AV resolution

Questioned how the city could enforce rules on driverless AI vehicles.

Political director for the Building and Construction Trades Council called the resolution the bare minimum for local say.

With the Partnership for the Advancement of Indian Americans, said drivers deserve a seat at the table.

Career AI developer who called AI the greatest threat humans have faced.

YouthWill policy director supported the resolution, citing impacts on young workers.

President of the NFB San Diego chapter said ride-hail services illegally denied her nine times over her guide dog, and urged amending the resolution to protect AV access for people with disabilities.

Noted service dog users are frequently denied vehicle access and urged the issue be addressed.

Vice president of the NFB chapter urged amendments recognizing geographic and service access as accessibility issues.

Representing the California Gig Workers Union, voiced full support, saying AVs bypass community consent and threaten drivers.

Said her daughters and their drivers prefer Waymo late at night and urged preserving consumer choice.

United Taxi Workers board member supported the resolution as a first step to bring Waymo to the table with local government.

Executive director of United Taxi Workers said the taxi industry follows rules Waymo avoids and supported the resolution.

Rideshare driver with San Diego Drivers United said drivers are scared of losing income to Waymo.

A driver asking for a fair transition that protects workers and supports local control.

Questioned who holds Waymo accountable for traffic tickets and urged protecting San Diego workers.

President of San Diego Drivers United urged approval, saying progress should not leave workers behind.

Disclosed he works for an Alphabet subsidiary and opposed the item as written, arguing AVs are safer and the city needs more transportation options.

San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council organizer said the technology is anti-worker and anti-democratic and urged support.

Spoke in agreement with the item.

San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce representative opposed the resolution as premature after seven days of deployment.

Argued AVs are statistically safer than human drivers and noted Ubers lack local control too.

YouthWill supporter from the South Bay concerned about AVs arriving without community consent.

District 5 YouthWill supporter said policy should be proactive, not reactive to fatalities.

Criticized the council over bike lanes, storm drains, and spending priorities.

Waymo's local policy manager opposed the resolution as premature, citing safety data and first responder training.

District 7 resident cited Waymo incidents in San Francisco and said there was no public process.

Working with Waymo's launch, cited 100,000-person waitlist and urged not standing in the way of choice.

Center on Policy Initiatives researcher supported the resolution, citing studies of driver income losses.

Mid City CAN transit advocate supported the resolution, citing Waymo accidents elsewhere.

Made remarks about Tesla robotaxis and unrelated topics.

Raised concerns about AV surveillance sensors and broader patterns.

District 3 resident in Waymo's zone supported the resolution, noting no local public process occurred.

Urged a community dialogue and local public process on AVs.

Working with Waymo, opposed the airport ban language as unfounded and urged its removal.

Little Italy resident supported the resolution, citing jobs, cost, and privacy concerns.

Mixed view: supported the federal emergency coordination piece but skeptical of safety claims and preferred state-level labor action.

A blind woman with a guide dog opposed the resolution because she relies on AVs after repeated ride-hail denials.

Called the resolution rushed and flawed, citing lack of stakeholder engagement and the airport ban.

Supported local control but described a Waymo stuck at Midway Drive flooding, saying AVs need redesign for local conditions.