Good afternoon, everyone.

It's Thursday, June 4th.

I'd like to call the Alameda County Board of Supervisors special meeting to order.

I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Supervisor Marquez present.

Supervisor Tam present.

Supervisor Miley, excuse.

Supervisor Fort's not a bath of presence.

President Halbert.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

The board welcomes members of the public to participate either in person or remotely.

If you would like to speak on an item listed under public comment, feel free to do so.

Now is time for public comment on closed session items only.

I would like to ask anybody in the room to turn in a speaker slip or if you're online and wish to comment on closed session items only, now would be the time to do so.

Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers?

There are no speakers.

See none.

We will now recess into close session, but we have some remarks from uh our colleague supervisor Marquez.

Thank you, Chair Halbert.

I know we don't have um opening remarks on the agenda, but just want to respectfully ask if we could adjourn today's meeting in memory of former council member Pat Kagoskos with the City of Union City.

Thank you.

We will do that.

Thank you.

And since we're on remarks, let me congratulate you and Supervisor Tam on reelection.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

We are now in recess.

Thank you, everyone.

We're going to reconvene from closed session.

I'll ask County Council is there any reportable action out of closed session.

Excuse me, I was do roll call first, sorry.

Okay.

Supervisor Marquez.

Supervisor Tan present.

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Fort's not a bad.

President Halbert.

Present.

County Council, anything to report out from closed session?

No, Mr.

President.

There was no reportable action taken in closed session.

Thank you very much.

We'll move to our 330 set matters.

The first item before us is item number one, community development agency approve approving a procurement contract with Team Civics XLLC.

And there's our team.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

For this item, it was continued from your Tuesday meeting this week.

CDA is asking your board's consideration to approve a contract with Team Civics.

And this is for polling services.

And this is to better understand the awareness of Save Agriculture and Open Space Lands Initiative, or better known as Measure D.

And this is to also identify potential amendments that could receive support.

So for background, Measure D was approved by Alameda County voters in November 2000.

Uh the initiative placed limits on the type of the type and amount of development allowed on rural areas in the unincorporated county, and uh that basically locks in uh the land use by vote.

Uh the measure was arguably has arguably been successful in its intended purposes for preserving open space and agriculture, but it's also been criticized for having negative unintended consequences, as you heard in the Tuesday meeting.

So concerns have been raised about the measure's impact on agricultural activity as well as your board's restricted ability to make changes with out having another ballot measure.

And so uh there's been a great deal of discussion at with stakeholders and staff over the years about potential modification and and I know some supervisors here have a lot of experience with that.

Um so uh as you heard on Tuesday, uh staff as well as stakeholders began discussions in 2017 uh with broad topics for possible amendments, and so by 2021, uh that's uh a few years later.

Uh, based on many of the public meetings, uh we they found that there was broad support for an increase in floor area ratio for agricultural buildings as well as um uh FAR for horse arenas uh covered horse arenas in the two uh designations.

So that's just an example of uh the time and effort and public engagement that took place for conversations about measure D and possible amendments, and that took about uh a year and a half to finalize that ballot measure after they came to agreement on on that ballot language.

So uh they finalized the ballot measure uh ballot language as well as completing the CEQA and put it on the ballot, and that was in 2022, and that was a successful um uh ballot amendment uh that took place.

So this time around, staff is looking to hire team civics uh to conduct polling and provide feasibility analysis, and as well as provide summary reports to staff as well as your board and stakeholders to see what areas to pursue and plan for possible amendments to measure D.

And and uh I guess stated um candidly that uh from our perspective it's uh it's a business decision to determine the likelihood of voter approval on some of the concerns raised by the agriculture community, uh, at the same time balancing the intent of measure D to protect open space in agriculture and to find that out before committing uh substantial county resources uh to create a ballot measure.

So I also want to note that it's it's typical for general plans to be updated every 15 years or so, and uh that's to ensure that the community's needs and goals are met uh through these general plans.

So we think a countywide poll would be informative to that end to understand uh the community needs at this point.

And so the staff conducted on the procurement side, staff conducted an informal procurement process, and we anticipate that the bids were going to be below 100,000.

Uh, and that informal process took um uh took place, and there was posting on the county website as well as open gov.

And uh we circulated it to SLEB vendors for three weeks, and we received one bid, and it was over the 100,000, it was 149,000.

So, based on the procurement that we had for similar services in another department in our agency, we anticipated the time frame and the results of the single that resulted in a single bidder um would occur again, and so we didn't pursue a new competitive process as it would um constraint have constrained time, and so uh we were requesting that your board um approve a sole source waiver, and so uh with that, just happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Uh it's hard to see everybody.

Raise your hand, jump up and down if you have questions.

I see supervisor, everybody does.

We'll start with Fortunato Bass, Miley, Tam, and Marquez.

Um, I just have one initial question being newer to the board.

Um, and that question is, you know, looking at the scope of services.

Um is there going to be stakeholder engagement for development of the questions?

You know, the um the scope of work kind of jumps into the polling of voters, but how will those questions be determined?

I think it could be very advantageous to have stakeholder engagement with the various communities, agriculture, uh the broader community environmentalist labor, for example.

How will the questions be generated?

And uh at this uh point we didn't plan on having um additional stakeholder meetings to develop questions.

I think I guess over the years as well as commentary that came through uh many public meetings like transportation planning as well as ag advisory and and others that we have a grasp of the at least at a higher level, what questions they ask, just based on some of those uh concerns, but you know, a stakeholder meeting at least uh um that would I would say um increase the time that would be needed um if there was any possibility of getting on a November ballot this year, yeah.

Any other questions?

Um I'll leave it at that for now.

How many um polls have we done where we've asked the community to weigh in on the questions?

Any we've conducted no polls since uh it's been passed.

Okay.

I I appreciate the need for community input on this topic, period.

We have had a lot, as you mentioned, through the different meetings that we have.

Totally understand that that's important to do, but specifically crafting the questions.

I I refer to our professional staff, I think.

So needs to happen.

I just don't know about the crafting of the questions of the poll.

Um, if that helps.

Supervisor Miley.

Yeah, thank you.

First of all, I just want to uh check.

Um the procurement, the procurement has been uh generated according to county uh practices and procedures.

They've uh the procurement, yes, through the in our informal process.

However, uh we did not go back out to bid with uh limited response that we did receive, and that's why we're we're asking for okay because I just want to make sure we're we followed our procurement practices.

Now, there's no um, there's no issue with the county conducting a poll legally.

We can conduct polls.

We've done that in the past.

I've been around here for a while and we've conducted polls.

The one good thing if the county conduct the poll, the poll will be um subject to the public.

The public will be able to see the poll, the results of the poll, et cetera.

If it's a private poll, then the public wouldn't have access to a private poll.

But this is a public poll being paid with public money, so the public will have access to the result of the poll.

That is correct.

And as a pre-ballot measure, uh the polling of the potential electorate or various members of it is more than uh authorized by um both statute and the election code as well as in various Supreme Court cases.

Yes, and then um I know the staffs mentioned a ballot measure in November.

I don't think the board has made any decisions about a ballot measure one way or the other for November.

The this poll could inform us of that if we want to move forward, because if we were going to do a ballot measure in November, we'd have to get that done and ready to go by August, which is very, very quickly.

And and from my experience, once again, being around for a while and I haven't worked on a number of ballot measures for the county, uh at least four or five, and having done a few polls, both public and private.

Normally we have more of an um iterative process, put it that way.

And this is this is very, very condensed.

So, I mean, I'm gonna support the funding for this, but I'm not saying I'm going on record that we'll actually do a ballot measure in November because it might not be um Supervisor Bass has pointed out we might want to do a more lengthy process.

The results of the poll might come back uh telling us something different, uh, it might be informative one way or the other, or or just definitive one way or the other, we just don't know.

But the the issue of uh doing the poll and the procurement, there's no um there's no illegality there, there's no uh um what's the word, lack of um uh uh proprietariness there.

Um that is all good.

And I just think people have gotten a little waggedy waggedy because they think we might do a ballot measure in November.

As far as that other boards has not voted on doing a ballot measure, this is just basically a study to determine whether or not we should move ahead with anything relative to measure D, um in November or or after that, and and depending on the results of this, this could help inform us of our next steps as well uh in answer to Supervisor Bass.

She asked about more community input.

So even if the community is not engaged in putting together the questions for the poll and the um the and how they go about it, um the community, the public will have access to it, but um the board could decide based on the results.

We want to have a demo a more uh definitive process.

So I'm just trying to let board members know this doesn't roll out any anything that you might want to uh consider doing.

And then the final thing is some of the speakers did speak and since you know um uh I was on the city council in Oakland when Measure D was passed, and I've been on the board since Measure D.

And it's been very, it's been very people very protective of measure D, let's put it that way.

Um, and we've had this struggle over the many, many years uh to come to any changes with measure D.

And once again, this might not be the way we did it in the past, but this doesn't mean um we shouldn't uh entertain doing other's poll to determine what we might want to do in the future.

But I just want everyone to know there's been no vote on a ballot measure for November.

And if we were to do a ballot measure in November, we have about actually we probably have uh less than two months, more like six weeks uh to to make that happen.

I don't even know how long the poll's gonna take.

By the time they do the poll, by the time we get the results, we might be at the end of July.

So just trying to calm everybody down.

Thank you, Supervisor.

The supervisor Tam.

Um, thank you, President Halbert.

I'm gonna step back a little and uh sort of asked about timing because when I joined the board and I started in around January of 2023, and I looked through my records in February.

Um CDA came to the board with basically um the passage of the amendments from 2022 to Measure D and how you were going to implement that, and you had listed a number of uh priorities, and you you said there was a lot you had staffing shortage at that time because you were coming out of COVID and you were trying to um align that with the east area, uh East County area plan, and so uh what I want to understand is where are the amendments that we only made four years ago, and what's the rush to try to make more amendments, and then to also ask about the polling that was done that is public that's on a website, including the methodology that was conducted in March of this year, just two and a half months ago, that uh looked at every aspect of um some of the issues around Measure D, including the need for potential um changes and priorities, and how that polling is going to inform what we're doing now because it seems kind of duplicative, because the the results from that poll already listed um that 76% of the people agree to making sure that we have that um uh open space and agricultural that's defined in our communities.

