ENCINITAS — Councilmember Luke Shaffer’s remarks suggesting possible changes to Proposition A during Wednesday night’s questioning of potential District 4 candidates have fueled mixed reactions from residents and reignited the polarizing debate over the measure’s role in the city’s housing policies.
Prop A, passed by Encinitas voters in 2013, is a voter-approved initiative giving residents direct control over significant land use and zoning decisions. The law mandates that any substantial changes to the city’s General Plan, zoning code or Local Coastal Program that intensify land use must be approved through a public vote.
During the Jan. 22 meeting, Shaffer asked each of the District 4 applicants whether adjustments to Prop A might help the city better navigate state housing mandates and prepare for future housing cycles.
“Prop A, as great as it is, I’m not going to say outgrown itself, but at some level, there are some adjustments that might be needed,” Shaffer said during the meeting. “Are you willing to open it up and see if there are ways to adjust it to the advantage of our city?”
In his questions, however, Shaffer did not elaborate on specific changes to Prop A or what he meant by “open it up.” And while almost everyone who answered Shaffer’s questions responded affirmatively, his comments were met with immediate pushback from his supporters.
In a conversation with The Coast News following the meeting, Shaffer attempted to clarify his comments, emphasizing his commitment to Prop A and his intent to strengthen its role in local governance.
“What I would call an enhanced Prop A isn’t off the table,” Shaffer said. “I want local control, and Prop A is intended to be local control … but it’s worth relooking at to ensure that it lands and is worth its application in a rapidly changing legislative landscape.”
The first-time council member said he is not advocating for a rollback of the initiative but instead aims to ensure it remains a functional tool for Encinitas as state mandates intensify.
A municipal governing body can’t modify a voter-approved initiative from the dais — only a vote of the people can amend existing law. Any attempt to change Prop A must be placed on the ballot by either a citizen’s initiative (via the signature-gathering process) or a council supermajority (at least four votes).
Over the years, the city has tried multiple times to bypass or overturn Prop A to adopt a compliant housing element, including Measure T in 2016 and Measure U in 2018, both soundly rejected by voters.
In March 2020, the city filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Housing and Community Development seeking to “invalidate, or carve out, a portion of Proposition A,” but a judge denied its request.
The court ruled that legal precedent made clear neither the city’s state-mandated responsibility to adopt and update its housing element nor the state’s regulation of housing law supersedes the “power of initiative or referendum.”
“The city does not have the authority to amend Proposition A’s requirements; only the voters have that authority,” Judge Earl H. Maas III wrote in his 10-page opinion.
During the meeting, former mayor Sheila Cameron was among those who defended Prop A, rejecting the notion of amending the measure and describing it as essential for preserving local control.
“We do not want to work around Prop A — Prop A is perfect,” Cameron said. “What we need to do, and the only way to get around this and make it work, is to increase the amount of low-income housing. We could do 10% — that’s what we’re doing — it’s terrible. Fifteen percent in some cases. We begged for 25% during Measure U.”
Cameron, who has advocated for responsible growth and development, also emphasized the importance of promoting homeownership.
“We need to be selling these houses, not just renting,” she said. “Because that’s like having a gerbil in the cage that keeps going around and around.”
Susan Turney, an Encinitas resident and long-time Prop A advocate, expressed skepticism about Shaffer’s approach and underscored the need to address housing challenges through thoughtful planning rather than targeting the voter-backed initiative.
“Prop A should not be the first point of attack in devising legal and workable housing plans,” she said, arguing the focus should instead be on “creating housing plans with higher percentages of affordable units to minimize the total number of units needed to comply with state mandates.”
Local attorney and housing advocate Marco Gonzalez weighed in on the broader challenges facing Encinitas, noting that Prop A’s requirement for voter approval complicates compliance with state housing mandates.
“If you’ve got to put a housing element update to a Prop A vote, it’ll never pass, and then we’ll get sued, and we’ll be back in the situation where the courts have to tell us to override it,” Gonzalez said.
Gonzalez added that while Prop A serves an important purpose, it may need amendments to align with state requirements and avoid litigation.
“I think [Prop A] is fine for a lot of types of development,” Gonzalez said. “But at the planning level, where you’re required to bring your zoning code or your General Plan or your Local Coastal Program into compliance with state law, it doesn’t make sense to allow the electorate to refuse their obligations, which is what we’ve seen happen.”
Responding to the various critiques, Shaffer reaffirmed his support for Prop A while reiterating the need for flexibility.
“My commitment to local control hasn’t wavered,” Shaffer said. “If we say we want local control, then let’s make sure it’s local control and not some tool that we fell in love with … I want the whole toolkit to be available, not just that one tool.”
2 comments
Councilman Luke Shaffer’s focus on Prop A during candidate interviews seemed inappropriate and suspicious. He appeared to ignore or be ignorant of the fact that Prop A was voted on and approved by voters and was supported in court. Which begs the question: Is he in favor of undermining the voice of the people?
Council and the public would have gained more information and broader insight into candidate viewpoints if Shaffer had allowed candidates to address an open-ended question about density bonus laws and how they are affecting Encinitas. His focus on each candidate’s willingness to modify Prop A has caused many of us to not only question whether Council Member Shaffer thoroughly researches and understands the ramifications of his stances but, more importantly, to question where his alliances lie.
Shaffer’s reference to a “toolkit” smacks of the developer speak that Blakespear uses. Marco Gonzalez is backing him up on social media, are they in cahoots?
If he wants to change Prop A he’d better damned well be able to articulate where and why. His explanations are all over the place and that’s a problem. None of this passes the smell test. This is Shaffer’s third council meeting and he’s going after Prop A. Cannot imagine that he can recover from this early and serious mess.