San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary, Measure W (November 2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on Property
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
A San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary, Measure W ballot proposition was on the November 2, 2010 ballot for voters in the City of San Ramon in Contra Costa County.[1] It was defeated.

The ballot measure asked voters to approve an update to the city's 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan was the city's land-use planning guide. The proposed update to the plan would include a provision extending the city's urban growth boundary to 1,600 acres of agricultural open space in the Tassajara Valley.[2]

Some environmental groups opposed extending the urban growth boundary. Extending the boundary would have meant that urban development could occur on land where it was previously prohibited.

Election results

Measure W
Defeatedd No14,82671.37%
Yes 5,946 28.63%
These final, certified results are from the Contra Costa County elections office.

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

General Plan 2030. To plan for the future, shall an ordinance be adopted to: approve General Plan 2030; extend Ordinance 197 policies and procedures to 2015 to protect ridgelines, creeks, and open space; expand the Ridgeline Creek Protection Zone map; and extend the Urban Growth Boundary to enhance local control while preserving our quality of life?[3]


Supporters of Measure W said it would have placed control of the valley into the hands of San Ramon residents instead of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.[4]


The group "San Ramon Residents Opposed to Measure W" raised $78,932 in cash contributions through October 16.[5]

Opponents of Measure W feared that expansion could bring about a development situation similar to that found in the Dougherty Valley.[4]

The editorial board of the Contra Costa Times urged a "no" vote on Measure W, saying, "In sum, voters should reject Measure W for three reasons: The proposed expansions of the growth boundaries are horrible policy. The proposed general plan changes near the freeway are premature. And the two issues should have never been tied together in one ballot measure."[6]

External links

Suggest a link