Key points:
- California’s state housing laws face criticism for being ineffective against local opposition.
- San Diego County data shows progress in cities previously resistant to new housing development.
- More than 53,000 homes have been built in San Diego County since 2021.
For years, California’s state housing laws have been dismissed by critics as political theater—laws without teeth, passed to appease public pressure but destined to fail against entrenched local opposition. From SB 9 to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, skeptics have insisted that cities will find a way to delay, downzone, or deflect, rendering even the most ambitious reforms ineffective.
But recent data out of San Diego County suggests that those critiques may have been premature. In fact, some of the cities long known for their staunch resistance to new housing—especially the type intended for working- and middle-class residents—are now among those making the most tangible progress.
The city of Encinitas offers the most surprising example. For decades, Encinitas was a poster child for anti-growth politics. The city failed to comply with basic state housing planning requirements until 2019 and was widely viewed by housing advocates and state officials as a chronic offender.
But under legal and political pressure, Encinitas has quietly become a housing boomtown—by its own historical standards, at least. In 2024, the city permitted 695 new homes, more than it had permitted collectively since the early 1980s, when federal permitting records began.
This shift didn’t happen because city leaders suddenly embraced the YIMBY ethos. It happened because the state forced their hand.
In 2022, Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office took legal action after Encinitas denied a 277-unit project that complied with state housing law, including the 41 units reserved for low-income residents.
The Attorney General warned that if the city did not reverse course, his office would “take immediate steps to hold the city accountable,” according to Voice of San Diego.
Encinitas eventually approved the project, and the dominoes began to fall. The threat of legal action—and the broader suite of state enforcement tools—began to yield results.
“In Encinitas, we’re actually building the housing,” Mayor Bruce Ehlers told Voice. “It is ironic that the state likes to point out Encinitas is this rogue city. [But] we’re well ahead of most other cities.” Ehlers then added, with notable candor, “All around Encinitas we have thousands and thousands of units coming online. Encinitas residents hate it.”
That frustration is precisely the point. The fact that many residents dislike the increased housing production is not a sign of failure—it’s a sign that state mandates are finally overcoming parochial resistance. It’s also a sign that local political leaders are responding to new incentives, even if reluctantly.
Ehlers himself was elected on a platform critical of the state’s role in housing policy, and he’s now a prominent backer of the “Our Neighborhood Voices” initiative, a proposed constitutional amendment that would return full land-use authority to cities.
But even as he campaigns for local control, the projects keep getting built. That contradiction speaks volumes.
Encinitas is not alone.
According to a joint analysis by Voice of San Diego and KPBS, only five jurisdictions in the county are currently on track to meet their RHNA housing targets: Encinitas, Del Mar, San Marcos, Chula Vista and unincorporated San Diego County.
That list is shocking not because of who’s missing—but because of who’s included. Del Mar, another coastal city known for fighting development, is quietly moving toward its goals. And Encinitas, incredibly, is closer to meeting its overall housing obligations than any other city in the county.
To be sure, there are important caveats. These cities are primarily meeting their total unit targets, not the more difficult benchmarks for low- and very-low-income housing. Only two jurisdictions—San Marcos and unincorporated San Diego County—are even close to meeting their affordability requirements.
Most of the units being built in Encinitas, Del Mar and Chula Vista are market-rate. But that’s not irrelevant.
As YIMBY Democrats of San Diego board member Saad Asad told Voice, “Any amount of new housing reduces the pressure on existing rentals and benefits existing affordable housing stock.”
The principle is straightforward: if you don’t build enough housing at the top end of the market, people with means will outbid others for existing stock, driving up rents across the board.
Some of the affordability is also “naturally occurring.” Cities like San Marcos have permitted large numbers of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which often rent at below-market rates even without formal subsidies.
In addition, years of planning have helped some cities lay the groundwork for mixed-income growth. Mayor Rebecca Jones of San Marcos credited long-term planning and public investment as key drivers.
“It’s setting the framework for what you want your city to look like,” she told Voice of San Diego. “Having a vast variety of housing is really important for a healthy housing stock.”
That kind of vision is precisely what has been missing in other parts of the state—especially in high-opportunity, job-rich areas like the Westside of Los Angeles.
In a guest op-ed in the Los Angeles Blade, one local advocate wrote, “On the Westside, we’ve fallen behind. We’ve created tens of thousands of high-paying jobs, but built far fewer homes. That stagnation, driven by restrictive zoning, has priced out all but the most affluent.”
He continued: “If we want the Westside to remain a welcoming place—not just for the wealthy, but for everyone—we have to make it possible for more people to live here. That means building more homes.”
That’s exactly the aim of state bills like SB 79, which would require cities to upzone in high-demand areas with job and transit access. It’s a bill targeted not at far-flung exurbs, but at places like Santa Monica and Beverly Hills—cities with enormous economic capacity and deep-rooted exclusionary policies. The logic is simple: build where the need and opportunity are greatest.
Still, the political pushback is fierce. Mayor Ron Morrison of National City, a lower-income jurisdiction assigned the highest per capita housing target in the county, called the RHNA allocations “totally screwed up.”
His city, despite high transit accessibility, is among the furthest from meeting its targets. That’s no coincidence.
Voice of San Diego found a strong correlation between per capita housing targets and noncompliance. Cities assigned more homes relative to their population tend to fall further behind.
These disparities suggest the need for more refined allocation formulas and stronger enforcement where the need is greatest. But they also highlight the broader success of the current approach. When the state backs its mandates with legal action, public transparency, and funding opportunities, even resistant cities change course.
The numbers aren’t perfect, but they’re no longer stagnant. More than 53,000 homes have been built in San Diego County since the RHNA cycle began in 2021. That’s far short of the 172,000 required by 2029, but it’s not nothing. It represents forward momentum in a state where gridlock used to be the default.
To call state housing law a failure is to ignore what’s happening on the ground. In Encinitas, in Del Mar, in San Marcos—places with wildly different political cultures—new homes are being approved at rates not seen in decades.
Residents may grumble, politicians may protest, and lawsuits may fly. But the units are getting built. And that’s more than can be said for most of the last half-century.
Of course, this article doesn’t address how many of these units would have been built in the absence of the state’s housing laws.
But at least the article notes the lack of new “affordable” units – which is supposedly the entire justification for the state’s mandates in the first place!
Truth be told, the coastal (and near-coastal) areas of Southern California were “overbuilt” decades ago. I remember maybe 35 years ago, going to “Pismo Beach” the first time expecting to see a natural area, rather than a sea of houses.
Los Angeles was ALREADY the poster-child for sprawl.
If the housing lunatics had their way, the entire central coast (and lovely cities like Santa Barbara) would have been ruined by now. I’m not sure when the expectation began that everyone has the right to live in a place like Santa Barbara, or why more people don’t question this completely-selfish, self-centered argument.
Thank goodness for Hearst Castle and the surrounding land that’s now preserved.
“In 2024, the city permitted 695 new homes, more than it had permitted collectively since the early 1980s, when federal permitting records began.”
That one blew me away
“The principle is straightforward: if you don’t build enough housing at the top end of the market, people with means will outbid others for existing stock, driving up rents across the board.”
We see this in Davis where 50 year old mid-century modern starter homes go for $900,000.