It talks about the importance of preserving open lands habitat, talks about saying that open space and other conservation priorities are more important overall than providing more housing.

That's 68% of the people, and then on top of that, it also listed uh agriculture and it listed the uh importance of youth nature education.

65% of the polled um constituents uh wanted to support that and agricultural tourism, which is 49%, and based on the methodology, they looked at um just the Tri-Valley area uh with the um 500 people that were polled, and also the uh the number of registered voters that were in the city of Livermore, and they also ranked choice um some of these open-ended questions.

So trying to understand how that is um going to play into what we're talking about, and then can you also comment on some of the uh queries that we got at the last meeting where some of the speakers suggested that uh instead of doing another poll, perhaps it might make more sense to try to get the stakeholders together to determine what kind of amendments beyond what they did in 2022 should be um considered because in 2022 it seemed like there was consensus on those two amendments, the floor area ratio and the equestrian, um, but I'm sure there were other uh proposals at that time that probably didn't reach consensus.

So trying to understand maybe to have a mediated process where we look move forward with uh some potential amendments that everyone could agree on because this is going to be voted on countywide.

So I there was a understanding the question.

There is a couple of questions with a lot of context.

And um I'll I'll start with uh the 22 amendments, they were uh completed in and they're in our uh now in our ECAP.

So it's in our general plan and being implemented as um uh as some uh folks have taken advantage of those changes.

Uh I think with regard to the tri-valley uh poll, uh that is uh for the tri-valley area, and I think some of the um uh east county residents would uh that spoke even on on Tuesday, would say that some of the um Measure D limitations have kept them from expanding agriculture agri-tourism.

Uh there are some has been some concern that um I guess um whether it's motels or hotels, but some uh level of of um rentals and and housing or hotels uh spas and the like that can that could add to the economy in the East County is not able to be built due to uh Measure D.

So just that's just an example of of some of the things that maybe the uh the poll does really speak to some of the questions that that could be asked as it relates to um uh supporting open space and uh agriculture.

So uh I think that's where there's some benefit there.

It is also that poll also is a limited to just the tri-valley area, and the as you know, measure D is a countywide vote, and and so this would be uh a time to just at least check check the temperature of uh uh countywide uh how they feel about open space.

Now, staff does think that uh you know uh a any that there would be support for maybe a a limited uh level of uh amendments, but just like uh was done in 2022, it was a surgical, if you will, uh amendment to measure D.

Um, easy to understand for voters as well.

We could come to that.

Uh the polling would help help us uh in terms of inform us as to what areas we should focus our conversation toward rather than spending five years of discussion, and let me just also answer part of uh Supervisor Tim's uh question.

Um the reason we we have the stakeholders' meetings is because we were looking to do a technical amendment, and um the board didn't approve of technical amendment.

So we started a whole process of stakeholder engagements over multiple years with all parties to try to come to consensus around what people and also we had to come to consensus around uh the fact that we weren't we're not we weren't gonna force the issue of a technical amendment, we'd put it on the ballot, and if we're gonna put it on the ballot, then where could we get consensus so that there we would um eliminate uh or diminish any opposition to a ballot measure?

And so, you know, and that that journey was quite frankly years in making, but it started because we want to do a technical amendment.

Uh so just to follow up, uh you said there were surgical selection of the amendments that led to what was in the 2022 ballot measure.

Did they talk about at that time the years of stakeholder engagement, uh, the agricultural tourism part of it, like trying to and where did that land at that time?

Why wasn't it in the 2022 uh ballot measure?

There was a consensus at there was no consensus, and what is different this time?

It would be just for uh what the county wide perspective might be compared to uh what has been discussed at the stakeholders.

So it it if anything, this this exercise would be to be able to figure out where we want to focus our efforts uh rather than having that larger broad discussion, as Supervisor Riley had mentioned on uh many years of uh engagement.

Okay.

Just to clarify, this survey that was referenced was not published to the public until after we started talking about doing this poll.

Is that right?

And that poll is not our poll, and that poll wasn't shared with us staff directly, the questions and answers and details, as supervisor Miley pointed out, this will be our poll, and it will be shared with the entire community.

But um, while I think it's great that that group did a poll, there seems to be some reference that this is all there.

Tri-valley concerns the people that participated in the years and years and years of study were largely 99% tri-valley people.

Our poll is going to be countywide.

You're asking that we have a poll that would include voices of Emoryville, Berkeley, Alameda, San Leandro, Fremont, Fremont's also in my district, outside of District One.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Another question: the years and years of discussions that Supervisor Miley, you can maybe answer this too, but I'll ask staff.

How much did that cost us in the way of staff time and staff energy and hours of discussions and discussions and trying to come to consensus?

I understand it might have taken as much as 10 years before start to finish.

It wasn't just that last year and a half, it took 10 years.

Would it be more than 149,000 or less than 149,000 in your estimation?

I'm gonna say it might have taken a million or more, but you tell me.

I do know it did cost us a retirement.

Uh so anyway, just putting that out there that there was a lot of staff.

We can do things the hard way, or we can do things the smart and efficient way.

And I see this is more of just getting it done faster, but I also see the additive nature of this.

We did 10 years of work, we landed with some pretty some changes 2020.

Now we're just it's an evolution, an evolution.

The next step is let's see what the whole county thinks.

Let's do that with a quick poll.

And I would agree with what Supervisor My said nobody, nobody has voted on a ballot measure for this year or any year, but it's a step in the information gathering process.

I also want to ask a question from staff.

It's been said, well, we should go out.

There's two ways of doing things, gather your information and share it with the community, or have the community talk and and then go do some research.

But I've heard it done both ways.

It it is it better to share with the community later or inform the community before we have a discussion.

Because I again we've heard comment both ways from the public.

I like this because it gives us information and data that we can share with the community.

That's why I support this.

But am I wrong in that, or is it just two ways to do it?

I'm sure there's there's many ways to approach this and as we had in the past.

Uh we've had it, and we do this, I think, on a typical basis in the county, to have a lot of engagement with uh the public as we formulate um measures and and policy.

Uh I I will say that since there's been a lot of discussion with regard uh to Measure D and possible amendments, uh, and and we found small areas of consensus, and that being uh one with the 2022 ballot measure, it would be beneficial at least for staff to have an understanding of what areas we could focus on uh as it relates to consensus before we move into um you know uh working on um other topics that may not meet the countywide uh support.

You said it better than I could, I think.

Let's find areas of possible consensus countywide informed, as uh and then go to the community.

Um I appreciate that.

Uh Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you for the presentation.

Just a couple clarifying questions.

Um I believe I read the letter.

I've seen the contract, so my understanding is um this was initiated based off of feedback, public comments at multiple committees.

I know I've heard comments at Planning Commission.

I heard you re reference transportation and planning earlier.

Um, but I guess I want to just specifically call out: has this request come before any other body than this past Tuesday in terms of um I'm just trying to understand like how it was initiated.

Is it just solely district one?

I just want to have more of the background, how we got here.

I think uh district one has been dealing more directly with constituents, uh, and and so uh of course we uh had not budgeted for for this uh project, and so with that um in terms of importance uh as it relates to uh constituents uh in the east county uh and the frequency in which they were coming to meetings and and the long years of of similar issues, that's how it's it's come to this point that we were able to receive support and um and making a change in terms of how um the steps we take uh this time around versus um the prior prior 2022 ballot measure.

Okay, and um I guess I also just want to be clear on what is the main goal and objective.

I understand to receive solicit information to find out the community's understanding of measure D and whether or not folks are open to any type of amendments yet.

The questions haven't been formulated.

So I understand that, but I want to be clear because if this is a goal to get something on the ballot for November, I think we're already really far okay.

But I just want to be clear if that's yeah, it and uh it is a very high bar to be able to make a November.

Uh we we were working on uh on a timeline that should the outcomes provide um some uh information that would prompt the supervisors to put something on the ballot that the opportunity would still be there.

Now it is a really tight, tight timeline uh, and the likelihood of uh a project that's identified uh whether or not it would need CEQA or environmental review is is slim.

So um uh that's likely that November will not uh a November ballot could could be created.

Uh, and then do we have any past experience specifically with measure A, the health care measure A, not the housing bond, but that was renewed is my understanding.

So the two times that it would that it initially it failed at one point, right?

I think it never failed.

Okay, so it passed initially, it's been renewed, it's currently in place.

But the first two times that it passed um when it was on the ballot prior to that, did we conduct any polling?

Yes, we did.

Yes.

Okay, yes, we did.

And we also once again tried to build consensus among all the stakeholders, because it's two-thirds, yeah.

This is only 50% plus one, I believe.

But that was two-thirds, and you really need you know that consensus.

So if this gets approved, I'm still not clear to Supervisor Fortano Bass's comment who is going to develop the questions because the questions are going to be leading, likely.

So at this point, we were going to work with the consultant on some of these issues and and determine you know what how how to formulate the questions for a better for more information for what we're trying to get at in terms of support and awareness of measure D.

Okay, thank you.

I hope we get that for 149,000.

Good.

We're gonna get value for our money.

Supervisor Forsana Bass.

Thank you, President Howard.

