{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nMAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL\nWEDNESDAY JULY 20, 2016\n1. CALL TO ORDER:\n6:13 p.m.\nROLL CALL:\nPresent:\nChubb, Elsesser, Grunt, Laguerre (arrived at 6:17),\nMik, Monteko, Winters.\nAbsent:\nPanlasigui, Sorensen\n2. MINUTES:\nCity of Alameda's Development Manager, Eric Fonstein, stated that this is the initial meeting\nof the panel. There are no minutes of previous meetings.\n3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS--PUBLIC: None\n4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None\n5. NEW BUSINESS ITEMS:\n5-A. Welcome and Introductions\nMayor Trish Herrera Spencer welcomed the Advisory Panel to its first meeting. Each Panel\nmember made introductions.\nErik Chubb, representing high-tech industries, works for Makani Power/Google X,\nwhich builds a new kind of wind turbine. He formerly worked for Ford Motor\nCompany.\nAdam Elsesser, CEO and President of Penumbra, a medical device company in\nHarbor Bay, with approximately 1,400 employee.\nBrock Grunt, Area Manager for McGuire and Hester, a civic engineering contractor.\nMcGuire and Hester are about to move into its recently built offices in Harbor Bay.\nJowel Laguerre, Chancellor at Peralta Community College District. He oversees\nthe entire district, which includes four community colleges. The District started a\nnew unit for workforce development to partner directly with businesses to ensure\nthat the colleges provide the right kind of support for career development.\nDavid Mik, co-owner of Power Engineering, a contractor in the marine construction\nindustry, located at Alameda Point.\nRemy Monteko, asset manager for Jamestown Properties, which owns the South\nShore Shopping Center. She has a background in urban planning and worked in\nreal estate economics consulting before joining Jamestown.\nLance Winters, owner of St. George Spirits, at Alameda Point, anchor for Spirits\nAlley\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 1 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 2, "text": "5-B Overview of Economic Development Advisory Panel's Proposed Role and\nActivities.\nEconomic Development Manager Lois Butler provided a brief overview. The purpose of\nthe Advisory Panel is to advise the City Council and staff on important economic\ndevelopment issues and initiatives. The City may ask individual panel members to help\nwith specific, high-leve business attraction or retention activities related to his or her\nindustry sector. This may include such activities as talking with an important business\nconsidering relocating to Alameda.\n5-C\nReview Rules and Procedures\nMs. Butler introduced the item. The staff report and attachment can be found at:\nhttps://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781414&GUID=15CD7565-\nC4B1-4F4F-85D9-31ADDEBA4138&Options=&Search=\nMs. Butler recommended proceeding with the rest of the agenda and after the Chair and\nVice Chair are elected, revisit the draft Rules and Procedures, consider any revisions, and\nformally adopt the Rules and Procedures.\nPanel member Laguerre asked for clarification of which sector he represents.\nMs. Butler said workforce development.\nPanel member Monteko asked about the frequency of the meetings.\nMs. Butler said normally the Panel will meet at least once per year. However, this year\nthe City will be asking the Panel to have two or three additional meetings to assist with the\npreparation of the citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP).\n5-D\nCity Attorney's Office to Provide Instructions on Compliance with the Brown\nAct and the Sunshine Ordinance -\nSenior Assistant City Attorney Farimah Brown gave a briefing on the Brown Act and the\nSunshine Ordinance.\nPanel member Mik asked for clarification regarding the prohibition on emailing one another\nabout the business that they are doing.\nMs. Brown answered that outside of the public meeting, if a majority of the panel emails one\nanother, they are essentially conducting a meeting, which is prohibited by the Brown Act.\nPanel member Grunt asked if this is prohibited even if the email gets forwarded from one\nmember to another.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 2 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 3, "text": "Ms. Brown said yes, even if there was no intention for this to happen. The intention is\nirrelevant. It is easy to lose control of the email.\nPanel member Winters inquired if these prohibitions are also for looking for information from\nother board members and not planning to discuss any ongoing strategy or issue before the\nPanel.\nMs. Brown answer yes, this is a problem area.\nPanel member Winters commented that this is going to be a slow process.\nMs. Brown agreed that it is slow, but the intent is for the public to be part of the process.\nThe greater benefit is public participation.\nPanel member Elsesser brought up the subject of telephone conversations.\nMs. Brown stated that a quorum cannot be part of a conference call. Also, if one member\ncalls the next person and shares information from the previous call, this is a serial\nconversation and is prohibited.