The following were written comments for the San Diego City Council Rules Committee by Victoria LaBruzzo, submitted on behalf of the Community Planners Committee (CPC), on February 18, 2026.
by: Victoria LaBruzzo
Subject: Seat at the Table Proposal & SB 707 Implementation
Council President LaCava and Honorable Committee Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment on today’s informational item regarding SB 707 and potential amendments to the Rules of Council. I also appreciate the invitation to participate in this discussion.
My comments focus on the interplay between SB 707 and the Community Planners Committee’s “Seat at the Table” proposal, which CPC submitted on January 29. These two efforts can work together to strengthen public participation and improve the quality of deliberation at Council and Committee hearings.
The Brown Act has always been grounded in a clear legislative intent: that public bodies provide meaningful access to the public and conduct their deliberations openly. During the SB 707 hearings, legislators reaffirmed this intent, noting that “SB 707 presents an opportunity to strengthen our governments and empower community members to be engaged… Ultimately, we aim to create robust public meetings and increase participation across the state.” Another legislator emphasized that “public meetings are an imperfect, but valuable, tool for public participation, and key to democratic responsibility.”
SB 707 modernizes the Brown Act by incorporating rules for virtual participation. CPC has not taken a position on the specific amendments, so my comments are limited to how Seat at the Table aligns with the broader legislative intent behind SB 707.
Seat at the Table does not directly implicate the new virtual-participation rules. Instead, it advances the Legislature’s stated goal of strengthening public engagement and improving the quality of deliberation.
Today, project applicants typically receive a structured presentation period—often ten minutes or more—to walk through their proposal, respond to questions, and remain available for follow-up.
In contrast, Community Planning Groups and the CPC are limited to one? to three?minute public comments, unless we can recruit large numbers of people to cede time. Even then, Councilmembers are not provided with the opportunity to ask questions or engage with CPG/CPC recommendations in real time.
Yet CPGs and CPC are tasked with providing neighborhood?scale analysis of land?use and policy decisions. That analysis is often detailed, technical, and highly relevant to decision making. Under the current structure, however, that information is compressed into a format that does not allow for meaningful exchange. Valuable insights are lost, and the deliberative process is weaker for it.
Seat at the Table seeks to remedy this imbalance by creating a structured opportunity for CPGs and CPC to present their recommendations directly to decision?makers. It is a modest, targeted reform that aligns with the Legislature’s intent to strengthen public participation and improve the quality of public meetings.
To be clear, Seat at the Table is not the same as—and does not fit under—the Council President’s third option for group presentations. That option is designed to address equal?time requirements associated with time?ceding practices. Seat at the Table is different. It is an in?person, structured advisory presentation tailored to the specific action item before the body. It is not a virtual presentation, so SB 707’s equal?time requirements do not apply. And CPGs and CPC are not informal coalitions; we are elected bodies operating under City?approved bylaws with defined roles in the City’s planning framework.
Seat at the Table is not about expanding public comment. It is about ensuring that the City’s own advisory bodies—created, regulated, and relied upon by the City—have a clear, structured lane to provide the information needed for informed decision?making.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to consider CPC’s Seat at the Table proposal and recommend its adoption as part of the Rules of Council amendments.
Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Victoria LaBruzzo, Chair of the Community Planners Committee
Victoria LaBruzzo is Chair of the Community Planners Committee (CPC)
If you want see City Hall cronyism up close, watch how different presenters at Council meetings are treated very differently. Builders and DSD staff are politely asked how much time they’ll need. Community members (taxpayers) are sternly told how much time they’ll get. This is blatantly unjust, and it needs to end. Thank you, Victoria, for your leadership and for this eloquent testimony.