ALCO BOS Passes Non-Binding Term Sheet/ Commitment to Closing Coliseum DA Transfer, Clearing One of the Last Hurdles for AASEG’s Historic Coliseum Purchase
Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors passed legislation on Tuesday to trigger key steps in closing the last chapters in AASEG’s now-odyssean Coliseum deal saga. The two items of legislation commit ALCO to transferring the Development Agreement [DA] from the John Fisher-owned LLC Coliseum Way Partners [CWP] that originally transacted with the County for ALCO’s 50% share of the Coliseum complex in 2018. Despite having secured an agreement to purchase the entire 50% share outright from the A’s in September 2024, AASEG ran into months worth of trouble with the County’s control of the development agreement required to complete the purchase.
The twin resolutions commit ALCO to facilitating the completion of the deal. Supervisor David Haubert’s resolution commits the BOS to the goal of the transfer of the DA. It also directs the County to “endeavor” to complete the transfer of the DA within 30 days by creating the appropriate documentation to transfer the DA. Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas's legislation for a non-binding term sheet detailing the proposed agreement framework apparently has the support of the county and AASEG. Both passed unanimously to applause.
The term sheet lays out the requirements of each party which will be enshrined in “definitive documents” as amendments to the original DA—including a release by OAC of the County from liability for any hazardous materials found on site.
County Demanded More from AASEG than A's
When the County sold its Coliseum share to the A’s, the few requirements on the sale and the low sale price were notable enough to be mentioned in news reporting of the time. Supervisor Nate Miley said it was fair to consider the Coliseum sale to the A's to be a "discount" that the County was facilitating and expediting. Miley said it was worth it for the goal of "keeping a sports team in Oakland”. The Coliseum sale, however, did little to keep the A's in Oakland, and the County's requirements to pay the entire purchase price before leaving Oakland were easily met by Fisher's LLC.
For reasons still unexplained, however, the County Administrator sought to add terms to the DA before it could pass to AASEG—one of which was, according to a source with direct knowledge, complete indemnification of the County for hazardous materials. That was a sticking point for the parties which seems to have been overcome in the new term sheet framework. A general and typical release of liability for hazardous materials is amenable to both sides now, apparently.
Other terms for the agreement will require OAC to disclose evidence of its net worth, with a minimum of $30 MM required. OAC will also have to successfully close the “Goolsby” litigation, though it’s likely that Communities for a Better Environment [CBE] will be satisfied with AASEG’s legal commitment to build affordable housing on the site. At the meeting, Vanessa Riles, the Oakland campaign coordinator for EBASE, a member of Oakland United Coalition that includes CBE, spoke in favor of the term sheet.
The meeting took on a celebratory tone as dozens of speakers from East Oakland community organizations, unions, and city of Oakland workers passionately spoke in favor of the deal and the developers. Speakers included a representative of the East Bay Dragons, IAFF 55, Barbara Leslie of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, Interim Mayor and D6 rep Kevin Jenkins, members of SEIU 1021, local business men, community residents of East Oakland and more. [see this reporting thread for photos and statements].
AASEG co-founder Ray Bobbitt told this publication that he was overwhelmed by the outsized support for the project.
“The level of support we have from the community is really humbling, from firefighters to the East Bay dragons to, you know, youth programs to pastors to such a wide coalition of people who really are supportive of what we're trying to do. It's just really humbling because East Oakland has been impacted for so long—everybody feels so good about it, everybody was so happy,” Bobbitt said.
Oakland Police Commission Goes on Offensive During Town Hall, as Narratives on Pursuit Clash with the Facts of OPD Policy and Data
The Oakland Police Commission aggressively countered rumors, and dispelled fallacies about its role in drafting, maintaining or changing the OPD’s decade-old pursuit policy at a town hall meeting Wednesday.
The Commission’s Chair Ricardo Garcia-Acosta began the meeting by criticizing Governor Gavin Newsom for inappropriately shoehorning the Police Commission into the debate about pursuits. Garcia-Acosta went through the timeline of the current policy, noting it was changed in 2014 before the Police Commission existed, then in 2018 and 2022. Garcia-Acosta also shot back at claims from a small rally of half a dozen people who’d organized via email to protest in front of the town hall. Garcia-Acosta called the misleading statements, “insults to the integrity” of the Commission and police officers and a “choir of blame” that’s been placed on the Commission.
