Responding to a Los Angeles Times report on the long-delayed Venice Dell affordable housing project, California YIMBY leader and housing policy analyst M. Nolan Gray argued that California should create a “state-level entitlement pathway” to allow qualifying housing developments to bypass local resistance after years of delays, litigation and what he described as “plainly illegal denials.”
“This project is a great example of why California needs a state-level entitlement pathway,” Gray wrote. “Plainly illegal denials, years of delays, endless quixotic litigation—at some point, it should be kicked up to a state authority with sole discretion.”
What exactly is a state-level entitlement pathway, and what would it mean for communities such as Davis?
In land-use planning, “entitlement” refers to the process by which a proposed development obtains the legal approvals necessary to be built. Traditionally, cities and counties exercise primary control over that process through zoning, discretionary review, environmental approvals and local political decision-making.
A state-level entitlement pathway would alter that balance.
Under such a system, projects meeting state-established criteria could seek approval directly from a state agency rather than relying entirely on local governments. Local officials might retain advisory roles, but ultimate authority would rest with the state.
The idea represents a significant departure from California’s historical approach to land use, which has long deferred to local governments.
Yet California has already begun moving in that direction.
In recent years, lawmakers have enacted a series of measures designed to limit local discretion over housing production. SB 35 established streamlined approvals for qualifying projects in jurisdictions failing to meet state housing targets. The Builder’s Remedy allows projects to circumvent local zoning restrictions when cities lack compliant housing plans. Subsequent legislation, including SB 423, expanded and strengthened those provisions.
Even so, Gray and other housing advocates argue that these reforms remain insufficient.
From their perspective, local governments continue to obstruct housing through procedural delays, administrative barriers, appeals and litigation, even after projects satisfy state requirements.
The Venice Dell controversy illustrates those concerns.
The proposed project would create 120 affordable housing units serving homeless and low-income households on a city-owned parking lot in Venice.
Despite receiving support from the Los Angeles City Council and surviving multiple lawsuits challenging its approvals, the project remained stalled for years amid shifting political opposition and administrative roadblocks.
Late last month, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that the Los Angeles Board of Transportation Commissioners improperly denied the project in 2024 and ordered the commission to reverse its decision.
For housing advocates, the case demonstrates how projects can become mired in years of uncertainty despite ultimately prevailing in court.
Gray suggested that, rather than forcing developers to endure repeated rounds of litigation and administrative review, the state should assume direct responsibility for approving projects that meet clearly established standards.
The broader YIMBY movement has not uniformly embraced such a sweeping proposal.
California YIMBY has generally concentrated on expanding by-right approvals and strengthening existing streamlining laws rather than advocating outright state control over housing approvals.
Still, an emerging faction within the movement argues that California’s housing crisis has become too severe to leave ultimate authority in the hands of local governments that have repeatedly failed to meet housing obligations.
The underlying argument is straightforward.
Housing shortages affect the entire state through rising prices, increased homelessness, labor shortages and growing inequality. If local jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to approve sufficient housing, proponents argue, the state has a responsibility to intervene directly.
Critics see the matter differently.
They argue that local governments understand their communities best and should retain authority over decisions involving infrastructure, neighborhood character, environmental impacts and public services.
The debate carries particular significance for Davis.
Davis operates under Measure J, renewed by voters through subsequent measures including Measure D and Measure V, requiring voter approval before agricultural land can be annexed for urban development.
The system has become a defining feature of the city’s approach to growth.
Supporters view it as an essential safeguard ensuring that residents maintain direct control over major development decisions.
Critics contend that it has contributed to decades of underproduction, rising housing costs and limited housing opportunities.
If California were to adopt a limited state entitlement pathway focused primarily on infill, affordable housing or commercial conversions, Davis might experience relatively modest changes. Existing infill projects could face fewer local obstacles, while peripheral developments requiring annexation could remain subject to voter approval.
A more aggressive approach could prove far more impactful.
The state could determine that local growth-control measures cannot interfere with compliance with state housing mandates. Under such a framework, affordable projects or developments needed to satisfy RHNA requirements might proceed without voter approval.
An even broader system could allow qualifying projects to obtain direct state authorization regardless of local elections or council actions.
Under that scenario, projects similar to Village Farms, DISC or Willowgrove might no longer depend upon Davis voters for final approval.
Such proposals remain politically controversial and appear unlikely to advance in the immediate future.
California legislators, including many supportive of increased housing production, continue to place significant value on local authority over land-use decisions.
Nevertheless, the trajectory of state housing policy suggests an evolving relationship between Sacramento and local governments.
Two decades ago, the state largely deferred to cities and counties.
More recently, lawmakers imposed housing production targets and strengthened enforcement mechanisms.
Today, state laws increasingly override local zoning and discretionary review processes.
The next question is whether California will simply continue expanding those incremental reforms or eventually conclude that local control itself has become incompatible with addressing the state’s housing crisis.
For Davis, the stakes could hardly be higher.
The city has long embodied the principle that residents should directly shape the future of their community through local democratic processes.
At the same time, persistent housing shortages, declining affordability and state pressure to accommodate growth have intensified scrutiny of systems that limit new development.
Gray’s comments ultimately reflect a larger philosophical divide emerging across California: whether housing should remain primarily a matter of local preference or increasingly be treated as a statewide necessity requiring state intervention when local processes fail.
The outcome of that debate may determine not only how California builds housing, but who gets to decide where and when it is built.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
It seems to me that creating an independent state-level development pathway would require replicating all of the planning functions already in place at the local level, adding a costly new layer of bureaucracy. Color me skeptical, from both the philosophical and practical perspectives.
” . . . would require replicating all of the planning functions already in place at the local level, adding a costly new layer of bureaucracy.”
Exactly – and it would probably be amusing to see them try. (They can’t even run the DMV efficiently.)