Um, and I want to preface my uh question or comment sharing uh that i have really it enjoyed on being on the board of supervisors and getting to know the other districts and including the livermore valley and the more agricultural areas even in castro valley in supervisor miley's district um so i know that we have a very diverse county not only in terms of our constituents and residents but also in terms of our um space whether it's urban rural agricultural etc um I do have um I do have a concern that I want to raise uh knowing that in district five I do have a lot of environmental and open space advocates and um it is on exhibit a page one of three so this says under specific requirements that the impact feasibility analysis and assessment must evaluate the potential support or opposition for voters to affirmatively reestablish the board of supervisors as the legislative body to amend the general plan and include opinion research through voter polling so you know my understanding of measure d is that it has been very hard fought in terms of making sure that voters have authority over our urban limit lines and this specifically seems to be looking at taking that authority or parts of that authority away from voters and giving it to the board so I just want to hear more about the intent of this poll given that that's the main requirement in terms of uh the questions that will be answered asked and answered I think it's going to ask the people what they think about that it's simply polling them are they are they still of that opinion and they can tell us yes or no and if they all come back and say heck no then that would inform us that we ought not ask for that and if they come back and say we don't care then that may lead us in a different direction.

We don't know but if anybody thinks that this is an attempt to take back anything from the voters without their consent that's impossible to do so that's not my intent.

I don't think it's our staff's intent and I don't think it's anybody's intent that I've heard out in the public I don't know Sandy if you have a different answer than that but I see that as a polling question.

It is maybe if I'm wrong.

No that that is correct.

I think um it does it can be perceived as a being um I guess uh a method in which to uh undermine measure d but uh it is a question in terms of determining the the I guess the extent or range of how people perceive measure D.

So that would be another method of checking um go ahead Nate it's people's awareness I'm sorry.

Yeah and I just I can't underemphasize this people are very protective of Measure D, extremely extremely protective trust me I I know this for a fact um and even if the poll looks at whether or not the board should have that authority like David said it doesn't mean the board's gonna once again go down that road and if we do go down the road the voters have got to approve that at the at the ballot box and it's my recollection and I don't know if county council or Susan I don't know if they can answer this just yet but I do recall when measure D was an issue on the ballot the county had its competing measure measure C which did exactly what I think tried to give county more control and the voters voted down Measure C but they voted for measure D so I'm just saying it's like you know deja vu if we go that if we go that way again, but like um supervisor how is saying uh the poll will at least give us and inform us of contemporary thinking around these matters, right?

And let me just say um because majority of this is in my district, and I know the constituents in my district very well.

You're gonna get to know them through this process, I'm going to imagine.

But what I've heard them say time and time again is that the wine region of East County is dying, and I will not have the death of the wine region on my hands because we can only have one restaurant that predates Measure D in all of East County, and that's not enough to sustain the wine region.

I don't want to kill the wine region without asking the people of all of Alameda County, do you vote value the wine region?

I don't want to kill the wine region without taking incremental steps without going all the way to, you know, um taking all the control back from the people.

That's not what we want to do.

We want to ask the people incrementally what they need, and I think what we can get out of this are some some changes that may not have had 100% consensus from everybody, but has enough consensus to pass the county vote to preserve the wine region, and also to preserve agriculture.

There are farmers out there that can't even split 100 acres between their couple of children.

It's so restrictive, and every 15 years cities go back and make changes.

We haven't done it except for one small little change took us 10 years to go do in 30 years.

So I see this as a continuous thing.

I think we're gonna see a poll every two or four or six years and making incremental changes to Measure D if that's what's needed.

But we're gonna be informed by all of Alameda County residents, not just a few.

That's what I keep hearing from my constituents in district one and supervisor Miley.

With all due respect, I know you hear a lot of this too.

I think you hear both sides of this.

Yeah, a lot of people protect of measure D, but yeah, a lot of people that are defending that want to defend their opportunity to make some changes.

So I didn't live through 10 years of incremental discussions on a few changes that didn't get a hundred percent consensus, but I do think we have to look at what has countywide consensus, and I think we'll find times are different this year this than it was 30 years ago.

People are now more concerned about other things, and uh I am interested, Supervisor Tan, thank you for sharing that that uh that uh survey.

I am interested to find out more about that survey, but it's different than what we're talking about here.

I think it's time if we could go to public comment.

Um, thank you, staff, for your presentation.

We have members uh in the room and online.

How many uh speakers do we have?

Now would be the time to raise your hand online, and I think we have two speakers in the room.

Any more than that?

Two in the room, just two in person, and so far six online.

Six online.

So we'll give two minutes each.

Thank you in room first.

They came in, they get first priority.

Mark Evanhoff.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you for continuing the item so that all members of the public had a chance to review the contract and the exhibits, and I appreciate the comments from um of all the supervisors.

Um, in addition to what Supervisor Portuna Bass pointed out, exhibit A says the scope of work described in the informal RFP and the scope of work in the contractor's proposal shall be performed to the greatest extent feasible.

So that means it's actually a little bit more than just a poll.

The other point is why is there the rush?

As Supervisor Miley pointed out, the board is gonna have to reach agreement to place something on the ballot by August.

So there's not gonna be much time for crafting the measure and debating the measure.

The poll will probably take about four weeks.

So again, why the rush for November take more time?

And again, it's not appropriate to use public funds to overturn the will of the voters.

Uh, the other point I'd like to make that's Supervisor Bass made, and some of you have commented on, is that the entire, if you go forward, the entire content of the poll must be shared with the public, not the executive summary.

Describe the universe, the methodology used to choose those that were polled, and all the polling questions and the response, not the executive um summary.

Again, I don't think it's it's I think it's not appropriate to go forward now, but if you do go forward, disclose the entire contents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, Glenn Kirby.

Thank you.

I'm submitting a document today, uh which I've given to the clerk that augments and supports my comments for the record.

Uh, this document was authored by a friend and colleague from the Mission Peak Conservancy and is consistent with and supports the position taken by the Sierra Club on this matter.

So this is the third meeting for this proposed RFP, and while the latest staff report and contract language have been couched carefully in careful terms, the intent of this remains clear.

The original IRFP was funded by a discretionary account controlled by Supervisor Hobbart.

And while the current recommendation is to shift that funding to a different account within the county budget, nonetheless, the use of public funds for this purpose is highly inappropriate.

So therefore, my position remains the same that you not approve this RFP to be paid with public funds.

And further, the staff report is recommending circumventing the normal competitive RFP process due to a self-imposed and internally created time constraint.

This is circular logic to try to make it by the November ballot.

It's a uh self-imposed constraint, and um there's nothing been said by the board or staff that specifically identifies an urgent need that would justify waiving the county's competitive procurement process.

Thank you.

Good evening, supervisors.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this.

Um, my name is Chuck.

I happen to have an equestrian center uh located in Castro Valley.

I'm on the agricultural advisory committee for the last 12 years.

I chair the Castro Valley Mac, and I um I'm on the fur board because I care about agriculture in our county.

I am not speaking for any of those particular organizations, but I'm very familiar with Measure D.

Last time you talked about or someone talked about the change in the FAR.

I felt like I was a major driver in that change as it was overlooked when Measure D was passed.

I would say that Measure D was passed 25 years ago.

So many things have changed in these 25 years, and there were so many unintended consequences of Measure D that is negatively affecting agriculture.

And we could go through and pick them apart.

But if you sit down and talk to the folks in the agricultural community, they will tell you the first letter of Measure D or the line was to preserve and enhance agriculture.

It does not do either.

Matter of fact, because of some of the restrictions on housing that was proposed, Mount House got developed out in Tracy.

Look at what is done to our environment with all those cars on the road.

We need to relook Measure D.

It was promoted and passed by the county.

And I am in very much support of asking the county how they feel about some of it.

We have an obligation to update and keep these things current for what's going on in the county.

The county voted on it, and the county should look at it again and see how we're doing with it.

So thank you very much for this time.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Griffin.

My family farms and operates a small agricultural business in Sinnol, unincorporated Alameda County.

I'm here today to support moving forward with the Measure D polling and analysis.

I want to start by saying that nobody in the agricultural community is asking the county to stop protecting open space.

Open space is one of the reasons that people love Alameda County.

It's one of the reasons that my family loves living and working where we do.

But protecting open space and supporting agriculture should not be treated as competing goals.

They should support each other.

The problem is that for many rural families, the current system feels frozen in time.

Costs have gone up, farming has changed, water, labor, insurance, infrastructure, and housing for the next generation have all become harder.

And yet the rules have not adapted to those realities.

And that's why this work matters.

This item doesn't approve a development project.

It does not rewrite Measure D, does not commit the board to any specific policy outcome.

It simply gives the county a way to understand what residents actually think before deciding whether there is a responsible path forward.

That's important because this conversation should not be driven by assumptions.

We've heard a lot of those, and it should not be driven by fear.

And it should not be driven only by the loudest voices on either side.

I think it's worth noting that the percentage of voters who passed Measure D was much smaller compared to the percentage of voters who passed the 2022 amendment.

Now, to me, that is evidence of a desire for change by the voters.

But we won't know unless we ask.

A professional survey can help identify where there's common ground.

Maybe voters want strong open space protections, but also want more flexibility for working farms.

Maybe they support agritourism, family succession, or limited tools that help agricultural businesses survive without opening the door to sprawl.

We won't know unless we ask.

We shouldn't be afraid of collecting voter polling data.

I respectfully ask you to vote yes so that the county can get more information it needs to have a more honest and informed conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors and staff.

I'm Shirley Lewandowski, a longtime Dublin resident.

More than ever, in today's very turbulent political climate, the public demands and deserves full transparency to garner trust in our government and from our elected officials.

When proper processing of any county proposal is not followed, and worse yet presented under the guise of needing an emergency vote.

You create confusion, disingenuously mislead and disrespect disrespect the public's intelligence.

This is what's happening with supervisor how it's request to spend 149,0100 of taxpayers' hard-earned money to unnecessarily pay a consultant the task of polling county residents to find ways to change and wear down the guardrails of Measure D.

Why isn't the board doing what it properly did in 2022?

That is to appoint a working group of constituents involving constituents, involving the community to meet and consider what amendments might be appropriate and reasonable.

And if consensus is reached, then a recommendation could be made to the board.

It suffices to draft an amendment to Measure D.

This is the right way to address this issue without wasting taxpayer money.

You may think 149,100 is a small drop in the county's budget, but it is a big chunk of taxpayer money to me.