“In 2022 then Chief Leronne Armstrong made another policy revision…and the people outside at the press conference might want to take note…an executive order at that time read that vehicle pursuits shall be terminated if the speed of the pursued or pursuing vehicle reaches or exceeds 50 miles an hour, unless permission to exceed 50 miles an hour is given by a watch commander or command officer. So the quote, unquote no Chase policy…is a policy that requires permission from a command officer to pursue speeds in excess of 50 mph on city streets,” Garcia-Acosta said.
OPD Rebuts Popular Misinformation
Garcia-Acosta was joined by Sgt Gabriel Urquiza-Leibin, who also dispelled several false notions from the public. Urquiza-Leibin noted that many of the problems with pursuit perceived by the public were more likely caused by the changes made in 2022 by Armstrong, which decreased the number of pursuits, while increasing the average speed of those pursuits that do occur–the opposite of the intended effect. He also stated that Armstrong’s policy had added an additional administrative load that taxed officer workloads, something Mitchell was looking to modify.
“There was a pretty robust review and accountability process that was already in place [before 2022]. 9212 [the 2022 special order] increased that, but basically just created more administrative load. So the supervisor that reviewed and approved the pursuit would then be writing basically the same kind of information in his report. The lieutenant that approved… would then be duplicating basically the same work, all their same risk factors and their thought process during the pursuit in their report, and then a different supervisor who wasn't involved would then take those reports, the officer's reports, all of the video, reviewing all that information, and then re-summarizing all that information…it generated significant administrative load, two or three times the work for basically four different people” Urquiza-Leibin said.
Urquiza-Leibin said that some changes currently being considered by OPD Chief Mitchell would be allowing pursuits for in-progress robberies, burglaries or sideshows, with permission from a supervisor—though such pursuits appear to already be allowed under the exigent circumstances portion of the policy.
Urquiza-Leibin also countered the popular refrain that the “19 risk factors” that the pursuit policy requires of officers to consider are less likely to stop a pursuit than improve the outcomes of a pursuit.
“The 19 risk factors are not what’s preventing an officer from pursuing…these things are like speed, that when you’re pursuing, may actually cause a fatality. When you're stopping, you're doing this assessment, and sometimes it actually resets you. You're able to see other things, or see a car coming from your side. So as far as that being what’s preventing the pursuits I would say, based on my experience that is not true,” Urquiza-Leibin said.
Urquiza-Leibin at one point stated he did not think a pursuit policy change by itself would affect crime rates.
Pro Tempore Council President Noel Gallo was present at the meeting but did not speak. Gallo supported the creation of the Commission a decade ago, but nevertheless joined critics of the Commission after Mayor Libby Schaaf fired Chief Kirkpatrick in conjunction with the body at a Singer and Associates-led press conference. Gallo then argued that a new charter amendment was needed to limit the Commission’s powers.
Residents Span Gamut of Views
About 40 residents came to the town hall held at the East Bay Church of Religious Science in North Oakland. Several gave accounts of how crime had negatively impacted them; others painted a more ample story about living in communities negatively impacted by both crime and racist or corrupt police practices.
Some speakers that did claim to support pursuits were skeptical of whether individual police were using the policy in good faith. One speaker recounted a car theft in which one of the residents’ phones was still in the vehicle. She said she told police the location, but the OPD refused to attempt to find and stop the vehicle.
“[an officer said that] exactly…'we can't pursue'. They hung around with us for 20 minutes, and honest to God, I am a supporter of the police, I believe that we need to increase [staffing]... but I don't want them hiding behind a “no pursuit policy”. And I think the policy needs to be made clear to the police, it needs to be made clear to the public,” the speaker said.
Another speaker said that it was important to remember the longer duration of policing in Oakland when discussing police policies.
“In Oakland, we have a really short memory. It wasn't too long ago that we were mourning the death of black men killed by police officers. And so I'm really just concerned about putting that structure in place, because the people who were dying were people who looked just like me,” he said.
