At the January 20 Council meeting, a referral by Councilmember Tony Daysog to halt the Mecartney Road pavement and safety upgrades and bring the project back to City Council did not advance. The work will continue as planned.
The Council devoted a significant portion of its meeting to this item (recording here, starting at 49:25). Many community members—including a large number of children—showed up to speak against the referral and in support of the changes on Mecartney. Speakers repeatedly emphasized the importance of safety and expressed gratitude for the improvements already made. Bike Walk Alameda also submitted a letter opposing the referral.
Speakers in support for the referral were few. One Harbor Bay Isle HOA representative acknowledged that outreach had in fact been adequate, but nonetheless argued the project should receive Council review and questioned staff’s legal authority. Another speaker objected primarily on aesthetic grounds.
City Engineer Scott Wickstrom fielded questions and clearly explained both the rationale for the project and why stopping it midstream would be ill-advised.
Daysog’s Argument — and Why It Didn’t Persuade
Councilmember Daysog said his concern was less about outreach and more about “meaningful engagement.”
Watch a clip here:
He argued that HOA opposition warranted escalation to Council, and that while staff heard and responded to concerns, they acted by fiat, and needed additional guardrails. He cited three facts to justify his referral:
Fact 1: Past resident opposition to a roundabout at Island and Mecartney.
Counterpoint: That opposition occurred years ago, may not have been representative even then, and may not exist today. More importantly, the current project did not include that roundabout. It involved different, more modest safety improvements, so it’s unclear why past resistance would automatically apply here.
Fact 2: A Harbor Bay Isle HOA resolution from February of last year.
Counterpoint: The resolution is unlikely to represent the broader Harbor Bay community, and many residents probably never saw it. It was submitted after the Transportation Commission meeting—the venue specifically designed for public input. Most importantly, a resolution from a single neighborhood group does not — and should not — override widely vetted, Council-adopted policies like Vision Zero. That policy, signed by Councilmember Daysog himself, explicitly prioritizes safety as the highest use of street space:
Fact 3: Similar projects (Lincoln, Fernside, Central) came before Council—why not this one?
Counterpoint: The Mecartney work was completed through the city’s routine Pavement Management Program, administered annually by Public Works on a rotating, citywide basis. The other examples cited were significantly larger corridor projects, requiring significant additional funding, staffing, and often environmental review. They’re broader and more impactful. The changes on Mecartney were not exceptional or unprecedented; even lane reductions have occurred before on streets like Main Street and Robert Davey Jr. Drive.
Given his long tenure on the Council dias, it’s surprising that Councilmember Daysog appeared to conflate these project types or did not seek earlier clarification from staff.
Councilmember Daysog said he sympathized with families’ safety concerns, but argued that staff should not be making decisions like this without Council involvement—a position that conflicted with Vision Zero and other Council directives. That sentiment fell flat with many in the audience. The city has processes precisely so staff can implement the outcomes the community has already endorsed.
What the Referral Actually Did — and Why It Failed
Ultimately, Councilmember Daysog’s motion was to “update revisions to city policies or municipal codes to ensure future construction projects receive appropriate review by City Council and develop a communications and community engagement plan for the future construction of projects to ensure adequate public engagement and inclusion.”
It failed to receive enough votes. Councilmembers Daysog and Boller voted in favor; Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Pryor voted against; and Councilmember Jensen abstained, stating she wanted to hear more from residents.
What Happens Next
Incidentally, staff has already been working on refining outreach and clarifying authority and plans to return with proposals at a future meeting. These plans may or may not involve more engagement from the City Council. One good idea floated was mailing notices to residents before project planning begins—not just before construction—so more people can engage earlier at the Transportation Commission level.
There is always a balance between community outreach and project delivery. With a Vision Zero goal of 2035, allowing late challenges to derail safety projects risks missing our target. With some thoughtful adjustments to engagement, the city can continue delivering the safety improvements the community has said it wants—without unnecessary delays that will jeopardize projects and goals.
While this referral was disappointing on many levels, it ended well and it also served as a reminder of how fortunate we are to have talented, capable city staff—and enough Councilmembers—who remain committed to street safety and to keeping Alameda moving toward safer streets for everyone.