I also believe Supervisor Hubbard's involvement should be viewed as a conflict of interest by the rest of the board since it involves his district.

I respectfully request the board to vote no on supervisors.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors, and thank you for allowing me to speak on this issue.

I think it's worth remembering what voters were told when Measure D was passed.

The stated purpose was to preserve and enhance agriculture and agricultural lands while also protecting open space, watersheds, wildlife habitat, and the natural beauty of Alameda County.

Who wouldn't vote for that?

But after more than 20 years, I think we have to ask an honest question.

Has Measure D actually enhanced agriculture in Alameda County?

From where I sit, the answer is no.

I asked Dick Snyder a few months ago if he could even cite one example of how Measure D has enhanced agriculture over the last 25 years, and I never received an answer.

I would respectfully ask the board to consider the same question.

Can you point to any real examples where Measure D has helped agriculture thrive?

The truth is, whether by design or unintended consequences, Measure D has often made it harder for agricultural families and rural landowners to adapt the best and make a living on their land.

That's why this survey matters.

It's not a vote to change Measure D, it's a vote to ask the public what they think and give the county the information it needs to have an honest conversation.

If you asked me, I would say we should be looking at ways to make it easier for small agricultural businesses to bring people out of the countryside, support agritourism, allow carefully designed farms to stay on rural lodging, encourage farm to table opportunities, and create a reasonable path for family members to remain on large parcels so the next generation can continue living and working there.

These are just my ideas.

The point is we need to do a survey to find out what the voters think.

My hope is that this work will be enlightening and will help the board find a path forward that protects open space, respects city residents, and also gives agricultural families a real chance to survive and thrive in Alameda County.

I uh completely agree with the last speaker.

I also have a small agricultural business here in unincorporated Alameda County, and Measure D has not proven to be uh beneficial to our organization at all.

In fact, it's every every time we turn around, it's it's been a hindrance to us.

It is uh the Florida area ratio, um, trying to get uh uh employee housing for people who we uh use for temporary labor.

It has just been a nightmare trying to um get anything done in the agricultural world.

So I also would respectfully ask the board of supervisors to pass Mr.

Halbert's uh uh request and um affirm the 140,000 to do this uh test.

It's been 30 years and it's been 30 years too long till we relooked at this issue.

Thank you.

Hilly.

I'm uh responding to what staff and uh the board have said today.

Staff testified that they anticipated bids under 100,000.

That is not credible.

CDA ran a nearly identical contract 12 months ago at 209,800.

Staff knew what this work costs, the staffer acknowledged they anticipated a single bidder result and chose not to run a new competitive process because it would have constrained time.

That is an admission, not a justification.

On the Tri-Valley poll, a recent independent survey found 76% of residents support preserving open space and agriculture, and 68% said conservation matters more than housing.

The public is entitled to ask why those tri-valley results are being set aside in favor of a new countywide poll commissioned by the district most interested in weakening measure D.

You can't handle the local opinion.

You can't handle the wishes of the Tri-Valley.

Finally, appendix A1 states the board is not is completely unable to amend measure D without voter approval.

That is a material misstatement of the law.

Section 23 explicitly reserves board authority to impose more restrictive land use standards and make non-substantive modifications.

The entire premise of this consulting contract rests on a false legal foundation.

So we have submitted a formal complaint to this board and to relevant oversight authorities.

We urge the board to reject this waiver, and maybe you should think about listening to your constituents in the Tri-Valley, the ones who support Measure D, and you already know that because you ran the poll.

Thank you.

And I'm speaking in my personal capacity today.

Um this initiative is not just a district one and a tri-valley issue.

It's also district four issues.

Which in my opinion is the epicenter of the of the county, and the most important part of the county.

Um, bear in mind that this is an initiative to support a survey.

Taking the temperature of the populace, which ultimately must vote on this.

It's only a survey.

It might lead to that, inevitably, but there's a good chance that the survey is going to come back and say, we like it the way it is.

Um, in fact, should be reviewed on a regular basis.

It has some seemingly very minor covenants that don't really affect the urban growth boundary, which is major portion of measure D.

But for example, the two-acre building envelope.

I can have a 180-acre parcel, and I have to, and I'm entitled to two homes, and I have to put them both on one acre.

That might not make sense for the ranching operation that I have or the other agricultural operation that I have.

So even a minor change like that would not be made by the board of supervisors, a zoning board, a local Mac, that job or two can be addressed other than going back to the populace.

So I very much favor doing this survey and taking the temperature of the populace.

Uh, I would correct the statement by Supervisor Albert that said people with 100 acre parcels can't subdivide them.

Gosh, even if you have 199 acre parcel, you can't subdivide it.

So it's greater than just a prohibition on a hundred and thank you for your time.

Larry Gossman.

Hello, uh, I'd like to thank the Board of Supervisors for taking my uh testimony today.

Uh, like many of the people who have given testimony today, I am a long-term farmer, conservation or conservationist and stakeholder in Alameda County.

I've gone through this process.

It's been described to you today as an option to the survey, and I want to make it clear that I do support the survey to provide us additional information, but not the sole source of information for what needs to be done to enhance agriculture and preserve the urban limit lines in Alameda County in a reasonable manner.

Uh, that being said, uh, it's remarkably important to consider that there are components to agriculture, just as there are in any business, any other business.

And what I can say is that over the past 25 years, I've had the misfortune of seeing that the agricultural ecosystem has crashed, the agricultural economy is crashed, and the uh um agricultural infrastructural services and uh uh properties that are necessary in the area have declined.

So there are impacts to this beyond uh farmers losing their ability to farm.

It's also affected the spread of agriculture into the urban areas, and the agricultural experts from the east side side of the county are struggling so much that we don't have time to engage with our good friends on the west side of the county who are trying to do the same in the urban environment.

So again, I encourage you to listen to the testimony that's coming to the to you from the people that are supposedly currently being protected by Measure D, who are screaming to let you know we are being heard.

Thank you very much.

I'll give you five seconds, otherwise we'll be moving on.

No more other no more speakers.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um, any other thoughts or questions, comments from my fellow board members?

I would like to react um to the public comment and also the comments earlier.

Um, this is in no way a wholesale change to measure D, but rather an incremental bit of information that informs us on the entire county, which we heard from comments, a reflection of screaming, screaming landowners who are pointing out the unintended consequences of measure D, people whose farms and livelihoods are at stake.

We've heard it before, although we didn't hear it directly today.

The wine region is in peril, and so um it may take two years or four years or 10 years to continue the dialogue.

I don't think it'll take that long, but we'll have information that we can then next steps.

I believe having um discussions with the community, sharing the results.

I concur with the speaker who said we should be sharing the full uh survey results.

Do we have a choice on that county council?

Uh if we do a poll, we should be able to share it with the community, right?

So, unless there's something confidential or otherwise exempt under the public records act, the entirety of the results would be shared publicly.

And I would support that, and I I think that's the right thing to do, and then go share that information and then have a discussion with people.

Again, we'll have a poll that tells us this, not a few residents.

Um, and so that's why, and and and it may it may take uh time.

That's fine.

Um, so I support doing this.

Um, and so supervisor Miley, would you care to make a motion that I can second?

Because you indicated your support for this as well, or do you want me to make the motion?

Pardon?

Yeah, okay.

I would like to make the motion that.

Well, is there any I'll make a motion?

We'll see if there's discussion.

Is there I would like to make a motion that we allocate the funds as recommended by our professional staff, the CDA agency to produce this poll and to bring it back to us.

The results.

Supervisor, you'll you'll need to include the other actions, approving the procurement contract and adopting the resolution.

Uh okay, thank you for that.

So, in addition, clarity, the motion includes approving the procurement contract, approves the adoption of the resolution.

And the third C is already included in my comments, is that right?

Okay.

I'll second it and once again earlier I said that uh I'll be supporting this based on the fact that we've been uh informed by our staff that the procurement was appropriate and using funds to do a poll, basically to study to determine what we want to do and see whether or not there's any contemporary changes in terms of people's thinking is appropriate.

And once again, to reassure everyone who's listening that the board has made no decisions about a ballot measure in November.

Quite frankly, I don't think uh we would have time, even if uh this poll were to be conducted and get back to us to craft a ballot measure before November.

So this could just be our ability to be better informed.

So thank you.

Any other discussion on the motion then made and seconded, Supervisor Marquez.

Thank you.

Would the maker and the seconder of the motion be amenable to uh explicitly stating that the information will be shared with the public?

Of course.

Yeah, I think the I think everything about this poll will be subject to uh a public records uh request if necessary.

It is legally, but I'm referring to just being more open, transparent, like we are.

It's gotta be it's public money.

Sister Rosa, the only reason I wouldn't make a cautionary note is one of the speakers addressed um methodology, and there may be certain aspects of what the polling company is going to do that might be trademark or otherwise proprietary, and so it would that would just cost you need anything of that nature, we would be selective and in not releasing, referring to more of the results, not specifically the methodology.

Just wanted to make sure given that comment that we didn't the clarity, everything shareable, shareable as determined by county council results.

Quite frankly, if we didn't share it, which we you know we'd be legally obligated to share it, but I just think it would be bad faith and not try and not very transparent, not to be uh amenable to the sharing it, but uh we we have to share it because it's public money, it's certainly my intent to share everything.

So any other clarifying questions or comments, supervisor Fortunato Bass.

Thank you, President Halbert.

Um, I am certainly supportive of uh our agricultural industry as well as protecting open space.

I appreciate the comment uh made publicly that these two things are not in opposition, um, that we can agree to work on both of them.

Um I would be much more comfortable if there were um some sample questions or sort of general themes so that I would have uh more information about what questions uh would be asked.

Um I understand that there have been a number of discussions, including at our agricultural committee.

However, I would be more comfortable knowing that a broader set of stakeholders uh would have input into formulating these questions.

So I will likely abstain from this vote.

Okay, if it helps you in any way, um, some of the comments that were made around if I have a hundred acres and measure D currently says I can't subdivide that.