\nPanel member Elsesser asked even if the Panel member is just looking for information?\nMs. Brown said yes.\nMr. Fonstein asked if they can direct their information request to staff, who can email a\nresponse to the entire Panel.\nMs. Brown answered that this may be the way to do it, or the item can be agendized for a\nfuture meeting.\nPanel member Elsesser raised the scenario of running into each other by chance, and\neconomic development issues come up during casual conversation.\nMs. Brown responded that small talk and social gatherings are okay. The problem is a\nmajority discussing City business, such as if five Panel members happen to be at Peet's and\ndiscuss last night's meeting.\nPanel member Elsesser asked for some clarification. He mentioned that the topic of this\npanel is business. Having a conversation with another Panel member about his or her\nspecific business is fine. But if the conversation steers to what this Panel is doing, such as\nwhat do you think about the strategic plan, that is a different topic.\nMs. Brown said yes, she meant City business.\nPanel member Monteko asked if emails to City staff are sunshine-able.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 3 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 4, "text": "Ms. Brown said that this is a good question, and that they haven't covered the Public\nRecords Act, which is the California version of the federal Freedom of Information Act. Staff\nwill need to decide about issuing City email addresses to Panel members, which is done for\nCity Council and some boards and commissions. If we get a request for emails of public\nofficials, their emails get sent to the public. Staff will discuss this and get back to the\nAdvisory Panel.\nPanel member Laguerre wondered about using blind copy on emails.\nMs. Brown answered that this is tricky because it depends on the content of the email. It is\nbest to stay away.\nPanel member Winters commented that this will force the Panel to keep tighter notes to bring\ntopics up in a public forum. The Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance make a lot of\nsense for transparent government and keep people engaged in local democracy. From a\nbusiness sense, it is tough to swallow.\nPanel member Grunt added if we are meeting only two or three times a year and this is the\nonly time we can brainstorm, it doesn't seem really productive.\nMs. Butler pointed out that the Panel can meet as often as they want.\nPanel member Laguerre asked if it is okay if only three members got together to talk.\nMs. Brown answered yes, but this also is a slippery slope: if one of the three then goes and\ntalks with another Panel member about the same subject it could be a violation of the Brown\nAct.\nPanel member Mik suggested talking in subgroups (e.g. Alameda Point) that report back to\nthe panel in a public forum. That way the Panel can continue as it is used to doing in the\nprivate sector while still complying with the law. Is that fair?\nMs. Brown said other bodies have successfully used ad hoc subcommittees. Still, there are\nsome precautions, but she can work with the Panel to set something up.\nMr. Grunt brought up socializing events to get to know one another, though there would be\na tendency to discuss Alameda.\nMs. Brown said socializing is fine, but advised that the panel members keep in mind the\npurview of this body (see the purpose section in the Rules and Procedures document).\nCommunity Development Director Debbie Potter noted that the Brown Act and the Sunshine\nOrdinance applies to this setting (e.g. a public meeting of the Panel). The City intends to use\nthe Panel in a lot of different ways, such as business visitations, where the Brown Act would\nnot apply.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 4 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 5, "text": "5-E\nProvide Direction for the Preparation of a Citywide Economic Development\nStrategic Plan (EDSP) -\nMr. Fonstein made the staff presentation. The staff report and attachment can be found\nat:\n  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781416&GUID=0D44D571-29E3-\n4C96-B700-7294F6D6337F&Options=&Search=\nMr. Fonstein introduced Sujata Srivastava and Derek Braun of Strategic Economics to guide\nthe discussion.\nMs. Srivastava suggested starting with questions about the perception of the community in\nthe business world and from a resident's perspective.\nPanel member Chubb talked about some of the assets at Alameda Point, particularly\nspace. It's edgy and weird.\nPanel member Winters pointed out that this is also one of the biggest challenges for\nAlameda Point, because as it gets developed, it runs the risk of this edginess going away.\nThe land represents a lot of opportunity, but the there is a risk of turning it into a\nhomogenous every-town. We want to keep populating the island with unique businesses,\nwhich maintains a reason for coming to Alameda.