Policy Letter: Comments on the Streets for All Program
Members of the Vision Zero Coalition sent a letter to the City making recommendations on the City's draft Streets for All Program manual. We are excited by the prospect of the program, and encourage the City to use this as an opportunity to ease the permitting burden and costs associated with implementing demonstration projects.
Read the full letter here.
--------
November 13, 2026
Director Vonblum
City Planning Department
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
SUBJECT: Comments on the Streets for All Program
Dear Director Vonblum:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to comment on the City’s draft Streets for All manual.
1. We strongly support the City’s effort to establish a slow streets program.
Community slow streets programs are a proven way to advance safer streets. Cities across the country have implemented similar programs to great success. We are very supportive of establishing the Streets for All program at the City of San Diego.
A slow streets demonstration program is mutually beneficial for both the community and the City. The community gets a safer place to live, and the City gets safer streets paid for and implemented by community members. The current plan does not fully reflect this mutually beneficial relationship, requiring community members to pay full permit, insurance, and implementation costs. The final plan must improve upon the existing permit system, to ensure that community members are not paying undue bureaucratic and financial burdens when improving city streets.
2. The program should be designed to be implemented by community members.
Communities want safer streets, and should be able to organize to implement traffic calming projects under this program. A successful Streets for All Program should be accessible to organized groups of community members. It should not require a consultant, nonprofit status, or significant financial backing. In its draft form, the manual presents barriers for community implementation.
Further, as currently written, the draft manual does not provide sufficient information for community members to implement the program. Out of the 106-page draft manual, the implementation section takes up three pages, and does not provide enough detail to grasp the burden of the City permitting system. The final manual should include in explicit detail the steps required to implement a project.
3. This program should improve upon current city permitting policies.
The proposed program will be limited in its effect if it does not streamline existing permitting requirements. Over the years, Circulate Planning & Policy has consistently advocated for the city to streamline its placemaking process[1], as we have experienced firsthand difficulties navigating it. Some of our organizations are grant funded to implement placemaking projects, akin to what this program seeks to facilitate. Despite our expertise and grant funding, we are generally unable to execute demonstration projects within the City due to its arduous permitting requirements (Appendix One). The Streets for All Program is an opportunity to make it easier for our organizations to use outside grant funding to make San Diego streets safer.
Applicants should only be required to submit one comprehensive permit application to the San Diego Development Service Department (DSD) through an easily-accessible online portal. This application should be assigned to a single point person in the department with decision-making authority. This individual should be responsible for any further coordination with additional city departments or DSD divisions. Permit requests under this program should have clear and enforceable timelines for review. Overall, community members should be able to receive final approval for an eligible project within six months.
The city is getting free infrastructure from community organizations. It should not require the community to pay additional fees or costs in the form of time and bureaucratic burden.
4. Permitting costs will be a barrier to project implementation.
Under the draft plan, applicants are required to acquire at minimum a right-of-way permit, traffic control permit, and insurance. A right of way permit alone can cost upwards of $20,000. The cost of these permits will be an insurmountable barrier for many projects, especially those in lower-income communities that may not be able to come up with the capital to pay for safe streets.
In order for this program to be effective and equitable, the City should waive these fees. Additionally, any fees required ahead of securing insurance should be minimized in order to ensure that community members do not pay a significant amount of money before understanding the full cost of their proposed project.
5. The program should consider the voices of all residents.
The draft manual states that 75 percent of property owner support is required to advance a slow streets project. The final policy must consider the preferences of all residents, whether they rent or own their homes. Further the threshold for support should be lowered to 50% +1.
6. The manual should outline evaluation metrics.
These demonstration projects are intended to test out street treatments to inform more permanent installations. As such, there needs to be objective evaluation standards to determine if projects are successful. The manual should include objective evaluation metrics that community groups can use to analyze the impact of their projects.
