![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/timesofsandiego.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/Screenshot-2026-08-18-at-3.09.01-PM.png?ssl=1\")
<\/a>Image of Encanto parcel from lawsuit.<\/p>\nBecause there is a gap in the sidewalk, the city excluded the area. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe city of San Diego has misinterpreted this provision to allow the exclusion of a parcel based on any gap in sidewalk availability between the parcel and the qualifying transit stop,\u201d the lawsuit said. \u201cAs a result, the city is unlawfully excluding numerous parcels throughout the City, including parcels that are nearly adjacent to qualifying transit stops,.\u201d<\/p>\n
Gelfand said the city\u2019s decision contradicts the law.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis walking path issue is a San Diego issue and not what state legislators and the state law require,\u201d Gelfand told Times of San Diego. <\/p>\n
He said there are many examples of locations similar to the example in Encanto that the city excluded from the map, but did not know of any specific developments that were rejected because of it. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a common effort by local agencies throughout the state to minimize state legislation, and this is not unique to San Diego,\u201d Gelfand said. <\/p>\n
Bill Fulton, the city\u2019s former director of planning and a professor of urban studies and planning at UC San Diego said the city likely erred on the side of caution when defining what walkable passages meant because state legislators failed to do so. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis is what happens in California,\u201d Fulton said. \u201cLegislators are vague and fail to define what a walkable pathway is, and now it\u2019s left up to a judge to be the one to define it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The lawsuit will now make its way through state court.<\/p>\n