Measure AA

Measure AA
Name	Measure AA
Type	Ballot measure
Jurisdiction	San Francisco, California
Status	Implemented
Date	November 8, 2016
Subject	Housing and land use policy; voter approval for certain development projects

Measure AA

Measure AA was a 2016 San Francisco ballot measure concerning land use, housing development, and voter approval powers relating to designated waterfront parcels and major development projects. It appeared on the November 8, 2016 ballot and proposed amendments affecting the Port of San Francisco, municipal planning processes, and limits on approvals for certain reconstruction and development initiatives. The proposition intersected with debates involving the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, neighborhood groups, and statewide housing advocacy organizations.

Background and Origins

Measure AA originated amid long-running conflicts over waterfront development in San Francisco, tracing roots to disputes involving the Embarcadero, Fisherman's Wharf, and the South Beach corridor. Tensions followed prior legislative actions by the California Coastal Commission and policy decisions by the San Francisco Planning Commission and the Port Commission of San Francisco. Civic activism from organizations such as the Presidio Trust, Save the Bay, and local neighborhood coalitions shaped the political climate. Competing visions emerged between proponents favoring revitalization led by private developers with support from entities like Tishman Speyer and Related Companies, and opponents citing preservationist goals associated with advocates connected to the National Park Service and historic preservationists linked to National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Ballot Measure Details

The text of Measure AA proposed requiring voter approval for significant changes to the city's waterfront parcels and for major development projects that exceeded specified thresholds. It referenced procedures under the San Francisco Charter and sought to alter approval pathways involving the Board of Supervisors, Planning Department (San Francisco), and the Port of San Francisco. The measure specified geographic boundaries aligned with parcels under port jurisdiction and legislative definitions used in prior cases before the California Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. It included language on exemptions, timelines, and the role of environmental review mechanisms under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Campaigns and Endorsements

Campaign activity around Measure AA featured coalitions of neighborhood groups, business interests, labor organizations, and civic associations. Supporters included some local neighborhood associations aligned with preservation coalitions and endorsements from entities connected to waterfront stewardship. Opponents were organized by developer coalitions, pro-housing advocates, and labor proponents concerned about workforce housing implications, with public advocacy from groups such as San Francisco Housing Action Coalition and endorsements or statements by elected officials on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and mayoral officeholders. Financial backing and ballot argument authorship involved stakeholders linked to real estate firms, unions with interests in construction employment, and nonprofit policy institutes with histories of testifying before the California State Legislature.

Voting Results and Implementation

On November 8, 2016, voters cast ballots statewide that included Measure AA on the San Francisco ballot; results reflected a majority decision that determined whether the measure became operative. Implementation procedures required coordination among the Office of the Mayor (San Francisco), the City Attorney of San Francisco, and administrative bodies like the Department of Building Inspection and the Port Commission of San Francisco. Following certification of the vote by the San Francisco Department of Elections, city agencies initiated regulatory adjustments to align planning processes, permitting workflows, and public outreach with the measure’s mandates. The measure's passage triggered ordinance drafting and rulemaking under municipal codes contained in the San Francisco Administrative Code.

Legal Challenges and Compliance

After certification, Measure AA faced legal scrutiny from parties disputing its scope, preemption concerns under state law, and implications for existing contractual obligations. Lawsuits invoked precedents from cases involving the California Supreme Court concerning home rule and voter initiative powers, and federal questions brought to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Litigation addressed interpretation of ballot language, retroactivity, and compliance with environmental review statutes like California Environmental Quality Act. The City Attorney of San Francisco and private litigants negotiated procedural stays and clarifications; appellate filings engaged the California Courts of Appeal.

Impact and Outcomes

Measure AA influenced subsequent waterfront planning, development timelines, and negotiation dynamics between municipal officials and private developers. It affected major projects proposed near the Embarcadero, adjustments to lease and concession agreements under the Port of San Francisco, and policies advocated in testimony before bodies such as the San Francisco Planning Commission. Outcomes included modified project scopes, increased community engagement requirements, and altered cost-benefit calculations for large-scale mixed-use developments. The measure also shaped political alignments in later municipal elections involving candidates for Mayor of San Francisco and seats on the Board of Supervisors.

Public Response and Analysis

Public reaction to Measure AA combined praise from preservationist constituencies and criticism from housing advocates emphasizing supply constraints exemplified in disputes over projects near Mission Bay and Hunters Point. Policy analysts compared the measure’s effects to outcomes in other Californian cities that faced waterfront redevelopment decisions, referencing debates in locales overseen by entities like the Port of Long Beach and the San Diego Unified Port District. Scholarly commentary invoked urban planning literature and case law studies, while civic media coverage in outlets with histories of reporting on municipal affairs chronicled contested implementation episodes and continuing dialogues about balancing redevelopment, historic preservation, and housing needs.

Category:San Francisco ballot measures