\nPanel member Elsesser remarked that from the other end of the City (Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park), for a lot of folks who run businesses in San Francisco, and uniformly over\nthe years, the biggest reaction to Alameda is, where? Alameda is as close as you can be\nto San Francisco, and people have no idea. There is a lack of awareness of where\nAlameda is and how to get there. For more traditional businesses, they have found it\nremarkable because there is easy access, lots of space, space is cheaper, and there are\ngreat expansion opportunities. Mr. Elsesser said he is not sure if he wants people to\nknow, because it will mean more competition for space.\nPanel member Monteko added on the flip side, there are a lot of success stories of\nAlameda being a destination: Trader Joe's, the Antique Fair, and Spirits Alley. There\ncould be better story telling about the destination factor that already exists. People don't\nknow what a strong market this is.\nPanel member Mik considered that part of the confusion is that the County shares the\nname. From a marine perspective, the geography in the middle of the Bay is the best\naspect. The waterfront property is beautiful. It's got great access to the Oakland Airport.\nAnd it's a very short distance by water to almost anywhere. It was a very easy choice for\nthem to locate their business here. The development of Alameda Point brings a bit of\nconcern about the gentrification on the waterfront and the loss of working waterfront to\nsomething more attractive to a residential population. Maritime has a long history in\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 5 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 6, "text": "Alameda and he hopes that history continues, at least in some parts of the island. The\nwaterfront is commercially a very valuable product. The Navy gifted us with large hangars\nand piers. It's a capital good; no one today would want to build all that infrastructure.\nPeople don't appreciate where we are until they are on the island and look back at San\nFrancisco.\nPanel member Chubb asked where are marine industries going? What are the big\nindustries in marine that we could attract?\nPanel member Mik responded that Alameda has a maritime industry. The constant\nchallenge is truck access. All of the maritime industries agree that one of the difficulties is\nthe success of the island. It is crowded and there's a lot of traffic for large scale trucks\ngetting on and off the island.\nPanel member Chubb then asked if a small port in Alameda is needed to support the\nindustry.\nPanel member Mik said possibly, or perhaps a dedicated trucking lane. What is needed,\nhe said, is a recognition that this is a requirement to keep these industries going.\nPanel member Grunt remarked that access is always going to be a problem. He thinks\nthe future is more about niche maritime industries, that don't necessarily rely on moving\nlarge amounts of things onto or off of the island. The maritime history is really important\nto preserve in some manner and to build on economies around that or to enhance existing\neconomies that are meaningful.\nHe also pointed out that Alameda probably has the most private marina slips in the Bay\nArea. People who own slips come to Alameda from all over the place. The island is one\nof the few places you can keep a boat in the Bay Area, and consequently has more of a\ndraw than it otherwise would.\nPanel member Monteko said that there is a lot of underutilized land that can take some of\nthe commercial load. Rather than competing directly with industry, we should focus on\ngrowing commercial on other locations. In answering the question of what key issues we\nwould like to see the EDSP address, two come to mind: 1) under-utilized land and 2)\ntransportation/accessibility to the island is also a serious issue, that will need to be fixed,\naccess and transportation for workers, mass transit. Retailers are looking at drive time,\nand workers are looking for transit. Right now, neither of these are great.\nPanel member Elsesser commented that Harbor Bay is this weird location in the Bay Area\nthat doesn't exist anywhere else. They draw from the furthest extents in every direction.\nIt is an appealing, reverse commute in most directions. This is one of the very few\nlocations where one can grow and scale a business. A lot of businesses in his industry\nhave moved out to Pleasanton, which brings other issues for its employment base. If\nin\nthe Peninsula or Silicon Valley, one cannot attract the hourly workforce like he can.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 6 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 7, "text": "Panel member Grunt agreed. They chose to build their new office on Harbor Bay, after an\ninitial decision to grow in Pleasanton. They rethought the decision during the recession,\nwhen Alameda become more competitive in price. Harbor Bay makes sense to pull\nemployees from a lot of directions in the Bay Area. Alameda Point has a lot of potential to\noffer the same thing.\nPanel member Laguerre commented as a non-islander, the island has a very nice friendly\nfeel, which can be attractive to some businesses. One does not hear of crime and the\nschools are considered good. There is an excellent community college, which has land to\ngrow. The faculty and staff of Alameda are different from other faculties-in that they care\na lot about Alameda and what happens on Alameda. There is a sense of family, when\nlooking at Alameda from a distance.