and he said, look, I need your water trough because it is bigger. You are going to get mine and let me explain. My uncle cut him off and said let us cut to the chase. I already know what you are going to tell me, you are going to tell me I am getting a better deal. Let us make the decision whether we are going to do it or not. The point being he was not getting a better deal. I am not sure what was better off or if the livestock there were more important than the livestock at the other location, and all that stuff. That is what is going on with the Fire Master Plan.

I have to say this, I resent the rebuttal that you have to think of the whole city. First of all, I campaigned for Measure O while I was running for city council in 2000. In 2002, the public safety bond, one month before the election, had no money raised. It was doomed for failure, literally nothing in the account. I was asked a month before the election to become the honorary chair which meant I got to do the fund raising.

I raised $60,000 for that campaign. I did it because I believed and I was told the Fire Master Plan was ready, finally after years. It was finalized and nowhere in there, as Pierluigi was talking about earlier, did it talk about cannibalizing park property or eliminating fire stations, or police facilities for that matter.

So, I endorsed it, and worked really hard to sell it to the public over the last month before the election, telling them this is the way it is going to be if you approve this.

Now, people say if you are saying park lands should come before fire stations, and sometimes district issues need to be weighed against city-wide issues, that somehow I cared enough to go out and endorse the original program.

And it seems like what keeps happening, it happened in Evergreen, is only because there is not enough money now in that bond that we keep hearing over and over again, trust me, this is a better deal. We are losing another fire station, but trust me, it is a better deal. We are losing some parks and recreation property, but do not worry, it is a better deal.

There is a better way to do it. The better way to do it is to get the money somewhere else. I just do not buy the fact that there is no other property available, other than parks property, to do this that is going to make it work. I simply do not buy that. When we need to widen the road, when we need to put an interchange in, when we needed to find a substation in South San Jose for our police department, we have always been able to find property that is for sale that we can acquire to do things we need to do. That original Fire Master Plan had different locations and had different configurations for where things are going to be located. My recollection is that it generated excellent response times.

Pardon me if I am a little suspicious that all the sudden this is a better deal even though we get less fire stations out of it ultimately and we end up having to cannibalize parkland to do it.

02:27:39 – end of excerpt

… don’t forget golf courses!

Ballot Measures for the November 4, 2008 Election


This proposed charter amendment would give the City Council the right to approve park use agreements for 30 years at a time, without voter approval, in parks larger than five acres, if the agreement would enhance the recreation purpose of the park.

Currently, the City Charter only allows the City Council to enter into agreements for three years at a time except for parks where the longer agreements have been approved by the voters.

The three-year maximum limits the City’s ability to attract private companies to enter into sponsorship and operating agreements in those parks, which in turn provide funding for the improvement of facilities, such as pools, community centers and soccer fields.

The proposed revision would encourage private companies to make financial investments in exchange for lease periods long enough to obtain a return on their investment.

The charter provision would require that the long-term agreement must enhance the recreational opportunities of the park.

This measure would require a simple majority vote (50% +1) to pass.

Important Information

Memo from Councilmember Oliverio

TO: San Jose City Council
SUBJECT: Reconsider Ballot Measure
Regarding Park land / Proposed Fire House 37

FROM: Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio
DATE: July 30 , 2008


I respectfully request that the issue of using Lincoln Glen Park for the proposed Fire House 37 be included with Agenda Item 3.7 (Proposed Ballot Measures) at the August 5, 2008 San Jose City Council meeting for discussion and for the city council to reconsider it’s prior vote allowing this measure to be placed on the ballot for the November 2008 election.

At the June 19, 2008 council meeting, important information was not available for the public discussion regarding the request to place on the ballot the use of parkland for the proposed Fire House 37.

I believe that it is in the Council’s best interest that this issue is heard again, which will give the San Jose Fire Department and the City Managers office the opportunity to provide the council with the appropriate data, maps, and a list of the other proposed sites that were investigated for the proposed Fire House. This information was not included at the June 19th council meeting nor was it included in the memo “Fire Station Construction-Lincoln Glen Park Site Ballot Measure” dated May 22, 2008, which was the memo given for this issue, Therefore, in my opinion; the council did not have all the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding this matter.


Bond Measure O – San Jose 2002 Election

911, Fire, Police Paramedic, and Neighborhood Security Act

City of San Jose – March 5, 2002 Election

To improve San Jose’s fire, police, and paramedic response times by: adding and improving fire stations and police stations, training facilities, and creating state of the art 911 communications facilities, shall the City issue $159,000,000 in bonds, at the best rates possible, with the moneys deposited in a special account to be used only for these purposes and with annual expenditure reporting to a CITIZENS WATCHDOG COMMITTEE(?)

The bond proceeds could only be used for the construction of fire and police stations, training facilities and 911 communications facilities and the cost of land acquisition for these improvements. The maximum principal amount of the bonds cannot exceed $159 million. The bonds would be paid from additional property taxes levied on real property within the City.

The measure also requires the bond proceeds to be deposited in a special account and the creation of a citizens oversight or “watchdog” committee which will review annual reports of the expenditure of the bond proceeds.