The California-born YIMBY pro-housing movement spread across the country in recent years and now has officially landed in Congress. The “Yes In My Back Yard” Caucus was formed in Washington, D.C., last month with Rep. Scott Peters, D-San Diego, among the charter members. The pro-development ethos for years has been well established in Sacramento, where more laws passed this year to expedite home building will take effect in January. Neighborhood groups have become more active in opposing increased density in their communities, which some housing advocates say is needed to boost the housing stock, moderate prices and combat homelessness. Laws allowing multiple units on what had been traditionally single-family-home lots, problematic accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and exceptions to San Diego’s voter-approved coastal height limit have drawn the ire of local residents. Some extreme cases have intensified the backlash and spurred the creation of even more opposition groups. Those projects have made otherwise-ardent housing advocates concede some things have gone too far and they have sought to modify some of the rules that allowed the offending proposals. The most recent example is what some Pacific Beach residents are calling the “Pencil Tower,” a proposed 22-story residential and hotel building on Turquoise Street. Pro-housing leaders such as Mayor Todd Gloria, state Sen. Toni Atkins and Peters have all criticized the project as inappropriate for the area. Peters called it a “poster child for those who resist all new housing.” Residents from neighboring La Jolla joined in a recent protest against the project expressing concern that such development could spread to other coastal areas. In short, California officials say the project by Kalonymus, LLC, appears to meet state and local laws for density bonuses and affordable units, among other things, that allow the proposal to circumvent the city’s coastal height limit, according to Jennifer Van Grove of The San Diego Union-Tribune. In 1972, voters approved Proposition D to prevent buildings over 30 feet high west of Interstate 5, with carve-outs for downtown, National City and parts of Mission Bay. The Midway-sports arena area no longer falls within the protected zone because of a 2022 voter-approved ballot measure. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Midway exemption is on appeal. What’s happening in Pacific Beach is the nightmare scenario that critics of aggressive state housing laws warned about: The state is increasingly usurping local authority by letting certain projects move forward with ministerial approval — meaning local officials can’t stop them. The project is still being reviewed by the state Department of Housing and Community Development. Two groups recently formed with the goal of protecting the height limit — Neighbors for a Better California and San Diegans For Responsible Planning. Local leaders say they hope to work with their state counterparts to fix what they call a “loophole” in the law. There’s no guarantee that will happen. At least two other, smaller projects above the height limit are moving forward, in large part because of their plans to include a certain number of deed-restricted units for low-income residents. The Building Industry Association of San Diego is as pro-development of an organization as they come and has not expressed opposition to the Pacific Beach project. Yet BIA President and CEO Lori Holt Pfeiler voiced concern that the proposal could help fuel “a huge backlash.” “What does that do for our industry in the long run?” she said. “That’s building anti-housing sentiment.” San Diego city officials did have the power to amend provisions of a local ordinance governing ADU development that had caused considerable community angst and, in some instances, pitted neighbor against neighbor. The initial ordinance allowed the backyard apartments to be built right up to the property line. Resentment over having walls a couple of stories high hovering over neighboring backyards forced the city in 2022 to begin requiring at least a 4-foot setback. But a bureaucratic snafu delayed the change from being enforced in coastal areas because the revised law and other city rules required approval from the California Coastal Commission, which finally happened in September, as reported by David Garrick of the Union-Tribune. Citywide, a lot of ADUs are being built with little opposition, as property owners seek to provide housing for family members or renters at more affordable prices. But the rules encouraging ADUs have generated other controversial buildings that include multiple units up to 30 feet high. That doesn’t jibe with yesteryear’s charming notion of “granny flats,” which they are sometimes still called. A group of Clairemont residents are suing the city in hopes of blocking a dozen ADUs on one property, according to Fox5/KUSI. In the bigger picture, cities opposed to increased development have been relenting under California law and threatened state legal action to update their plans to meet state requirements, Coronado and Encinitas among them. But they still chafe at the pressure. Officials recently elected in Encinitas seem willing to challenge state housing mandates. Oceanside says it is complying with the rules and is largely built out, and noted it has approved more than 2,000 housing units in recent years, many of which have yet to be built, largely for economic reasons. Nevertheless, a county agency last month recommended that development planned for other areas in North County should be directed to Oceanside, in part to avoid sprawl. The Local Agency Formation Commission does not have the authority to force that shift, but one Oceanside official found the recommendation “unnerving.” It’s unclear what exactly the new congressional YIMBY Caucus will try to do. Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Long Beach, told Politico the caucus likely will look at tax incentives to spur development, along with increasing pressure on local and state governments to adopt more pro-housing policies. But in the rush to build, baby, build, housing advocates need to avoid future situations like the “Pencil Tower” and ADU apartment buildings — or face legal and political consequences. What they said The New York Times. “The C.E.O.s Are Tripping. Can Psychedelics Help the C-Suite?”