Is that still reasonable and would it be allowable to subdivide below a hundred acres?

Might be a question if that's helpful.

Um but when you say a broader set, I'm trying to understand exactly why.

We generally don't.

Well, Miley, you did polls on measure eight.

Did we did stakeholders and help us write the questions?

Uh I mean, did directly?

Because I stakeholders have helped me write the questions, and I'm willing to have any stakeholder talk to me, but they typically don't do that.

So I'm trying to understand how you want that to happen.

So I don't know that some of the proponents or opponents of Measure D knew that this was coming to our board because I think there was only three-day noticing.

I think it could be a more robust process if say the Sierra Club or various conservation organizations could give input into the types of questions that might be asked.

I certainly appreciate the specific questions that were raised today.

So it's it's much more of a process question to ensure that this poll is inclusive, knowing that it takes a lot of resources and time to do a poll.

I've reached out to the Sierra Club membership and they haven't responded yet.

It doesn't mean I won't continue to solicit their feedback.

I want them, and that's uh interestingly, um, some of the comments have come from members of the CR club who have since been excommunicated from the CR Club or asked to join another organization.

So I certainly want the CR club involved in this, but they haven't responded yet on this crafting of the questions, but they should need to be involved in maybe a sponsor of a town hall meeting or attending the town hall meeting.

But anyway, so uh I don't know that it's okay timing-wise to have them craft the questions, but they'll certainly be involved.

Any other questions or comments?

Supervisor Tam.

Um, thank you, President Halbert.

I certainly respect your advocacy on behalf of uh your constituents uh in the Tri-Valley area.

Um unfortunately I don't see this as an urgent priority in light of the number of priorities that the county is facing, and we're dealing with a number of countywide issues at the moment, which could better use some of these funds, and so um my concern will be more along the lines of um seeing how the current amendments are being implemented before we look at additional implements and how those are problematic because it's only been a couple years since the current amendments were passed by the voters.

So I will not be supporting the motion.

All right, thank you.

Roll call vote, please.

Supervisor Marquez, hi.

Supervisor Tam, no.

Supervisor Miley.

Hi Supervisor Fortunato Bath Abstain.

President Halbert.

I vote yes.

Thank you.

With that said, uh that item's been concluded.

We'll move on to other parts of our set matter, which is um a staff presentation on assembly mill seven seven zero, I think.

707.

So, President Haver members of the board as part of your work session under board operations, we'll be presenting uh and seeking board direction on Senate Bill 707, which relates to Brown Act modernization.

This is a joint presentation by the Office of County Council and County Administrator's Office.

Um, it will include an overview of SB 707, discussion about technology disruption policy during Brown Act meetings, which your board is required to adopt, um, a discussion on promoting inclusive public engagement uh as related to SB 707 and some recommendations and direction that we'll be seeking to bring certain matters back to your board prior to the June 30, 2026 deadline for implementation.

And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Rome County Council.

Thank you.

If I could just say um I want to make sure item three, we're planning to fiscally not have for today, is that right?

So if anybody's sticking around for item three, we won't be taking that up today.

Just to let people know.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

Um CAOMERNTE.

So on your slide deck, 707 overview, we're going to really hit a lot of the highlights because there were a substantial number of changes made by 707, a lot of them minor edits.

So our goal is to speak to you about uh some of the key changes that are important to your day-to-day operations.

707 was enacted in October of this past year to quote unquote modernize the Brown Act.

Key changes included enhancing remote meeting participation options for board and committee members, mandating what we refer to as two-way visual and audio meetings for county boards of supervisors with a population greater than 30,000.

Obviously, we well exceed 30,000.

So starting very soon, we have to move to mandated Zoom teams or similar meetings so that the public can participate and communicate and comment on those live platforms.

It codifies a 2024 attorney general opinion that recognized that the Americans with Disabilities Act would apply to allow board and committee members with disabilities to participate in meetings remotely as a reasonable accommodation.

So there is a protocol and a process in place for that, but that affects not just your board but other legislative bodies throughout the county that are Brown Act bodies in a sense.

By expanding just cause, the statute also eliminates what used to be referred to as the emergency remote or teleconferencing provisions, sort of consolidates those in a way and move us, moves us well beyond the COVID rules for teleconferencing and participation outside of traditional teleconferencing.

One minor change was the removal of the sunset provision on the existing Brown Act rules related to social media.

Those rules will continue into the indefinite future.

They did not change the rules themselves, just lifted the cap on how you engage with Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms.

It mandates that local agencies, i.e.

the county or other bodies, must provide a copy of the Brown Act to individuals who are elected or appointed to serve as a member of a county board or committee.

I believe the clerk's office has handled uh that activity as folks are added.

We I think it was distributed to everyone electronically, and as new members are at it, they're receiving an actual copy of the Brown Act so that they have that and are aware of that.

Umgoing the the Brown Act creates a number of definitions for different legislative bodies.

Um new group that you'll become familiar with is called the eligible subsidiary bodies.

These are Brown Act entities who are fully non-decision making, fully advisory bodies.

We have gone through the list of all of the boards and commissions and tried to identify these entities because they will have the ability if your board allows them to do so for the members to be entirely remotely for remote for meetings.

In other words, you could have a room like this, and the only people sitting here would be staff and the public who wish to attend, but there would be or could be no members of that body present.

We'll talk about that in some detail.

You get to make the decision whether or not you're going to allow that to happen.

It requires under the new changes that that there be certain outreach to underrepresented and non-English speaking communities, but giving your board uh broad discretion to decide what is reasonable outreach.

It requires your board to maintain a web page dedicated to public meetings with a prominent link on the home page.

And so the clerk's office is making that happen, and I think it's primarily been in existence, and so all the links are being firmed up.

It does require that you provide what's referred to as reasonable assistance to members of the public who wish to receive meeting interpretation during a meeting, including arranging space for them where they will be in a particular area so that they're not disruptive to the balance of the meeting.

Um or ensuring that they can use their own personal equipment for translation services.

This is not to be clear, this is not a mandate that we provide translation services.

This is to assist others who have determined that they want to provide it themselves to one another or to others.

It does impose new restrictions on calling special meetings regarding salaries and salary schedules or compensations for members of the legislative body and as well as department heads.

So in the rare occasion when we are going to allocate a change of salary and make modifications, there has to be some special procedures that get have to be accommodated to make that happen.

One thing that I think all all Brown Act bodies have been doing during COVID and uh going forward was making sure that individuals who did Zoom bombing were treated under the same rules as for disruptions of a meeting.

Um the statute now in fact makes it clear that the same rules do in fact uh apply to individuals who are participating remotely, as well as those who are in the room if they are in fact actually disrupting the meeting.

So the next slide just speaks to the general rules regarding teleconference.

So as a reminder, as we sort of just a refresher that under the traditional teleconference rules, which will remain on the books, the the basic statute, as you know, is if you want to participate remotely under the condition the traditional rules, that you would have to post the location on the agenda itself where the we would be remotely, you have to post that location.

The notice has to be posted at the location as well as the address where you will be that you have to allow public comment from those all those meeting locations as well, and that the space has to be accessible to the public and ADA compliant in that regard, that all votes when there is someone teleconferencing has to have to be taken by roll call.

Some of the key distinctions are that the remote participant does not count toward the quorum under traditional teleconferencing, and that a quorum itself has to be located within the boundaries of the jurisdiction.

So for your board, that means three of your members must be within the county, and that the individuals who are remote would not count toward that quorum.

May I ask a clarifying question on that?

I thought that that was a um just cause participation requirement, and that if members of the under the normal I'm going to be traveling scenario, that has it always been the case before COVID and everything.

Yeah, these are the traditional telecoms.

And we'll we'll touch on just cause because it is different, whereas under the traditional rules with uh the the quorum has to be within the jurisdiction under just cause that the um quorum has to actually be in one physical singular location.

So, how were people able to have completely I'm talking about the air board and Fresno, everybody's in a different location because they're hundreds of miles apart, nobody's in one room at the same time.

They're all remote and agenda is remote and uh uh locations open and uh.

I'm not familiar with that body, but there are new rules regarding um multi-jurisdictional bodies, and historically they're well always during COVID, we had different rules altogether.

Recall COVID was all the rules were kind of off the table for several years there.

Thank you.

But these are these are the traditional rules.

COVID, we had changes almost every six months.

There was a new statute and how it would be run.

The one difference that has been changed to the traditional rules is this reference that if if you are if you are a member of the body and you are only like observing a webcast of the meeting.

So, for example, if you were watching the board member, the board meeting through our granite system where it was the meeting was live streamed, assuming it's still available, and that that system does not allow a member to participate interactively to speak, discuss or deliberate, then that's not deemed to be a teleconference meeting any longer, although it previously would have been included.

Okay, so we now have what is referred to as mandated hybrid meetings, and that means that an eligible legislative body, which is defined differently than than before.

Here it is, it is specifically defined as a county with a population of 30,000 or more, that you must use the two-way video and/or audio platforms.

So we are now going into a world where we must use Zoom teams or similar functioning for for your meetings.

As we I think we discussed once before, there have historically we have your board has been able to take a retreat and go off to an off-site location where there was no broadcasting, was more informal, and that is no longer an allowed process.

You are going to have to have the technology available.

And if the two-way audiovisual platform that we use as the capability to do automatic closed caption, automatic reading, then we are required to allow that function to activate that function, but you've probably seen in your board meetings, you know, as the closed captioning is being projected on the screen.

And then in our noticing of the meetings and the agendas, we are required to give members of the public notice and how they can access the meetings and offer public comment, and we have already historically been doing that as well.

So that is not a new requirement, at least not it is a requirement, a new requirement, but it's not a new approach that your board has taken.

So here's the big item that you that you are required to actually uh take action on and to do so before July 1.

In this, this one uses a different definition of an eligible legislative body, in this instance is a county with a population of more than 600,000 again applies to your board.

