CRA workshop: Study finds First Street safe, board focuses on aesthetics, signage and education

At a Community Redevelopment Agency workshop on April 16, 2026, staff presented a traffic study and supporting video that concluded First Street is performing as an intentional shared street and shows no major safety issues, and board members spent the session weighing aesthetic fixes, signage and public education rather than immediate capital reconstruction.

Taylor, the redevelopment staff presenter, told the board the packet included more than 160 pages of data and video footage. ‘‘The first thing that really stood out the most … was there were no major safety issues,’’ Taylor said, describing about 10–12 minor incidents in the crash review going back roughly to 2018.

The report and staff discussions reframed the board’s initial question from ‘‘Is First Street safe?’’ to ‘‘How do we resolve public perception that it is unsafe?’’ Taylor and others noted that First Street’s pavers, irregular markings and lack of conventional curbs are an intentional shared‑street design—derived from European examples—that slows vehicles by introducing ambiguity rather than encouraging higher speeds.

Police leadership supported the safety conclusion but urged caution before making radical changes. The police chief said the street was designed to reduce speed and blend bicycle and pedestrian traffic and warned that closing First Street to vehicles or otherwise opening large, contiguous public space could increase crowding and enforcement burdens: ‘‘If you make that pedestrian only, it’ll be a disaster,’’ the chief said, arguing that more open space tends to draw larger, harder‑to‑manage gatherings.

Board members and staff singled out a set of operational and aesthetic problems that do not rise to immediate safety concerns: hotel dumpsters that temporarily block sidewalks, inconsistent signage and parking‑opening irregularities, and overhanging building features that limit design options. Members discussed alternatives to wholesale replacement of pavers—options included treated or stained concrete, partial paver sections, or decorative banding—to preserve the street’s low‑speed character while improving maintenance and appearance.

Staff recommended no immediate capital projects to remove pavers or undertake major reconstruction until several larger efforts are clearer, including a pending P3 proposal, Laam Plaza improvements and private development activity that will affect downtown circulation. Taylor said staff will assemble a prioritized action item list of short‑term (signage, minor concrete/ADA fixes), mid‑term (aesthetic treatments) and long‑term (capital materials) responses and return to the board to refine those items before briefing city council in a joint session late summer or early fall.

Taylor also flagged an education and communications component: the city’s communications team has been increasing outreach and staff reported recent social‑media reach in the hundreds of thousands to millions of views, which the redevelopment team plans to use to explain the shared‑street concept and manage expectations of tourists and residents.

The agency did not vote on any capital action; members instead tasked staff with drafting the action list and coordinating with council and other projects. The board also heard recommendations to evaluate Second Street—where crash data appear worse—alongside First Street as the city fashions a broader downtown mobility approach.

Next steps: staff will return with a narrowed action list in a future workshop, prepare a refined briefing for city council, and pursue targeted short‑term fixes and public education while deferring major capital reconstruction until related projects and consultant input are clearer.