San Diego Planning Commissioner Boomhower Goes Too Far

By Kate Callen

San Diego Planning Commission Vice Chair Matthew Boomhower has a visceral dislike for people who don’t share his zeal for densification. At every meeting, whenever public speakers push back on development overreach, he looks like a powder keg. He glares and fumes. He rails against what he calls “the anti-housing crowd.”

But Boomhower has never resorted to threatening a speaker with retaliation – until last Thursday, November 6.

The agenda item was the City’s “Preservation and Progress” program, which would empower developers by weakening standards for protecting historic structures.

Bruce Coons of Save Our Heritage Organisation (SOHO) warned that the measure could create new legal hurdles to projects because “anybody could appeal an historic designation.”

“Take the real-life example of 101 Ash Street,” said Coons. “If anybody had an ax to grind with the new proposal, they could appeal the designation, which would set the project back at least six months.”

101 Ash was an appropriate example to cite. It was also a shrewd choice. Its development team is headed by Boomhower’s colleague, Planning Commission Chair Kelly Moden.

Was Coons speculating that the Chair’s own project could be jeopardized by the new historical designation process? Yes. Was he threatening to block the development? No. In fact, SOHO supports Moden’s project.

Within minutes, Boomhower interrupted the meeting to pose a question to Chief Deputy City Attorney Corinne Neuffer about Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) laws shielding free speech.

“Under California’s anti-SLAPP regulations, if members of the public during public testimony are making threats that could be intended to influence a decision by an appointed board or body, is that something they should be warned against?”

“Are you talking about threats of litigation?” Neuffer replied.

“Potentially,” Boomhower said, “or just, I don’t know, designating a project that a member of a board might have in process?”

Neuffer gently schooled Boomhower, who is an attorney, on the First Amendment:

“We’re fairly liberal in our approach to public commenting and public speaking. I don’t know if that would qualify under anti-SLAPP laws. We lean more toward letting commenters speak [under] freedom of speech.”

Where to begin?

The only real “threat” voiced at the hearing was Boomhower’s threat that speakers might face legal retribution under state law for expressing their opinions. This was an abuse of his power as a Commissioner. It debased his office and the Commission as a whole.

The incident heightened the atmosphere of hostility against public commenters that permeates Commission hearings. Unlike San Diego City Council meetings, Commission hearings do not allow the public to make formal presentations. Thursday’s meeting was marred by confusion about time limits for in-person speakers and access cut-offs for virtual speakers.

The tension stems in part from the fact that the majority of commissioners have direct financial links to the building industry. They were all appointed by YIMBY Mayor Todd Gloria. They almost always approve development proposals by unanimous votes.

Public backlash was swift when Moden was selected to convert the 101 Ash Street tower into “subsidized apartments.” As the Rag reported January 28, “The person who chairs the Commission was just chosen to head up the make-over of one of the most controversial of the city’s recent real estate deals.”

But Boomhower is in a league of his own for brash promotion of rampant density and personal antagonism toward modest-growth advocates. A 2022 Union-Tribune article about the state Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) assault on San Diego’s 30-foot height limit included this:

“This has the potential to be a real game-changer,” said Matthew Boomhower, who is the president of Southern Cross Property Consultants and a local land-use attorney. “I think this is a great example of HCD’s new, very proactive approach saying, ‘We’re going to push this (pro-housing) agenda and usurp local control.’”

The article ran during Boomhower’s first Commission term. His reappointment was in limbo until pro-density politicians and the building industry waged a campaign to support him.

“It’s unusual for a planning commissioner not to receive a second term without something arising that would cause the city to change direction,” Voice of San Diego reported in January 2023. “The push from the City Council members and the development industry on Boomhower’s behalf shows the concern that Gloria won’t take the usual path and give him another term.”

What is most alarming about Boomhower’s volatile personality is that as Vice Chair, he is in line to be the next Chair. Imagine what will happen when he takes up the gavel and has unfettered power to quash public comments that anger him.

The final irony was the last agenda item, “Ethics Training for the Planning Commission.” The slideshow explored potential conflicts of interest regarding financial benefits to commissioners or their clients.

The training didn’t address why commissioners should safeguard the dignity of their offices by keeping their personal biases in check. But it should have.