\nThe college draws from the region to a certain extent and draws other people to Alameda.\nThe recruiters go out of the way to draw people from outside the island. The college has\na workforce development center in partnership with the County Workforce Development\nBoard. They have training centers that could be attractive to industries, such as\nautomotive, maritime, and other industries. They work with Bay Ship & Yacht.\nMs. Srivastava asked the Panel, what are the key priorities or pressing concerns that the\nEDSP should address?\nPanel member Chubb answered that he is interested in living and working in close\nproximity. Also, Alameda is a very bikeable community. The City just put in a beautiful\nbike path down by the beach.\nPanel member Elsesser said that the concept of living in Alameda is pretty magical.\nThere are very few communities left that have the same current feel (warm, welcoming\nsmall town, quirky beach town feel) that the residential part of Alameda has. As you add\nbusinesses, it is critical to add them in a way that doesn't mess this part up. At the same\ntime, we want a thriving business environment, and that brings with it the challenges of\ngetting people on and off the island. An increasing number of employees are living in\nAlameda. The economics of living here are still accessible at least for part of its\nemployment base. He emphasized doing economic development in the right places and\nin the right ways, not just for the sake of economic growth. He would like to know why\nthere are a lot of shuttered retail spaces in the neighborhood stations. There are\nopportunities there.\nPanel member Grunt commented that Alameda is not on the path to anywhere. You only\ncome here if something brings you here. It is pretty unique, cut off from the rest of the\nworld and you know that you are in a different place. It has been incredible to watch\nAlameda blossom over the past twenty years. It is like a shrub or tree: cut the dead\nbranches and it comes back stronger. We need to look for the dead branches and trim\nthem to allow new things to happen. We can be selective. We have a hugely diverse\ncommunity and lot going for ourselves.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 7 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 8, "text": "Panel member Laguerre remarked from an education standpoint, it would be great to have\nbusinesses getting together to discuss their workforce and training needs through the\ncollege. This would provide greater numbers to build programs around. The community\ncollege is here to meet the needs of the community.\nPanel member Mik reflected that maybe we're going back in time to where people lived\nnear where they worked. We do need to address the balance of employment and\nresidential. The uniqueness of Alameda is its character. It would be a tragedy to lose\nthat. The EDSP should be a discussion about the types of businesses the City wants that\nwould also support the ability to live and work here. More of our employees are moving\ncloser to Alameda. But not everyone is going to live here. We should also talk about a\nmass transit or transportation solution. We are going to be talking about the types of\nbusinesses the City wants, where to put them, and the transportation solutions. Those\nare the things I would want to see in the EDSP.\nPanel member Monteko echoed the need to address the job-housing balance. The South\nShore Shopping Center is a large employer. Many of the people who work there would\nlike to live on the island but can't. They would love to see more housing near their center.\nAlso, retail leakage is part of the scope of work. It is a story that can be told. All these\npeople are leaving the island to shop, when those dollars can be spent here. It would be\nreally great to understand where people are going instead of Alameda and how to capture\nthat sales leakage. Underutilized land is an issue in other parts of the City besides\nAlameda Point, such as neighborhood and community shopping centers. Permit time for\nsmall businesses is challenging everywhere. Making it as easy as possible will bring\nmore business to Alameda.\nPanel member Winters said that awareness is a big problem. Alameda Point is a great\narea of opportunity to create other things that are unique to draw people and get them\ntalking about Alameda. On the flip side to sales leakage, we want inflow traffic from off of\nthe island and have people shop and stay here. The idea of putting a small artists'\ncommunity at Alameda Point would be great, such as turning the Bachelors Enlisted\nQuarters into live/work artists space would create a unique experience. By their natures,\nartists will create things that can only be found in Alameda. It will bring life to a dead area\nand maintains the fun and weirdness factor. There are grants to help facilitate that.\nPanel member Elsesser wanted to highlight this as a brilliant idea. Hunter's Point open\nstudios would draw thousands of visitors. The cost of doing this would be relatively little in\nthe scheme of things and the potential benefit would be kind of cool.