7. Aligning traffic control device requests with the Streets for All Program.
Many community projects implemented under this program would likely be made safer through the installation of traffic control devices that fall outside the bounds of this program, like stop signs, crosswalks, and stop lights. We understand that the City currently has separate policies in place for these devices, and that installation is more complex and may require city crews. However, applicants should be able to request city installation of traffic control devices as part of their streets for all projects. The city can align the review and permitting processes for these policies to ensure that communities get the full safety benefits from their investment.
8. This program presents an opportunity to harden daylighting zones.
Finally, the final manual should include recommended treatments for daylighting zones. Under AB 43, people are no longer allowed to park within 20 feet of an intersection. This additional space can be utilized by installing approved infrastructure like bike share docks, planters, and low-profile bike racks. This way, we can ensure that the safety benefits of daylighting are realized while taking advantage of the extra curb space.
9. Conclusion.
The Streets for All Program is a fantastic opportunity for communities to organize and make streets safer. It can be a win-win for communities and the City. As the City finalizes its program guidance, it should modify permitting processes to ensure that the community does not pay an undue time or financial burden to implement slow streets projects on behalf of the city. By streamlining implementation and waiving permitting costs, this program can truly be a win-win for safer streets.
Sincerely,
Aria Grossman
Policy Manager
Circulate Planning & Policy
Ian Hembree
Advocacy and Community Manager
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
Anar Salayev
Executive Director
BikeSD
Chris Roberts
Transportation Team Lead
SanDiego350
Flowchart Detailing Current Permitting Process for Street Demonstration Project
|
Appendix One:
Cc:
Philip Trom, Mobility Planning Manager, San Diego Planning Department
Sarah Pierce, Senior Planning, City of San Diego
Elyse Lowe, Director, Development Services Department
Council President Joe LaCava
Councilmember Jennifer Campbell
Councilmember Stephen Whitburn
Councilmember Henry Foster
Councilmember Marni von Wilpert
Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee
Councilmember Raul Campillo
Councilmember Vivian Moreno
Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera
Policy Letter: Comments on the Streets for All Program
Members of the Vision Zero Coalition sent a letter to the City making recommendations on the City's draft Streets for All Program manual. We are excited by the prospect of the program, and encourage the City to use this as an opportunity to ease the permitting burden and costs associated with implementing demonstration projects.
Read the full letter here.
--------
November 13, 2026
Director Vonblum
City Planning Department
City of San Diego
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
SUBJECT: Comments on the Streets for All Program
Dear Director Vonblum:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to comment on the City’s draft Streets for All manual.
1. We strongly support the City’s effort to establish a slow streets program.
Community slow streets programs are a proven way to advance safer streets. Cities across the country have implemented similar programs to great success. We are very supportive of establishing the Streets for All program at the City of San Diego.
A slow streets demonstration program is mutually beneficial for both the community and the City. The community gets a safer place to live, and the City gets safer streets paid for and implemented by community members. The current plan does not fully reflect this mutually beneficial relationship, requiring community members to pay full permit, insurance, and implementation costs. The final plan must improve upon the existing permit system, to ensure that community members are not paying undue bureaucratic and financial burdens when improving city streets.
2. The program should be designed to be implemented by community members.
Communities want safer streets, and should be able to organize to implement traffic calming projects under this program. A successful Streets for All Program should be accessible to organized groups of community members. It should not require a consultant, nonprofit status, or significant financial backing. In its draft form, the manual presents barriers for community implementation.
Further, as currently written, the draft manual does not provide sufficient information for community members to implement the program. Out of the 106-page draft manual, the implementation section takes up three pages, and does not provide enough detail to grasp the burden of the City permitting system. The final manual should include in explicit detail the steps required to implement a project.