You must approve at a noticed public meeting in open session, not on the consent calendar, a policy regarding disruption of the telephonic or internet service that might occur during your meetings.

And so the two-way platform, if there is a problem where we lose the service at any point in time, the basic requirements are that you would then have to recess your meeting until you have taken sufficient efforts to attempt to restore the service.

So if you're able to restore it sooner, then you reconvene your meeting once it's reinstated.

But if the continuing efforts go up to an hour, then they we don't are not able to have the system reinstated, then at that time, you have a couple of options that we'll talk about in just a second.

The only thing that you can do during that recess while you are while staff is doing all the work to try to get the system reinstated, is to uh convene in closed session.

So you can recess to closed session while the work is ongoing, and if this the staff comes and says we we've got it all restored, then you can choose to continue with closed session and you can go back and reconvene your meeting and start back up.

But the important thing is that we let the the public know that we've restored the service.

If if we and we'll talk about, I think staff has a different slide, but if you are unable to restore the service after an hour of good faith efforts, then there are certain statements that the chair of the meeting has to read into the record, and then your board can determine whether or not you can make two mandated findings to allow you to continue the meeting without broadcasting to the public, and it essentially is you have to determine first of all that you have made good faith efforts and what those efforts were, and the second thing you have to determine is whether the public interest is better served that you continue the meeting without the uh live stream of the meeting to the public.

If you do not make the findings, then you must adjourn your meeting.

So the staff will go over the the policy with you that they have have uh have ready to go um for your consideration and then we'll be if you are supportive of it then we'll be bringing it back at a at a future meeting for your adoption in consistent with the statute so the ADA accommodation or the reasonable accommodation for a remote participant um the statute now uses a number of different phrases they refer to uh teleconferencing participation they refer to alternative teleconferencing which is essentially just cause and then they have the new term that they refer to as remote participation and the remote participation applies essentially to uh ADA as well as um uh one other situation which escapes me at the moment but it it essentially refers to the member of the body being remote as opposed to the meeting itself being what's referred to as a remote meeting the intent was to codify a 2024 California attorney general opinion that reversed a long-standing 40 some year old prior opinion um and now recognizes that it is a reasonable accommodation for a member of the brown egg body who has a disability to be able to participate remotely as a reasonable accommodation and historically that was not the case the the typical statutes that govern what is a disability for ADA purposes also define it here.

And the the criteria are that the the member who is appearing remotely must use a two-way real-time video and audio streaming system so the same teams or zoom system or approach that we would use for county meetings for your board meetings they have to disclose that whether there is another adult in the room who is physically who is present um or an adult of course a person over age 18 and the nature of their relationship to to the member.

While they must be on both video and audio if their condition the physical condition regarding related to their disability results in a need to participate off camera then they said can do so but they must first announce online that they're that that that is the case and that they are going to be off screen from from visual as opposed to audio.

Importantly for the ADA accommodations unlike the traditional teleconferencing they do not have to list the remote location on the agenda or the notice of the meeting they do not have to post the meeting agenda at the remote location and they do not have to allow the public access to their remote location site and more importantly they count towards the quorum for all cases as if they were physically present at the meeting site for all reasons and all purposes they are treated as if they were physically present in in the meeting room and there's no limit on how many times they can use remote participation and you'll see for just cause there is a a limit and also for multi jurisdictional bodies is a limit on how many times that that item can be used.

So is that the typical 2449 or when we say this disabled at first when I was hearing this it feels like a member of the body who've just happens to have a disability a disability ongoingly but this the commentary just the ADA it can be a temporary and or a permanent disability and then we would do the same analysis we would similar to what an employee has but we do not engage in any sort of uh interactive accommodation the accommodation is you don't attend the meeting in person that's the sole accommodation.

But 2449 did not count towards quorum before so is that this is new with the ADA they do in fact count for quorum.

So counting towards quorum we had a meeting just yesterday and I guess this is we had a meeting on Tuesday but that was a just cause it was not an ADA no airboard airboard meeting had a meeting on the Wednesday, yesterday.

The Tuesday, Wednesday, and it was a different body, but that's after this law took effect.

This law was effective January 1.

January 1.

They were still counting at 2449s as not counting towards quorum.

But yesterday, the chair and the vice chair of the airport were not part of the quorum.

Yeah, but I'm so I don't I do not know if they had a qualifying disability or whether they had gone through the process.

Okay, so that's different.

That's I see.

So that's different than a disability.

Correct.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

They were about to talk about second traveling.

Thank you.

Okay.

So under the just cause rules, as I said before, they there previously under COVID and so forth, there was both just cause and an emergency, and there are different rules about how they work.

The emergency teleconferencing or alternative teleconferencing rules have been eliminated, and some of the reasons that allowed for an emergency teleconferencing have been added to just cause to expand the scope of what the permitted reasons for a just cause participation are.

Under just cause, this is another position where you have, in fact, a remote location where you're having a meeting where the member is participating, and it's not the same location where the actual meeting is available to the public.

The same as with the ADA under the Just Cause, the remote locations are not required to be accessible to the public.

The important things to remember is that for just cause you do have to have a quorum of the body that are in person at a single location, all at one together.

So it's it's less flexible than ADA, and it is also in some ways more or less flexible than the traditional teleconferencing.

The remote member does not count toward the quorum.

So we have to be mindful that if we have an individual who is remote on just cause, and while we may have three members in the room, if someone has to get up and leave, then we don't count and say, Well, we have four, we had four, now we're down to three, and the answer is for quorum purposes, we had three, and now we're down to two.

So we'll have to be careful if that is in fact exercised.

Um the important part for the member to recall is that as they need to notify the legislative body at the earliest opportunity, which can include as as uh at the beginning of the meeting itself, and they also has to provide a general sort of description of the circumstances.

More importantly, the nature of the just cause uh statutory provision has to be included in the minutes of the meeting, and that is uh a requirement now, and so working with the clerk's office to make sure that that gets included, and if you have a need to be remote, I will be glad to provide you with the statutory provision to uh re-enter the to the um uh minutes, or I can assert it for you if if need be.

Um, the key is that there is also a limit on the number of times per year that you can use just cause because your board meets more than three times per month on a regular basis, then you can use just cause for seven meetings a year.

And yeah, the statute does provide that if you have a meeting, if you have more than one meeting in a day, that that is only counts as one use.

So, for example, on June 18th, we have a board planning meeting, and then you have a budget hearing that meeting that afternoon, that day would just be one of your seven uses of the just cause provision.

Um, in this instance, the member must be um both audio and visually available at the meeting, unlike ADA where you have the option to not be on screen if you have certain requirements uh that are qualifying for the alternative just cause, you must both be audio and visual on screen available at all times to the meeting.

And you can choose to leave the meeting and go off-screen, but you have to actually leave the meeting while you're in the meeting, you have to in fact be on screen.

Uh, the same requirement regarding the presence of an adult and the general nature of their relationship must also be disclosed on the record.

On the next slide, you see you can see the list of the seven different categories for which you can use just cause.

Some of the main ones are caregiving contagious illness where you need to be uh isolated, a need related to a physical or mental condition that may not arise to an ADA disability, but is still something that requires you to be remote.

Traveling while I'll on official business of the legislative body or of a state or other local agency.

So if you are on county business, uh that would be a qualifying event, uh you know, compromised individuals, uh, a family or physical medical emergency that prevents you from attending, and then certain military service obligations are also eligible for just cause criteria.

Just to clarify, even though the just cause participating member is remote and it doesn't count toward the quorum, that member can still vote on the most item.

Yeah, and the votes will still be by roll call, they just don't count for the core.

Do not know why the legislature made that change.

They do what they do.

Okay, so the next category is related to the eligible subsidiary body and their ability to teleconference and essentially do remote, fully fully remote meetings.

The definition of an eligible subsidiary body is very specific.

They must serve exclusively in an advisory capacity.

They are not authorized to take any final action on either legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, excuse me, permits or other entitlements, grants or allocations of funds, and they cannot have a primary subject matter jurisdiction that focuses on elections, budgets, police oversight, privacy, removing or restricting access to public library materials or taxes or related spending proposals.

So we went through the long extensive list of all the boards and committees that you have and tried to identify what we thought were eligible subsidiary bodies.

There are a handful of them, probably 20 or more that may be eligible for this for this process.

If your board has established an eligible subsidiary body, that body may conduct what is referred to as remote teleconferencing meetings.

One of the items that is sort of troublesome to staff with good reason is that at least one staff member must be present at that physical location.

So the concern that some have expressed and rightly so is that we often have meetings at uh fairly far-flung locations, for example, in SONOL.

And if none of the eligible members of the SONOL Citizens Advisory Committee, which is an ESP, decide that they want to be present.

You could have a situation where you have a single staff person sitting in a physical location, and then members of the public can come and go as well.

So there's a security issue, and we would want to make sure that we specifically address those concerns.

The meeting agenda again is not posted at these remote locations, but it is posted at the physical locations where the meeting occurs.

As with the ADA remote participants, all of the members who are not physically present also count toward the quorum.

I'll continue to use the CINEL CAC as an example with their five or seven members.

If they all chose not to be present, they would still have a quorum if they were at their own homes.

And similarly to an ADA or just cause meeting, there's no listing of those remote locations on the agenda.

It's not posted at the agenda, they do not have to allow to have the public to have access to those locations.

As previously noted, they do have to participate via the two-way audio and visual platform, unless they have a physical or mental conditions that a condition that requires otherwise, they have to be a visibly on camera as well.

There is a criteria that does allow them to drop off video for non-appearance.

If they have a problem with internet connectivity, they just have to announce before they do so, say you know it's causing me to not be able to fully participate or hear the meeting, and then they can drop the camera because oftentimes that will allow the internet connectivity to um be better served.

One key thing that you should be aware of is that if you are a member of an eligible subsidiary body, you do not get the benefit of fully remote participation.

Because as an elected official, the statute says that you may not participate in a meeting remotely under the ESB rules.

So you may be sitting there with staff as the only persons present in the room.

