California has a housing affordability crisis. But is increasing density actually making housing more affordable?
I offer a native Southern Californian perspective shaped by an economics and business background, decades of work in residential real estate, my own experience building an ADU and multigenerational conversion, and, perhaps most personally, being the mother of a twenty-something navigating today’s housing market.
My service as a volunteer commissioner on Encinitas’ Affordable Housing Task Force compelled me to better understand state housing mandates and their real impact on our communities and local governments.
I did not fully understand the extent to which state housing laws were reshaping local land-use decisions in our coastal cities. A lot of confusion surrounds this topic. Some residents on platforms like Nextdoor blame local governments for approving certain high-density developments, without realizing how far-reaching state housing laws can be in constraining local discretion.
California needs more housing, but increasing density and housing supply does not necessarily produce housing that lower- and middle-income Californians can afford — particularly in high-cost coastal communities.
California requires cities to plan and zone for their share of regional housing needs. Its housing framework includes the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), locally adopted Housing Elements, density bonus laws, SB 9, the Housing Accountability Act, SB 35, SB 423 and other laws that increasingly shape local land-use decisions.
Failure to maintain a substantially compliant Housing Element can carry significant consequences, including exposure to the “builder’s remedy,” which limits a city’s ability to deny certain qualifying housing projects based on local zoning and general-plan standards.
Every eight years, cities receive a Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, identifying how much housing they must plan for across different income levels. Cities then adopt Housing Elements demonstrating how their zoning, available sites and housing programs can accommodate that allocation.
What does “affordable” housing mean? In San Diego County, affordable housing eligibility is often tied to Area Median Income, or AMI.
At the recently completed 140-unit Solaris apartment development in Encinitas, 21 units are designated for qualified low-income households; the remaining 119 are market-rate units for lease. According to Solaris leasing staff, approximately 2,000 people submitted their names to an interest list for 21 affordable units.
San Diego County’s official 2026 Low Income limit — commonly associated with the 80% AMI category, although adjusted for our high-cost housing market — is $97,950 for one person and $139,900 for a family of four.
That means, perhaps surprisingly, a San Diego County family of four earning nearly $140,000 can fall within the official Low-Income limit for certain affordable-housing programs.
Housing policy cannot legislate away an economic reality: land in coastal communities like Encinitas is scarce and expensive.
Increasing density can spread that land cost across more housing units, but it does not eliminate the cost of land, construction, financing, insurance and infrastructure.
If the policy objective is affordability, we must acknowledge the underlying economics of producing housing in some of California’s most desirable communities.
If more housing is needed, must it always come through large-scale density? ADUs, JADUs and conversions of existing space can add housing incrementally within established communities. Encinitas reports ADUs toward its housing production progress even when those units are not deed-restricted as affordable housing.
While state-approved assumptions can assign some ADUs to affordability categories, without a deed restriction those rents are not guaranteed to remain affordable over the long term.
California law also recognizes that affordability can sometimes be created without constructing a new building. AB 787 provides another potential tool, allowing cities under specified circumstances to receive moderate-income RHNA credit for converting existing market-rate rental housing to deed-restricted moderate-income housing.² But the legislation is limited and does not eliminate the underlying economics.
If an apartment owner accepts permanently restricted rents below market, who absorbs the difference between the property’s market economics and the restricted income stream?
A policy can be legally available without necessarily being economically scalable.
California faces a serious housing affordability problem. But the state increasingly uses housing production and density as tools to address it.
Are we sufficiently distinguishing between adding housing units and actually creating affordability?
If affordability is the goal, perhaps our measure of success should not simply be how many units we build, but how effectively our housing policies make those units attainable.
Felicia Gamez-Weinbaum is the broker/owner of FW Property Group. She lives in Encinitas.