Indictment of Thao, Jones and Duong Family Members Relies Heavily on Mario Juarez’s Claims
The federal indictment of ex-Mayor Sheng Thao, Andre Jones and Andy and David Duong relies heavily on claims made and communications initiated by Mario Juarez*. The indictment, unsealed on Friday, January 17 by the US Attorney General of Northern California, outlines an alleged conspiracy by Thao and Jones to be paid up to $3 MM in proceeds from expected City of Oakland purchases of modular homeless housing by Evolutionary Homes, a company run by David and Andy Duong and Juarez. While the indictment finally revealed a more complete contour of the case and charges the FBI and other federal agencies have been building for over six months, it leaves significant questions about the provenance of the evidence.
Indictment Lays Out a Bold Pay for Play Scheme for Millions of Dollars
According to the indictment, Thao promised the three that she would use her powers as Mayor to push through a City purchase of hundreds of Evolutionary Homes temporary housing units at $300K each; extend by an additional ten years the current 20 year city contract for the Duong-owned California Waste Solutions which terminates in 2035; and appoint one or more officials to an unspecified high-level position in a City agency, commission and body.
The indictment alleges that in return, the three other co-conspirators would use $75K of the Duong’s funds on a mailer to oppose the other frontrunners in the 2022 Mayor’s race, Ignacio de la Fuente and Loren Taylor, in the final days before the November 2022 election; and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to Thao’s partner in a fake “no-show” job at Evolutionary Homes. The indictment alleges that the amounts were also meant to be payment to Thao as well, stating the payments were “for the benefit of Thao and Jones”. According to the indictment, Jones received $95K in such payments from EH, the Duong/Juarez-owned fledgling housing developer at the center of many of the allegations.
To bolster the claim that Jones’ payments were a benefit shared by Thao, the indictment argues that Thao materially profited from the payments to Jones via his contributions to household bills, and sole payment of rent at their shared apartment from January 2023 to July 2024. The indictment depicts a draft of an alleged detailed EH contract for Jones’ consultancy, AJ Systems Solutions, texted by Juarez to Andy Duong.
Unsourced Claims
The key claims about Thao's role in the alleged conspiracy and alleged statements from Thao about her involvement in it are unsourced, however. These are accounts of a one-on-one meeting between Juarez and Thao allegedly initiating the plan and three in-person meetings where Thao is alleged to have agreed to the terms of the bribery scheme and/or added specific modifications—including allegedly demanding an increase to the alleged $3 MM in proceeds. No additional witnesses to these meetings at a fundraiser and at two restaurants in San Leandro and Berkeley are noted, but Juarez is alleged to be present at all of the meetings.
These four accounts offer the indictment’s central narrative that Thao entered into a bribery conspiracy with the Duongs and Jones and they are very detailed, and make claims about statements made by the parties—but no person or provenance for the information is given in the indictment.
Indictment Lacks Statements from Thao Linking Her Directly to the Alleged Conspiracy
Throughout the indictment only three communications or exchanges with the other three alleged conspirators are attributed to Thao with direct evidence: a text to Juarez consisting of Jones’ phone number; a text to Jones asking him to respond to an undisclosed request from Juarez; and a text cc’d with David Duong and an unnamed City Administrator with intention of setting up an official meeting between the two.
There are several other City of Oakland internal communications by Thao acting officially in her role as a Mayor in efforts the indictment alleges were intended to promote a long-time staffer to a position as Deputy Director of Housing and Community Development [HCD]—that staffer is described in Juarez’s texts as an employee he favors for the role. The East Bay Times identified the employee as Larry Gallegos, who was then with Economic and Workforce Development [EWD]. Gallegos’ city profile lists him as a project manager in the EWD and he may have never officially left the agency for HCD. An email from an EH staffer to Gallegos was reported by the SF Chronicle in November, but at that time he was identified as Project Manager in the Economic and Community Development Department [EWD]. The Gallegos appointment is the only one of the alleged quid pro quos which could have come to fruition. No evidence is offered of any other coming to be.**
Many Indictment Exchanges Are Initiated and Framed by Juarez
Verbatim statements and exchanges in the indictment seem to rely exclusively on text messages [and one recording] initiated by Juarez identified as “co-conspirator 1” throughout the document. In one alleged text exchange with Andy Duong where Juarez is trying to set up meetings with the Duong family and Gallegos, for example, Juarez demands “he needs to say that he is on board with [Recycling Company].. .. And the appointment is the direct result of the lobbying taking place," In the indictment's exchange with Duong, Duong appears indifferent about the importance of the employee.
