Measure JJ (2004)

Measure JJ (2004)
Name	Measure JJ (2004)
Title	San Francisco November 2004 Ballot Measure JJ
Date	November 2, 2004
Location	San Francisco, California
Result	Passed

Measure JJ (2004) was a local ballot proposition adopted by voters in San Francisco during the general election of November 2004. The measure amended municipal policy to adjust land use and development rules affecting municipal assets and neighborhood planning in several districts including Sunset District, Mission District, and Bayview–Hunters Point. Its passage intersected with debates involving elected officials in San Francisco Board of Supervisors, advocacy groups such as San Francisco Tomorrow, and neighborhood associations connected to development projects like Candlestick Point.

Background and Origin

Measure JJ emerged from policy debates within the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and planning deliberations at the San Francisco Planning Department after a string of high-profile land use controversies. The measure’s origin involved coordination among supervisors representing districts linked to projects in District 6 (San Francisco Board of Supervisors), District 10 (San Francisco Board of Supervisors), and leaders associated with offices like the San Francisco Mayor’s staff. Historical context included earlier local ballot fights such as those over Proposition B (1996), Measure A (1996), and disputes related to the redevelopment authority for sites comparable to Hunter's Point Naval Shipyard.

The genesis also reflected influence from advocacy organizations and civic coalitions including Save the Bay, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, and neighborhood groups akin to Noe Valley Mothers. Developers and stakeholders with ties to firms registered with the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and attorneys from offices that had represented municipalities in cases before the California Supreme Court contributed to drafting language.

Ballot Measure Content

The text of the measure amended municipal ordinances and policy language to redefine procedures for municipal approvals, developer obligations, environmental review triggers under local ordinances, and requirements for community benefits agreements in specified redevelopment overlays. It referenced interactions with state statutory frameworks such as provisions administered by the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Commission where applicable to shoreline parcels near Treasure Island.

Specific provisions addressed leasing terms, disposition of surplus property held by agencies like the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and criteria for exemptions from certain zoning variances managed by the San Francisco Planning Commission. The ballot summary parsed responsibilities between executive offices (for example, the Office of the Mayor (San Francisco)) and legislative review by the Board of Supervisors (San Francisco), while invoking procedural parallels with measures previously considered in places like Los Angeles and Oakland.

Campaigns and Advocacy

Campaign activity around the measure featured coalitions of pro- and anti-measure entities. Supporters included development-oriented groups, neighborhood business alliances with connections to the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and elected officials such as supervisors who had publicly endorsed local redevelopment frameworks. Endorsements came from entities that had previously supported measures like the Port of San Francisco modernization proposals and public-private partnerships associated with San Francisco Giants stadium discussions.

Opponents comprised community organizations, environmental advocates including activists associated with 350.org-aligned local chapters, and civil rights groups concerned about displacement in areas like the Mission District. Labor unions, including locals affiliated with the Service Employees International Union, engaged in targeted outreach tied to affordable housing provisions and job guarantees. Media organizations including the San Francisco Chronicle, alternative weeklies similar to SF Weekly, and civic commentators provided extensive coverage and editorial positions that shaped voter perceptions.

Campaign financing reflected contributions from developers, neighborhood associations, public interest law firms, and business improvement districts. Independent expenditure committees filed statements with the San Francisco Department of Elections, and campaign literature referenced precedent measures in San Jose and statewide initiatives that influenced local zoning policy debates.

Election Results

On November 2, 2004, voters in San Francisco approved the measure by a decisive margin in the municipal tally reported by the San Francisco Department of Elections. Results maps showed stronger support in neighborhoods with active redevelopment projects and among precincts historically aligned with pro-development candidates. Turnout coincided with the high-profile 2004 United States presidential election, which affected participation rates and demographic compositions in key wards.

Post-election analyses by civic institutions including studies from Public Policy Institute of California-type researchers and commentaries in California Journal-style outlets examined correlations between campaign spending, precinct-level returns, and endorsement patterns from organizations such as the League of Women Voters of San Francisco.

Implementation and Impact

Following certification, municipal departments including the San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Mayor’s office, and the Board of Supervisors (San Francisco) adjusted administrative processes to comply with the new requirements. Implementation affected development proposals submitted for areas like Candlestick Point–Hunters Point and policies governing surplus municipal property transfers near Pier 70.

Impact assessments by local academic units comparable to the University of California, Berkeley planning scholars and policy institutes tracked effects on housing approvals, negotiated community benefits, and timelines for environmental review. Advocacy groups reported mixed outcomes: some neighborhood associations secured stronger notice and negotiation rights, while some affordable housing advocates argued that mechanisms intended to guarantee community benefits were unevenly enforced, echoing critiques previously leveled during reviews of waterfront redevelopment projects.

Legal Challenges and Controversies

After adoption, the measure prompted litigation and administrative appeals involving plaintiffs drawn from neighborhood coalitions, environmental organizations, and developer consortia. Cases raised questions about statutory preemption under state law and procedural compliance with environmental review statutes adjudicated in forums ranging from the San Francisco Superior Court to appellate panels of the California Courts of Appeal.

Controversies centered on alleged ambiguities in ballot language, claims of unequal application across neighborhoods, and disputes over whether implementing ordinances properly reflected voter intent. Decisions in related litigation referenced precedents from cases adjudicated by the California Supreme Court on municipal ballot measures and administrative delegation, and settlements in some matters led to negotiated amendments and guidance issued by municipal agencies.

Category:San Francisco ballot measures