And so you could you could, of course, use the traditional teleconferencing rules, but would have to go through all those provisions to comply.

There are actually actually a couple of ESBs that technically exist that, for example, all of your standing committees in many ways are eligible subsidiary bodies by definition.

Advisory, don't make final decision making, yet the only members are two elected officials, and so we have not included them on the list because none of you can participate remotely.

So and then there are a couple of others where I think we have mixed boards with um elected officials who include the sheriff or the DA or other individuals who are also elected officials on those boards.

So the process for you to take if you choose to allow any eligible subsidiary bodies to do this fully remote teleconferencing is that your board must take formal action.

It can be a resolution, an ordinance, even a board letter would qualify, but you must make three findings by a majority vote, which is traditional for your action.

And unfortunately, you would have to renew those findings every six months.

The findings are that you've considered the circumstances of the ESB, that allowing the teleconference or remote meetings would enhance public access to the meeting, that the public is aware of the type of remote participation allowed, and that the systems would be made available, and also that by doing this, that would encourage individuals to participate as members of the body itself.

And so the last finding is that you would promote the attraction, retention, and diversity of ESP members who are on these various boards.

After you make these findings and authorize the ESB to in fact do remote meetings, the body itself must then decide on its own whether or not it wants to exercise the authority that you extend to it, and it requires a majority vote after they also hold various meetings to allow the public to comment.

You at any time can retract or prohibit an ASV from using the teleconferencing rule if you determine even short of the six-month period, that that is not effective or is not being implemented the way you want it to do.

The next list is sort of a uh not an exhaustive list, but sort of an example of some of the bodies that who are eligible and we have identified as being eligible ESBs.

Um, I would note that there is at least one on here, the CCP executive committee, the asterisk there, they do have elected officials, and I believe in in many regards almost all of them are elected members, and so that may not be beneficial to them.

But this is just sort of a snapshot of some of the bodies that you might want to consider.

We can provide you with the full list if you are interested, or if anyone reaches out to you.

There is a process that if you decide you do not want to do this, that the eligible bodies can reach out to you and say we would like to do a presentation and explain to you why we think we really can do this and you ought to let us.

But they they would need to ask, and that they can then come before your board and make that presentation.

You would author, you could authorize it, and then they would choose if they wanted to exercise that authority, and then every six months you can revisit and either narrow the scope as to who you allowed or didn't allow, or broaden the scope if there are others that want to participate and determine whether or not that you want to continue it at all.

But they also still have to take any action on their own.

So they could opt not.

They could choose not to do it.

They can say we should all be here.

You could opt not to do a one-meeting opportunity.

I don't know, because there's a process they have to go through.

So once they do it, then it is implemented unless they take official action to retract it.

Yeah.

So the next 707 provision is interesting in that it we're going to talk just quickly about translation and interpretation.

Um it does require 707 does require boards of supervisors to translate meeting agendas, make a physical location accessible to the public where the community can translate agendas and those agendas can be posted, but it does not apply to Alameda County.

We did not have any languages that met the definition of applicable languages.

And so we are not required to, in fact, make a translation service available, or to allow others to translate our agendas or even to translate our own agendas, and it's just the agenda, not the agenda packet, and make that available to the public.

We are required to reasonably assist members of the public who want to do that translation.

Talked about that a little earlier.

We need to make sure if there's a space that we can place them where they're not going to be disruptive if other members of the public want to translate for them as long as it's it doesn't interfere with the meeting itself.

We are required to publicize the instructions about how to get assistance, and it's typically on all our agendas, and we have made it available to the public.

If you need assistance, then reach out and we will do ADA accommodations and language accommodations.

You've seen us do ASL and other languages as well.

We are again not required to provide interpretation services, and if and if we did, we are not responsible for the content or accuracy of any interpretation provided by others.

We do have that in place.

What is deemed to be a reasonable effort is within the broad discussion of your board, and you get to choose what steps and actions you want to take.

So from a legal standpoint, as a summary, the the two actions that that one you need to take, one you must take, and one you should you can consider that you wish to take.

Um to uh go fully remote by adopting the authorizing resolution.

There's a number of administrative tasks that we've listed here that staff will have to implement, but they're not anything that mandates action by your board of a nature that has a deadline.

And there's no deadline on the determination on the there is no timeline, and you do not have to do it at all if you do not wish to do it.

Can I ask a question about the subsidiary bodies again?

Have there been any bodies that have been asking us that second determine if the board will authorize some or all?

Not that some I am not aware of any.

I mean, we've had a number of requests, a dozen or more about ADA accommodations, but I I have not heard, and I don't know if any others have of any of the eligible bodies who have reached out and said we want to we want to be fully remote.

They may.

I do not know how many of them even know about the process, so that did change.

You're going on a road show to train them, I understand.

No, some no, thank you.

Okay, oh, somebody is training somebody on the stuff.

Okay, anyway.

There have been certain trainings on 707, we've been rolling it into uh our standard Brown Act training.

So folks will find out about it as we go forward.

What are the um TNP and health and social services?

What are those?

Those aren't.

So your board standing committees.

Yeah.

Meet the definition of an eligible subsidiary body.

However, all of the members were elected officials, so they could not be remote, and there's so there really is no purpose served in that.

Okay, thank you.

You're gonna go through the actual.

So we're actually gonna pivot and have a recommended policy.

All right.

Buenas tardes.

Good afternoon, supervisors, county administrator, Mayor Nishi, department heads, community members, and staff.

It's a pleasure to be here this afternoon.

As you may know, my name is Anissa Basoko Villarreal.

I'm an assistant deputy county administrator, and in my role, I focus on equity, language access, and countywide ADA compliance and special projects.

Today I will focus on elements of a technology disruption policy that we will bring to a future board meeting at a regular meeting.

I will also review the process to request a reasonable accommodation, and share our ongoing efforts to further enhance public engagement.

And the next slides I will review what we are proposing to implement here in Alameda County.

This slide includes actions for the county clerk of the board and county ITD to ensure technology is operating correctly as required by SB 707.

A few examples of efforts to restore the service shall include one or more of the following checking all connections, network, audio, video, verifying network connectivity, moving the host to another device like a laptop or desktop, and escalating issues with vendors for additional support, just to name a few.

As mentioned previously, SB 707 requires us to troubleshoot for a minimum of one hour.

If access is restored while the board is in closed session, the clerk of the board will announce that open session will resume immediately after closed session is ended.

If the board is not in closed session, the meeting will resume when quorum is reestablished.

As mentioned previously by county council, there are three main steps for the board chair to resume a meeting without remote access.

First, the chair must announce that remote access was not restored despite good faith efforts.

Second, describe the efforts taken to restore the service.

And third, state the government code section, and that our policy allows the board to resume the session without remote access.

Again, there must be a roll call vote with the two findings listed.

One that good faith efforts have been made, and two, that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote access.

Moving to reasonable accommodation process under SB 707.

Sure.

Thank you for this.

One question in terms of if we are not able to get remote access online and decide to continue the meeting.

Is there any requirement that we videotape the meeting so that the public can view it later?

So we there is no requirement that we do so, but your meetings are in fact recorded, and to the extent that we can do that, we will do that.

Well, that is our that is our practice.

And then the meetings are made available and posted publicly.

Um it will likely depend on what's the nature of the technical disruption and whether or not that can in fact occur.

Um I think at a minimum we should be able to do something to audio record as if we if we can't do a visual recording.

Okay, make that as a the record that we maintain.

Right.

I don't know if it's necessary for us to have some kind of policy about that, but it seems like it would be good practice to have perhaps an internal policy that we'll make every effort to record.

If we need.

I think at a minimum the clerk would need it for keeping of the minutes, and uh uh and and you know, importantly, once we make a recording, we are required at a minimum to keep it for 30 days, but our practice is to keep it basically is in perpetuity and have the archives of it.

Okay, thank you.

And then, uh, secondly, um, I had the experience of watching one of our committee meetings through the live stream that's on our website, and I couldn't hear the audio of the speaker.

I think it was working fine on Zoom.

So I'm presuming all of this relates to the two-way platforms so Zoom and Teams, but not our web live stream.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Again, moving on to reasonable accommodation under SB 707.

As county council mentioned previously, SB 707 does codify a recent California attorney general opinion that then allows a member of legislative body with a disability to participate remotely as a reasonable ADA accommodation.

This slide gives an overview of how to submit requests for accommodation, and requests may be made by submitting it in writing by email or by phone.

Moving on to our actions to enhance public engagement.

As mentioned earlier by county council, there were a variety of actions that the board of supervisors must act on to encourage residents, including those in underrepresented and non-English speaking communities to participate in meetings.

Fortunately, we have been ahead of the curve and already provide many of the services listed previously.

In the following slides, I will briefly review our current available tools and upcoming actions.

As you may know, the county is currently utilizing World Word Leap for language access transcription.

We are also working closely with County ITD to explore options for integrated features such as Zoom and Microsoft translation to allow non-English speakers to view meetings in the preferred language, promoting inclusivity and equitable participation.

In addition, our teleconferencing guidelines now include information in 10 different languages as how to request an interpreter.

Languages included are English, Spanish, Farsi, Hindi, Khmer, Arabic, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Korean.

This slide contains the actions that are in progress, and we will be will be available by the end of the year, including the Alameda County Citizens Academy and the Youth Leadership Academy.

In addition, we are working with the consultant to create a public service announcement and expand our communication channels to non-English speaking communities.

As a recap of our recommendations, and to conclude, we recommend directing staff to bring forward to your board on a regular board agenda the following: a resolution adopting the technology disruption policy that complies with state by July 1 of this year.

And two, to determine if the board will authorize some or all eligible subsidiary subsidiary bodies to meet remotely, and if so, adopt an authorizing resolution.

And three, determine actions for inclusive outreach and public engagement.

This concludes our presentation.

Great, thank you very much.

We'll bring it back for questions, Supervisor Marquez.

Uh thank you for the presentations.