3. This program should improve upon current city permitting policies.
The proposed program will be limited in its effect if it does not streamline existing permitting requirements. Over the years, Circulate Planning & Policy has consistently advocated for the city to streamline its placemaking process[1], as we have experienced firsthand difficulties navigating it. Some of our organizations are grant funded to implement placemaking projects, akin to what this program seeks to facilitate. Despite our expertise and grant funding, we are generally unable to execute demonstration projects within the City due to its arduous permitting requirements (Appendix One). The Streets for All Program is an opportunity to make it easier for our organizations to use outside grant funding to make San Diego streets safer.
Applicants should only be required to submit one comprehensive permit application to the San Diego Development Service Department (DSD) through an easily-accessible online portal. This application should be assigned to a single point person in the department with decision-making authority. This individual should be responsible for any further coordination with additional city departments or DSD divisions. Permit requests under this program should have clear and enforceable timelines for review. Overall, community members should be able to receive final approval for an eligible project within six months.
The city is getting free infrastructure from community organizations. It should not require the community to pay additional fees or costs in the form of time and bureaucratic burden.
4. Permitting costs will be a barrier to project implementation.
Under the draft plan, applicants are required to acquire at minimum a right-of-way permit, traffic control permit, and insurance. A right of way permit alone can cost upwards of $20,000. The cost of these permits will be an insurmountable barrier for many projects, especially those in lower-income communities that may not be able to come up with the capital to pay for safe streets.
In order for this program to be effective and equitable, the City should waive these fees. Additionally, any fees required ahead of securing insurance should be minimized in order to ensure that community members do not pay a significant amount of money before understanding the full cost of their proposed project.
5. The program should consider the voices of all residents.
The draft manual states that 75 percent of property owner support is required to advance a slow streets project. The final policy must consider the preferences of all residents, whether they rent or own their homes. Further the threshold for support should be lowered to 50% +1.
6. The manual should outline evaluation metrics.
These demonstration projects are intended to test out street treatments to inform more permanent installations. As such, there needs to be objective evaluation standards to determine if projects are successful. The manual should include objective evaluation metrics that community groups can use to analyze the impact of their projects.
7. Aligning traffic control device requests with the Streets for All Program.
Many community projects implemented under this program would likely be made safer through the installation of traffic control devices that fall outside the bounds of this program, like stop signs, crosswalks, and stop lights. We understand that the City currently has separate policies in place for these devices, and that installation is more complex and may require city crews. However, applicants should be able to request city installation of traffic control devices as part of their streets for all projects. The city can align the review and permitting processes for these policies to ensure that communities get the full safety benefits from their investment.
8. This program presents an opportunity to harden daylighting zones.
Finally, the final manual should include recommended treatments for daylighting zones. Under AB 43, people are no longer allowed to park within 20 feet of an intersection. This additional space can be utilized by installing approved infrastructure like bike share docks, planters, and low-profile bike racks. This way, we can ensure that the safety benefits of daylighting are realized while taking advantage of the extra curb space.
9. Conclusion.
The Streets for All Program is a fantastic opportunity for communities to organize and make streets safer. It can be a win-win for communities and the City. As the City finalizes its program guidance, it should modify permitting processes to ensure that the community does not pay an undue time or financial burden to implement slow streets projects on behalf of the city. By streamlining implementation and waiving permitting costs, this program can truly be a win-win for safer streets.
Sincerely,
Aria Grossman
Policy Manager
Circulate Planning & Policy
Ian Hembree
Advocacy and Community Manager
San Diego County Bicycle Coalition
Anar Salayev
Executive Director
BikeSD
Chris Roberts
Transportation Team Lead
SanDiego350
Flowchart Detailing Current Permitting Process for Street Demonstration Project
Appendix One:
Cc:
Philip Trom, Mobility Planning Manager, San Diego Planning Department
Sarah Pierce, Senior Planning, City of San Diego
Elyse Lowe, Director, Development Services Department
Council President Joe LaCava
Councilmember Jennifer Campbell
Councilmember Stephen Whitburn
Councilmember Henry Foster
Councilmember Marni von Wilpert
Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee
Councilmember Raul Campillo
Councilmember Vivian Moreno
Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera