Difference between revisions of "San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary, Measure W (November 2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "ategory:Zoning, land use and development" to "ategory:Local zoning, land use and development")
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}A '''San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary, Measure W''' ballot proposition is on the {{nov02ca2010}} for voters in the City of San Ramon in {{contra costa}}.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15607077 ''Contra Costa Times'', "San Ramon to decide rebuttal arguments to urban growth boundary measure", July 26, 2010]</ref>
+
{{tnr}}A '''San Ramon Urban Growth Boundary, Measure W''' ballot proposition was on the {{nov02ca2010}} for voters in the City of San Ramon in {{contra costa}}.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15607077 ''Contra Costa Times'', "San Ramon to decide rebuttal arguments to urban growth boundary measure", July 26, 2010]</ref> It was '''defeated.'''
 +
 +
The ballot measure asked voters to approve an update to the citiy's 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan is 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.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15621181 ''Contra Costa Times'', "San Ramon moves forward with growth measure", July 28, 2010]</ref>
  
The ballot measure asks voters to approve an update to the citiy's 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan is the city's land-use planning guideThe 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.<ref>[http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15621181 ''Contra Costa Times'', "San Ramon moves forward with growth measure", July 28, 2010]</ref>
+
Some environmental groups opposed extending the urban growth boundaryExtending the boundary would have meant that urban development could occur on land where it is currently prohibited.
  
Some environmental groups oppose extending the urban growth boundaryExtending the boundary would mean that urban development could occur on land where it is currently prohibited.
+
==Election results==
 +
 
 +
* Yes: 4,477 (28.78%)
 +
* No: 11,081 (71.22%) {{defeated}}
 +
 
 +
Results are from the [http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/CA/Contra_Costa/21781/39883/en/summary.html Contra Costa County election results website], as of November 8, 2010Vote totals may increase if additional absentee ballots are counted and added to the total.
  
 
==Supporters==
 
==Supporters==
Line 10: Line 17:
  
 
==Opponents==
 
==Opponents==
 +
 +
The group "San Ramon Residents Opposed to Measure W" raised $78,932 in cash contributions through October 16.<ref>[http://danville.patch.com/articles/measure-w-opponents-out-raise-supporters ''Danville Patch'', "Measure W Opponents Out-Raise Supporters", October 23, 2010]</ref>
  
 
Opponents of Measure W fear that expansion could bring about a development situation similar to that found in the Dougherty Valley.<ref name=w/>
 
Opponents of Measure W fear that expansion could bring about a development situation similar to that found in the Dougherty Valley.<ref name=w/>
  
==Ballot question==
+
The editorial board of the '''Contra Costa Times''' urges 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."<ref>[http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_16158523 ''Contra Costa Times'', "Vote no on Measure W in San Ramon", September 24, 2010]</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Text of measure==
  
 
{{Q box |
 
{{Q box |
Line 22: Line 33:
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
+
{{submit a link}}
 
* [http://www.cocovote.us/OfficeCandidates.aspx?eid=24&oid=699&pid=-1 Text of Measure W]
 
* [http://www.cocovote.us/OfficeCandidates.aspx?eid=24&oid=699&pid=-1 Text of Measure W]
 +
* [http://savetassajaravalley.wordpress.com/ Website of the "No on Measure W" campaign]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references/>
+
{{reflist}}
 
{{california stub}}
 
{{california stub}}
[[Category:Zoning, land use and development, California, 2010]]
+
[[Category:Local zoning, land use and development, California, 2010]]

Revision as of 10:22, 13 October 2012

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 citiy's 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan is 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 is currently prohibited.

Election results

  • Yes: 4,477 (28.78%)
  • No: 11,081 (71.22%) Defeatedd

Results are from the Contra Costa County election results website, as of November 8, 2010. Vote totals may increase if additional absentee ballots are counted and added to the total.

Supporters

Supporters of Measure W say it places control of the valley into the hands of San Ramon residents instead of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.[3]

Opponents

The group "San Ramon Residents Opposed to Measure W" raised $78,932 in cash contributions through October 16.[4]

Opponents of Measure W fear that expansion could bring about a development situation similar to that found in the Dougherty Valley.[3]

The editorial board of the Contra Costa Times urges 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."[5]

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?[6]

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

References


Flag of California.png

This California-related article is a stub. You can help people learn about California politics by expanding it.