\n5-F\nProvide Feedback on the City of Alameda's Approach to Attracting\nDevelopment to the Enterprise District at Alameda Point\nJennifer Ott, the City of Alameda's Base Reuse Director, introduced the item. The staff\nreport and attachments can be found at:\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 8 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 9, "text": "  https://alameda.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2781417&GUID=16211D8D-2D63-\n4E9A-8531-6366B3DB8COD&Options=&Search=\nPanel member Grunt asked about the ferry terminal.\nMs. Ott said that the new Seaplane Lagoon terminal will be right in the heart of the\ndevelopment in the Enterprise District. This is the number one issue for developers:\nwhen is the ferry terminal coming? It will operate as a joint consolidated service with the\nMain Street Terminal. Most likely, the Seaplane Terminal will be the commute ferry with\nMain Street/Oakland supplying mid-day and weekend service. We did look at the\nrelocating the Main Street Terminal, but it would undermine the Oakland service. The\nOakland line cannot sustain itself and depends on Alameda ridership.\nPanel member Mik commented that Main Street is the most popular ferry terminal and is at\ncapacity. They are selling out their boats. They are really adding capacity with the new\nterminal.\nMs. Ott added that ferry ridership has grown 60 percent since 2012, which is unheard of\nfor public transit.\nPanel member Chubb asked about the maker space cluster.\nMs. Ott said that the buildings are being redeveloped by master developers. They will\nsubdivide them into smaller spaces for specialty manufacturing, artist spaces and some\noffice. One floor will most likely become work/live, with tight restrictions on the residential\ncomponent.\nPanel member Monteko asked who pays for the infrastructure in Site B.\nMs. Ott said the developer or end user through a negotiated land deal with the City.\nAlameda Point's infrastructure costs are approximately $600 million, or $1 million per acre.\nPanel member Elsesser asked about the square footage of entitled space and height\nlimits.\nMs. Ott answered that there is approximately 5.5 million square feet for all of Alameda\nPoint, which is a lot of entitlement. We do not want low intensity development; we want\njobs or catalyst benefit. The height limit is 100 feet. It is a very permissive, a big\nenvelope to create a lot of flexibility. We do not know who the end user(s) will be. We\nwant to create an opportunistic envelope to take advantage of each businesses' vision.\nIdeally, we want a diversified base and not just one end user.\nPanel member Monteko asked how is Cushman Wakefield advising on the commercial\nmarket for companies being pushed out of San Francisco and moving to Oakland. On the\none hand, it is someone who wants the flexibility to expand quickly but they want it\nyesterday. How are you going to address that?\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 9 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 10, "text": "John McManus of Cushman Wakefield, said, historically, companies that have grown up\nlike Genentech or Facebook start very small, incubate and then expand somewhere else.\nIn the last cycle, companies like Sun and Cisco moved out and tried to get geographic\ndiversity, grow as much in the South Bay and then buy another campus in Pleasanton.\nWe are not seeing that now. Many companies want to stay together in one place, like\nApple. Google X is an exception. We had hoped to see users that wanted that diversity\nof locations, but it has not happened that way in this cycle. We believe that there will be\ncompanies wanting to expand. In this awareness phase of the marketing, in addition to\ncontacting these companies directly, we are going around to brokerage houses in San\nFrancisco and on the peninsula that represent these companies. Cushman's message in\nthe weekly and monthly meetings is when you have a large campus requirement that\ncannot go into an adaptive, existing building-typically bio-tech that requires building from\nthe ground up-we have 82 acres, through CEQA, you just need site plan, elevations, and\na design that works. The CEQA process is all done. We could also take incubators,\nmuch like TheraSense in Harbor Bay that became Abbott Diabetes Care. They started at\n5,000 square feet and has expanded to nearby buildings. So when the technology hits,\nthey go.\nPanel member Monteko inquired why no one is biting now.\nMr. McManus said that there is no infrastructure; plus the City is picky. You can have a\nwarehouse distribution center now. Interest from warehouse users in short term, but they\nare high traffic and low intensity. There is precedence with VF Outdoor. They moved\nfrom San Leandro and picked up more land as they grew. As we get the infrastructure in\nplace with 9 to 15 acre projects that make it feasible, we can go down to four acre parcels\nand start to look at Semifreddi's and Peet's Coffee that have come out of Emeryville and\nBerkeley to Harbor Bay. It is not practical now to leapfrog Site A.