Note: Ballotpedia will be read-only from 9pm CST on February 25-March 9 while Judgepedia is merged into Ballotpedia.
For status updates, visit
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.

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

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 07:20, 9 June 2011 by Bailey Ludlam (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
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 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]


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

Suggest a link


Flag of California.png

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