This was really helpful.

Just to clarify with respect to the eligibility for the subsidiary bodies to participate remotely.

So I do think it's going to be important that we're fair and equitable.

I don't think we could select these handful, have the option, these others don't.

So I would rather um allow for all of them except for top of mind planning commission wouldn't qualify, correct?

Yeah, okay.

Um, because they're making actual land use decisions, they're not solely advisory.

Um, so that would be my preference, but also like this is new to all of us, including the commissioners.

What would be the timeline if there are issues concerned?

Do we want to like pilot this for three months, six months a year?

Like when would be the next touch point if we needed to reconsider whether or not um this option should continue to be allowed?

You you can revisit it at the question at any time.

And at that time, could it be specific to the commission, or would we have to like take up the entire group of whichever or uh commissioners?

This is within your discretion.

Okay, um, so my preference would be to allow as much flexibility as possible.

I think that's going to be key for recruitment and community engagement, but I also hear the concerns with respect to safety and staffing.

So I think there's more that we have to determine on that front.

Um, and then in terms of I like the outreach approach, I would just respectfully ask that we not use the word Alameda County Citizens Academy.

Let's community members, residents, um, just trying to find language that's more inclusive.

Um, and I definitely think that should be brought in terms of a hybrid approach, whether we have some of those meetings in person or online, online, and then also having them throughout um each district, I think is going to be key.

Really like the idea of the youth leadership academy.

That's um a really good and an important approach.

Um I think those are all my comments and feedback at this time.

So just to clarify, so it would be your preference would be to expand the list of eligible subsidiary bodies, right?

And make that as broad as possible.

Well, I want to see a list because it's just off of memory, I'm going off 110 courts and commissions.

I don't know how active they are, so I don't know if that list has changed, but I recall us getting that data set.

I just want to be clear that the list that is advanced is based on a preliminary review, but it's based on the criteria in the legislation, correct?

So the list included in the presentation.

Sorry, the list that is included in the slide deck is merely an example of the correct, we exhausted.

We have reviewed the entire list of a hundred 117 bodies and commissions and identified which ones we it there are a few that we have yet.

We are still seeking additional information regarding, um, but we have narrowed it down to the groups that we believe are eligible, and also excluding the ones that have elected officials, or at least they're fully elected officials, because then you know it it just serves no function.

So we can provide um a complete list at a future date.

So would we have the opportunity to see the list before we actually vote on the action?

I think that's gonna be key because I'm hearing one seventeen.

I don't know if that list, I know you're not done going through the entire list, but are we at 6070 right now?

Can you give us a sense of no?

I would say we're probably in the 2530 range, but again, not exhaustive and um we'll have to confirm some of the issues related to some of the yeah, I won't go into the detail, but it is not a final list, and then I'm just wondering if it makes sense to roll it out in a phased approach, like we group them.

I I don't want to get into the weeds on this, but this is a huge shift.

And because there's no deadline, I think we have some time to think about that.

We just have to adopt the policy, but the implementation we have more flexibility on.

Okay, that gives me some relief because this feels like a lot to figure out in the next month.

Yeah, I share your concern, but we should be focused on policy and you guys can take care of implementation and let us know if there's a problem.

Does that satisfy your question?

Yeah, Supervisor Tim.

Yeah, thank you for uh clarifying what you just said about the eligible subsidiary bodies.

Um I'm just going to assume, and I'm hoping you can correct me that all of the multi-jurisdictional boards that we're on, whether it's ACTC, BCDC, Ava, those will have their own uh process for adopting their policies or recommendations before July 1st.

So the multi-jurisdictional bodies are separately defined now in the Brown Act and they have different rules.

They because they typically involve um boards and commissions that can contract that can make final decisions, they're not eligible subsidiary bodies.

So they would they would be and have immediately been marked off of the 117 list.

That's that's easy, and they they have to separately make their own decisions as to how they want to go forward with the rules that are now allowed to them regarding additional alternative remote participation.

Okay, because I send some of my staff to one of them uh like the Oakland Alameda County OCAP, yeah.

And Oakland Thrives will have to do the same thing, right?

So those bodies will be making their own decisions about how they intend to function, whether or not they want to exercise some of the new rules that are made available to them.

There are different rules, different criteria, different opportunities.

Any questions, comments?

No, I don't think I have any additional questions.

Thanks for the update.

Out of curiosity, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, because it includes all the cities of Alameda County, of which we're all governing the county, but all the different cities.

Are they a multi-jurisdictional?

They are.

Then what would be for them?

What if they had a committee?

Because they have several committees.

Are those committees?

Are they considered an eligible?

They they may be, but they're they would have to, you know, we'd have to determine again what's their authority, their purity advisory, elected official members, that same criteria, but it that they will handle that themselves.

Yeah, I you know, I think um for one thing that this really highlights for me.

We have, for example, paratransit committees.

We have um people with very severe physical challenges that make they'll they'll now be more legitimized and participating remotely because of this, I think, which is really helpful.

So anyway, um, is there a motion to approve just direction?

Bring this back at another meeting.

Well, we will be back before the end of the fiscal year for your board to take the required action, adopting the technology disruption policy.

I have one question.

Um, I'm just curious, and I don't know the answer whether or not we have a standing policy for attendance for all our boards and commissions.

Is that kind of a smell?

So we to my knowledge, we do not have a uniform policy, okay.

Some some bodies have their own attendance rules that are built into their bylaws, or their enabling authority, and but that is probably um uh a situation that exists as an exception as opposed to the rule.

Okay, I just think it's something we should take into consideration given we want to give people flexibility, but um at times that could alter participation.

Yeah, yeah.

So I just think it's something we should take into consideration when we're developing this policy.

Something our Congress should have too.

Attendance and voting requirements.

If they got paid by the vote, it might be different.

Okay, so this is not an action item, it's simply information.

Direction, direction, and to let you know that we will be back before the end of the fiscal year.

Everybody good giving direction to come back before the fiscal year.

I see unanimous.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

With that said, we have um achieved all of the business before us, I believe, with no other objections.

We are gonna close in the memory of a very um heartfelt um request by Supervisor Marquez.

I will let her do that.

Thank you so much.

So I'm I did want to share with Alameda County community members um with great sadness that we did lose someone who's very beloved and important to District 2, and that is uh former council member Pat Gogosko.

She passed away on May 22nd, um, surrounded by her family, her loved ones.

She's left behind a legacy of service, compassion, and community connection as a former council member.

She was first elected to the city of Union City in 2010, reelected in 14 as well as 2018.

During her years of public service and civic leadership, she played an instrumental role in strengthening Union City's relationships beyond its borders and helping foster a more connected and globally engaged community.

Among her many contributions to the city, Pat was a driving force in the formation of the Union City Friends of Sister Cities, a nonprofit organization dedicated to building friendship, partnership, and cultural understanding between Union City and communities around the world.

Pat believed deeply in the power of people to people relationships and work tirelessly to promote goodwill, cultural appreciation and mutual respect across communities and generations.

She will be surely missed, and I also want to highlight the work she did on the Chevo Community Foundation.

And I did have a chance to spend time with her before she passed, and just want to uh thank her son Joe for being an incredible caregiver and son.

The family's had two significant losses within the last year.

He's lost both his parents, but it's really incredible to see how he was able to step up as a caregiver.

And he also shared on social media that up until you know the time that she was diagnosed with a terminal illness.

She was determined to live till her birthday, which she did.

So she was a fighter and just someone deeply loved, especially amongst the Filipino community in Union City.

So we just want to extend our sincere condolences and um thank her for her passion, commitment and for being such a great role model and mentor to many, many young people throughout District 2.

So if we could please have a moment of silence in memory of Pat Gokoskos.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh sorry for your loss and the community's loss.

That was a very heartfelt closing.

But we're not closed yet.

We have to take public comment on the jump the gum.

That is my bad.

I forgot to take public comment on the item we just discussed.

707.

Is there any public comment?

Yes.

Kelly online, go ahead.

Thank you.

I'm just uh concerned about item 707 about how it affects the uh traditional, you know, there's a charter county.

How it affects the traditional way this board operates.

Like, for example, when you take those recordings that your uh county council just referred to, you do audio and video recordings, um, and and you're you keep them.

But uh I'm wondering if you actually post them.

Like you had a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors uh two days ago, two days ago, and you still haven't posted that.

Uh did you lose it?

Uh, where's that audio?

Where's the video?

Um, that's your most important meeting, I think, is the board of supervisors.

This is a very important uh this is the charter county, and then um when you know, uh traditionally when people come up and start doing public comments, um, you'll see the board of the supervisors like get up out of their chairs and go um, you know, uh go leave.

So really it's not about who's eligible to participate in the meetings.

It's can you continue to leave the meetings like uh quietly disappear from your chairs?

Sometimes I've seen supervisors go down and join their their admirers, their their good friends, uh their call, their uh supporters and constituents in the audience and sit with them.

So that shows a close closeness of togetherness with the your your constituents, but um, you know, it happens uh during public comments when uh they really don't care to hear to be bothered with these these things.

And then um, you know, when you're when in the video conferences, when people when uh remote participation, um it's it's a big burden.

Uh you usually you're showing a blight uh black screen.

Are you really going to be required to appear on video?

It's it's it's just, you know, and have to sit there, you know, you have to sit there on the in the in your chairs uh for regular meetings, but during video, you you really don't want to have the video on.

Um it's you know, this is really really a change in in how your board operates, and it'll be a big burden.

I'm hoping that uh that it that uh the board can somehow cope with this uh, you know, with these uh ter terrible changes.

Thank you there are no other public commenters so um no other public comments i i i also do feel remesse we did not sing happy birthday to supervisor miley today is his birthday and we we sort of lost the moment so I don't think we can do it but we should all wish him a happy birthday so we'll adjourn in honor of supervisor miley's birthday also should we do that no we won't start a track would you want to sing happy birthday to him no okay well I'll wish him a happy birthday anyway with that we are adjourned.