\n5-G Elect Chair and Vice Chair\nMs. Butler introduced the item.\nPanel member Laguerre nominated Mr. Mik as Chair, quickly seconded by Mr. Winters.\nThe Panel unanimously voted in favor. The meeting was turnover to the newly elected\nchair.\nPanel member Elsesser nominated Mr. Winters as Vice Chair, seconded by Ms. Monteko.\nThe Panel unanimously voted in favor.\n5-H\nAdopt Rules and Procedures\nThe Chair asked if there was any discussion. There was none.\nThe Vice Chair moved to adopt the Rules and Procedures; seconded by Dr. Laguerre.\nThe Panel unanimously voted in favor.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 10 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 11, "text": "5-I\nNext Meeting\nMr. Fonstein said that the next meeting is anticipated to be in September to report on the\ninitial research for the EDSP.\n6.\nWritten Communications: None.\n7.\nOral Communications - Panel Members and Staff: None.\n8.\nAdjournment\nMeeting adjourned at 9:07 p.m.\nDraft Meeting Minutes\nPage 11 of 9\nJuly 20, 2016", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2016-07-20.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL\nREGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2019\nCONFERENCE ROOM 391, CITY HALL\n2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 6:00 PM\n1. CALL TO ORDER\nChairperson David Mik called the meeting to order at approximately 6:03pm.\n1-A. Roll Call\nPresent: Gia Schneider, Tim Karas, Mike Rose, David Mik, Adam Elsesser, Debi Stebbins, Brock\nGrunt, Madlen Saddik (via teleconference), Warren DeSouza.\nAbsent: Remy Monteko (excused).\nLois Butler (secretary) and Eric Fonstein are present as staff to the Commission.\n1-B. Panel Introductions and Introduction of City Manager\nTim Karas - President at College of Alameda, Gia Schneider - President and CEO of Natel Energy,\nDavid Mik - Power Engineering Construction, Adam Elsesser - Chairman and CEO at Penumbra,\nBrock Grunt - Operations Manager for McGuire and Hester, Debi Stebbins - Executive Director\nof City of Alameda Health Care District, Madlen Saddik - President and CEO of Alameda\nChamber of Commerce, Michael Rose - \"Mad Scientist\" at Semifreddi's Bakery, Warren DeSouza\n- CFO at Sila Nanotechnologies, Eric Levitt - City Manager.\n1-C. Welcome to New Members and Brief Review of Panel History and Purpose. Key points:\npurpose is to improve business climate, and provide strategic policy and tactical advice for\nbusiness attraction and retention, ambassadors to potential businesses, network, advise on\npolicy issues, and to report key issues and support special projects/requests from City Council\nfor a variety of industries. Meets 1-2x/yr as needed. Members serve a two-year term.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC\nNone.\n3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nNone.\n4. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n4-A. 2019-7520 Discuss and Provide Guidance for a Citywide Economic Development Branding\nCampaign\nStaff Member Butler presented staff report on developing a Citywide Economic\nDevelopment Branding campaign. Key points: logo outdated; need for cohesive overall\nbranding messages; requesting input on important points for branding RFP to be\nsubmitted to City Council; business parks Marina Village and Harbor Bay both currently\nrebranding; purpose of rebranding to update messaging, encourage and retain\nbusinesses, use for tourism, use for Econ Dev communication (mixers, supporting", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nRegular Meeting\nThursday, December 5, 2019\nbusiness districts), request that Panel advise on general city branding vs. economic\ndevelopment-focused branding.\nSpeaker Joe Ernst with Harbor Bay Business Park. Key points: history of park; rebranding\nprocess included identifying target market (STEM, hard-tech, S.SFO companies),\nlocation's key amenities, capturing key message (interviewed tenants) \"in an important\nplace doing important work\"; redeveloping logo, aim to produce focused 12-mo\ncampaign, and correct challenges of park (transportation).\nClarifying questions: focus of campaign - brokers and CEOs (facilitators and decision\nmakers). Demonstrate key assets - space, modern facilities, and improved\ntransportation.\nSpeakers Dan McGill and David Ferrell with Marina Village. Key Points: rebranding to\nfocus on research, Life-Science and innovation, collaborative \"University feel\";\ntransportation challenges (identifying and supporting alternatives to tunnel); rebranding\naims are to focus on plentiful space, collaborating w/ other businesses, increasing\ncontainer amenities (food/coffee like Bay Meadows), and invest in tenant base\nengagement and retention (kayaks, gym, mixers, etc).