Alameda County Board of Supervisors Special Meeting: Measure D Polling and Brown Act Modernization - June 5, 2026

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors held a special meeting on June 5, 2026, to consider a procurement contract for polling services on potential amendments to Measure D (Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative) and to receive a presentation on SB 707 (Brown Act modernization). After closed session with no reportable action, the board discussed and voted on the polling contract, heard public testimony, and provided direction on SB 707 implementation.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mark Evanhoff opposed using public funds to overturn the will of voters and urged full disclosure of all poll results, not just an executive summary.
• Glenn Kirby submitted a document opposing the RFP, arguing it circumvents competitive procurement due to a self-imposed timeline and that using public funds is inappropriate.
• Chuck (Chair of Castro Valley MAC, Agricultural Advisory Committee) supported the poll, stating Measure D has negatively affected agriculture and that the county should update the measure to reflect changes over 25 years.
• Griffin (family farmer in unincorporated Alameda County) supported the poll, saying it does not commit the board to any policy but helps understand resident views. He noted the 2022 amendment received a higher percentage of voter approval than the original Measure D.
• Shirley Lewandowski (Dublin resident) opposed the poll, criticizing the process as lacking transparency and suggested a working group instead of a poll. She questioned Supervisor Halbert's conflict of interest.
• Dick Snyder (farmer) asked whether Measure D has actually enhanced agriculture and supported the poll to gather information.
• Chuck (small agricultural business owner) said Measure D has been a hindrance and supported the poll.
• Hilly opposed the poll, arguing that an independent Tri-Valley poll already found 76% support for preserving open space and 68% said conservation matters more than housing. He claimed the contract's legal premise is false.
• Larry Gossman (farmer and conservationist) supported the poll but not as the sole source of information, noting that the agricultural ecosystem has declined.

Discussion Items

Item 1: Community Development Agency (CDA) Procurement Contract with Team Civics XLLC for Polling Services on Measure D

• Staff requested approval of a $149,000 sole-source contract for polling to gauge voter awareness of Measure D and identify potential amendments that could gain support. The contract was initially expected under $100,000 but received only one bid above that threshold.
• Supervisor Miley confirmed the procurement followed county practices and that the poll would be public. He noted the board has not voted on a November ballot measure and the poll is for information.
• Supervisor Tam questioned the urgency, given that amendments were just passed in 2022 and a Tri-Valley poll conducted in March 2026 already covered similar questions (76% support for open space, 68% prioritize conservation over housing). She asked why not use stakeholder engagement instead of a poll.
• Supervisor Bass expressed concern that the poll's requirements include evaluating support for transferring authority from voters to the board. She asked for broader stakeholder input on question formulation.
• Supervisor Marquez asked about past polling for Measure A and how questions would be developed, stressing the need for clear goals.
• Supervisor Halbert emphasized the poll is incremental, not a wholesale change, and would inform the board on countywide views, especially to support the struggling wine region and agricultural businesses.
• The board heard extensive public comment for and against the poll.

Item 2: Staff Presentation on SB 707 (Brown Act Modernization)

• County Counsel and the County Administrator's Office presented key changes: mandated hybrid meetings with two-way audiovisual, a technology disruption policy (required by July 1, 2026), ADA accommodations for remote participation, just cause remote participation limits, and optional fully remote meetings for eligible subsidiary bodies (advisory only, no elected officials).
• Staff proposed a disruption policy with a one-hour troubleshooting requirement, after which the board may continue without remote access if two findings are made.
• Supervisors discussed expanding eligible subsidiary bodies to all qualifying commissions, with a phased approach. They also requested a complete list before voting. No formal action was taken; staff was directed to bring back a resolution before the end of the fiscal year.

Key Outcomes

• Item 1 (Polling Contract): Motion by Supervisor Halbert, seconded by Supervisor Miley, to approve the procurement contract, adopt the resolution, and allocate funds as recommended. Passed 3-1-1: Supervisors Marquez, Miley, Halbert voted yes; Supervisor Tam voted no; Supervisor Fortunato Bass abstained. All poll results and methodology will be shared publicly (as legally required).
• Item 2 (SB 707): No vote taken. The board gave unanimous direction for staff to bring forward a technology disruption policy and an authorizing resolution for eligible subsidiary bodies before July 1, 2026, with further discussion on the list of bodies and phased implementation.