The statement mirrors many of Juarez’s oddly specific, surprisingly incriminating claims throughout the indictment. Juarez-initiated texts or recordings are the sole source of the detailed conversations that bolster the theory of a conspiracy in the indictment—texts/recordings in which Juarez seems to take care to detail aspects of a plan, with exact cash amounts, full names, details of proposed actions by Thao and others. In these exchanges—all of them with either David or Andy Duong—the Duongs often agree passively, or make statements that could be interpreted along a spectrum from acquiescence, ambivalence, misinterpretation or agreement with the details of a bribery conspiracy. But the Duongs themselves offer few specifics.
At one point in April, 2023, for example, Juarez appears to send Andy Duong a list titled “Deal Points for Sheng Thao - Election - Post Election” that reads as if it were a detailed contract between the parties and Thao—and is a virtual confession of the purported plot submitted to Duong for him to co-sign as accurate. Two vague Duong responses that could be read in several ways appear in the indictment, though the indictment claims these are statements acknowledging the terms of the alleged agreement.
In an alleged recorded exchange during a board meeting for EH over a year after the beginning of the alleged conspiracy, David Duong appears ambivalent about the likelihood of Thao helping with the project, but does appear to use the word ‘deal’ and "promise" to refer to an arrangement with her, though there’s little context provided.
Juarez Unindicted and Unnamed in Indictment Posts Selfies of Luxury Vacation Prior To Unsealing
On January 16, as the SF Chronicle leaked the indictment of Thao and a day before the indictments were unsealed, Juarez posted selfies of himself on a yacht bearing what appears to be a Greek flag and with designer luggage next to seats emblazoned with a luxury-vehicle logo. The tweet reads: "Two fingers up, time on my wrist, and life in my hands. No stress, just vibes."
Thao was arraigned in federal court along with the three others on Friday morning, all four have pleaded not guilty and all four are free on bond. Thao and Jones arrived separately and have separate counsel from each other and the Duongs. Thao’s attorney gave a statement in front of the courthouse Friday, saying there is no evidence of Thao’s wrong-doing in the indictment and questioned the timing of the unsealing and the raid. Friday was the last day to file for Mayoral candidacy for the April 15 election and the raid occurred just a day after signatures for the mayoral recall were turned in.
The indictment also mentions that its alleged conspiracy includes individuals “known and unknown” to the grand jury, indicating more indictments could be forthcoming. Several of the charges relating to wire and mail fraud are connected to the transmission and receipt of wired payments to Jones.
—Also: Coming Tuesday to ALCO BOS, in session interviews of Interim Alameda County District Attorney
*Juarez is not mentioned by name in the indictment nor included in it but it's unlikely that anyone but Juarez is co-conspirator 1, given the circumstances, role in Evolutionary Housing and relationships to the Duongs. The East Bay Times and SF Chronicle have both named Juarez as co-conspirator 1.
**It's unclear when Gallegos was Deputy Director at HCD as the indictment claims. The East Bay Times stated it has confirmed that Gallegos served in that role, however. The communication between Gallegos and Evolutionary Homes was first identified months ago by the SF Chronicle, which described a spreadsheet sent by Evolutionary Homes with queries about potential funding sources for the homes. At that time, Gallegos was identified as employed in the Economic and Workforce Development Department.
The City announced two new Deputy Directors of HCD in early 2024, but there was never an announcement for Gallegos, who has worked for the city for at least 15 years, and his name does not appear in city reports as such. Gallegos appears on a staff roster for the Economic and Workforce Development in a Budget Advisory Commission document from September 2024; the chart is labelled as 2024 staff. Though the new Deputy Directors appear as signatories in City reports to Council since they were appointed, Gallegos’ name could not be found associated with the department.
Comments ()