\nDiscussion. Key points:\nBranding purpose to represent business parks, municipality, tourism, small business\nand retail businesses in scope of branding;\nRFP Ideas/Suggestions: develop tags/key words for RFP so that RFP proposals can be\nproperly assessed and to guide branding process, include in branding RFP (duration of\ncontract, be specific in type of branding consultants/agencies- - general vs. specialized,\nclarify scope of RFP (overall city vs. variety of specific segments), specify who target\naudience is (branding for business, hospitality, and community all very different);\ngood branding consultant will evoke key words; specify branding focus (living,\nworking, hospitality/tourism, etc); identify metrics for quantifying successful branding,\nidentify channels of distribution (brochures vs. social media), identify target audience,\nshould branding firm capture both B2B and B2C (Business to Business and Business to\nConsumer) message; identifying attraction for existing companies (locational benefit\nfor existing employees); contemplate intersection of EDSP and branding and express\naesthetic that is modern and exciting, successful branding captures and sells what\ndifferentiates Alameda from other cities, tie-in hospitality (the outlier) to existing\nfeatures; branding could weight certain aspects/tags from EDSP that drive other\neconomic strategic aims (i.e. business activities require adequate hotel amenities,\nchoice foods, etc); suggest Harbor Bay's concept/logo/themes could be starting point\nfor City's branding (effective and attractive branding).\nAlameda's distinguishing features: hidden gem, ease of permitting process, full\nconcierge service from city, quality of life, reduced business costs, ample undeveloped\nspace and parking, variety of transportation options, ability to grow/scale, ability to\nmake products/things onsite, innovation and applied innovation, oasis in Bay Area,\nsurrounded by natural resources, beauty of views, educated community, Alameda\ncould be seen as innovation district, \"where innovation meets tradition\", historic\nbuildings, restoration/preservation (new-wave innovation versus preservation/reuse).\n2", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 3, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nRegular Meeting\nThursday, December 5, 2019\nNaval Base feel - authenticity that is attractive, approachability of community, ribbon\ncuttings for new businesses, and assistance w/ maintenance issues.\nLogo: anchor perceived as logo although not, Logo ideas - variety of icons with shared\ntheme (i.e. color) allowing for departmental differentiation but shared overall brand.\nStaff Member Butler summary: Harbor Bay Business Park rebranding appealing:\ninspiration for City's branding process, RFP must have good metrics to measure\nsuccessful branding, where innovation meets tradition, \"come to work, stay to live\", can\nhave foundational/overall (business, residents, visitors = overall branding) idea with\nseparate ideas branching off (like economic development), and full concierge service.\n4-B. 2019-7521 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Economic Development\nStrategic Plan (EDSP)\nStaff Member Fonstein presented staff report addressing the progress report on items\nidentified in the 5-10 yr roadmap for business attraction/retention/workforce\ndevelopment to support Life Sciences, Clean/Green/High Tech, Blue Tech/Marine,\nTourism/Hospitality, Artists/Small Manufacturers, Transportation, Housing, Workforce\nDevelopment, City Services/Policy.\nCommissioners had no clarifying questions.\nDiscussion: pedestrian and bicycle bridge between Alameda and Oakland (Jack London)\nstill in conceptual phase; the City's Vision-Zero pedestrian and bicyclist safety initiative,\nthe benefits of small business Saturday, City Manager Eric Levitt highlighted unique\nchallenges of small businesses and restaurants adjusting to the increase in minimum\nwage and requested input from EDAP on how to support businesses (to be agendized\nfor next meeting), Madlen advised EDAP of small business networking event, Cocktails\nand Commerce, on April 30, and of Junior Chamber activities where businesses are\ninvited to participate.\n4-C. 2019-7522 Election of Officers\nStaff Member Butler asked for nominations for the Chairperson position: Panel Member\nElsesser nominated current Chairperson Mik, seconded by Panel Member Rose. Panel\nMember Stebbins moved to close nominations, seconded by Panel Member DeSouza.\nNominations closed. Nomination for additional term accepted by Chairperson Mik.\nMotion passed unanimously.\nStaff Member Butler asked for nominations for the Vice Chairperson position: Panel\nMember Grunt nominated Panel Member Schneider, seconded by Panel Member\nStebbins. Panel Member Stebbins moved that nominations be closed, seconded by\nRose. Panel Member Schneider accepted nomination for Vice Chairperson. Motion\npassed unanimously.\n5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PANEL MEMBERS AND STAFF\nStaff Member Butler clarified that schedule for the RFP is by June 30, 2020.\n3", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 4, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nRegular Meeting\nThursday, December 5, 2019\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nChairperson Mik adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:08pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler, Economic Development Manager\nSecretary\nMayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\n4", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2019-12-05.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE MAYOR'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY PANEL\nSPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, May 14, 2020\nVIRTUAL MEETING VIA ZOOM\n6:00 PM\n1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL\nPresident David Mik called the meeting to order at approximately 6:03pm.\nRoll Call\nAttendance: Gia Schneider, Tim Karas, David Mik, Adam Elsesser, Debi Stebbins, Brock Grunt,\nMadlen Saddik, Remy Monteko, and Warren DeSouza.\nAbsent: Mike Rose.\nCity Staff: Lois Butler (secretary), Eric Fonstein, and Amanda Gehrke.\nHonored Guests: Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers Jim Oddie, Malia Vella,\nand John Knox White.\n2. MINUTES\n2-A. 2020-7939 Review and Approve Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel Minutes\nfrom December 5, 2019 A motion to approve the December 5, 2019 minutes was made by Panel\nmember Stebbins, and seconded by Panel member Schneider. Ayes: President Mik, Vice\nPresident Schneider, Panel Members Karas, Elsesser, Stebbins, Grunt, Saddik, and Monteko\n(NOTE: DeSouza vote was not recorded due to muted mic). Nays: none. The motion passed 8-0.\n3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC\nNone.\n4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS\nCity branding has been put on hold. Discussions were tabled for a future meeting.\n5. NEW BUSINESS\n5-A. 2020-7940 Provide Direction for Creating a COVID-19 Economic Recovery Task Force; and\nRecommendation to the City Manager regarding which Economic Development Advisory Panel\nmembers, and business/business association representatives, should sit on the Task Force\nStaff Member Fonstein presented a report on the creation of an Economic Recovery\nTask Force. City staff sought input on proposed task force objectives and goals for short-\nterm, mid-term, and long-term recovery, and recommendations on Task Force\ncomposition including business sectors/key stakeholders, and for EDAP members who\nare interested in participating in the Task Force.\nFonstein welcomed comments and answered clarifying questions.\nPanel members discussed and provided input on the presented topics. In addition to\nsupporting the proposed goals, objectives and timeline, Panel Members suggested the\nTask Force develop a guide for businesses that offers best practices/protocols which", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2020-05-14.pdf"}
{"body": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "date": "EconomicRecoveryTaskForce", "page": 2, "text": "Minutes of the Mayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\nSpecial Meeting\nThursday, May 14, 2020\nencourage employee safety and reassure customers. Additionally, members\nrecommended the task force develop or synthesize materials that help businesses pivot\nand adapt to the current situation, to serve as a starting point for businesses in their\nresiliency plans. Suggested task force nominees included Panel Member Saddik,\nDowntown Alameda Business Association Executive Director Kathy Weber, West\nAlameda Business Association Executive Director Linda Asbury, Giuseppe Naccarelli of\nTrabocco Restaurant, Dhruv Patel of Ridgemont Hospitality, and representatives from\nMerlon Geier or Bank of Marin. Panel Members suggested representation from\nrestaurant/beverage, public health, urban planning, academia, county health,\nhospitality, property owners, real estate, non-profit, childcare, business associations,\nretail, and finance on the task force. Members recommended the task force be limited\nto 8-10 members.\nPresident Mik made a motion to approve a recommendation to develop a task force\ncomposed of 8-10 representatives from identified key sectors (restaurant/beverage,\nretail/property owners, public health/academia, city planning, childcare, banking,\nhospitality, and Alameda Business Associations), and put forward several names\nmentioned above to the City Manager as suggested task force members. Seconded by\nPanel Member Grunt. Ayes: President Mik, Vice President Schneider, Panel Members\nKaras, Elsesser, Stebbins, Grunt, Saddik, DeSouza, and Monteko. Nays: none. The motion\npassed 9-0.\n6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n7.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PANEL MEMBERS AND STAFF\nPanel Member Saddik informed the panel of the Alameda Strong Community Grant\nfund, a collaborative effort between the Downtown Alameda Business Association, the\nWest Alameda Business Association, The Chamber of Commerce, and the City, with an\naim of fundraising $200,000 plus to provide relief funding to Small Businesses, Sole\nProprietors, and other Alamedans who have been impacted by the COVID-19 crisis.\n8. ADJOURNMENT\nPanel Member Karas made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Panel Member\nDeSouza. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:09pm.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLois Butler, Economic Development Manager\nSecretary\nMayor's Economic Development Advisory Panel\n2", "path": "Mayor'sEconomicDevelopmentAdvisoryPanel/EconomicRecoveryTaskForce/2020-05-14.pdf"}