Local environmentalists are upset about what they say is a concerted effort to infiltrate the west Contra Costa County Sierra Club’s executive leadership group with members who aren’t aligned with the club’s long-held stances on protecting wild spaces.
The Sierra Club, a more than 130-year-old national organization founded by John Muir in California, is organized into chapters with regional groups run by executive committees of elected club members. The executive committees can endorse political candidates in local and state races and take positions on development projects, meaning they potentially can influence local elections.
Starting Nov. 11, club members began voting for candidates seeking positions on the San Francisco Bay chapter’s executive committee, which includes the west Contra Costa County executive committee. The only other Bay Area environmental organization that endorses measures and candidates is the Bay Area League of Conservation Voters.
In recent months, a slate of candidates, some of whom are new to the Sierra Club and don’t have traditional environmental backgrounds, have sought seats on the west Contra Costa County executive committee. Many of the contenders are petition candidates, meaning they needed just 15 signatures from other Sierra Club members to get on the ballot. They include: Andrew Butt, a Richmond architect who unsuccessfully ran for Richmond City Council in 2022 and is the son of former mayor Tom Butt; Cortis Cooper, a retired Chevron engineer; Ed Jerum, a Richmond property manager and retired attorney; and Jeff Royal, a retired UC Berkeley research analyst.
Four other candidates: Janet Johnson, Jamin Pursell, an incumbent on the committee; Sue Wilson, who was recently elected to Richmond City Council; and Hari Lamba, have more typical environmental bonafides and have been long involved in local environmental issues. (All candidates’ statements can be seen at here.) Wilson, Pursell and Johnson are members of the Richmond Progressive Alliance, a Richmond political organization that Tom Butt and Andrew Butt have been openly critical of in recent years.
In their policy statements, many of the petition candidates say they were motivated to run to expand trail access for mountain bikes. But critics say the move is a power grab meant to steer the environmental organization toward taking more pro-development stances on contentious land use issues. These potentially include: supporting the development of housing on the Zeneca property, a highly contaminated toxic site in south Richmond; and developing housing at Point Molate, a portion of which was recently acquired by the East Bay Regional Parks District.
“Sierra Club is one of the levers of power in the Bay Area that many people don’t recognize,” said Pursell, a member of the Sierra Club’s West Contra Costa Executive Committee. “This slate of pro-mountain biking candidates is being put together by Tom Butt and Peter Belden (a San Francisco housing advocate) in order to overthrow the political impact that Sierra Club has had. It’s well known that the Sierra Club has been in opposition to projects that Tom Butt favors.”
Belden, who lives in San Francisco, is a housing and cycling advocate and a member of the Sierra Club San Francisco chapter’s political committee. He declined to speak to Richmondside. But emails to existing committee members shared with Richmondside show that Belden has continuously sought to shape the west county chapter’s election, stating that his goal is to oust existing West Contra Costa Executive Committee Chair Norman LaForce and embed someone who has more “pro-housing/transit” views. LaForce is a longtime Bay Area environmental attorney who has led legal challenges to stop housing projects proposed for the Zeneca site and at Point Molate.
Mountain bikers want more access to East Bay park trails
That’s not to say that trail access for mountain bikers is not a legitimate issue. One recent project bikers have coalesced around is a proposed single track flow trail at Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, which stretches from Richmond to Kensington. Flow trails are specially designed trails with jumps and turns that bikers can race down without making a lot of stops. Opponents say they are dangerous to hikers, especially elderly people, who might not be able to quickly move out of the way, and can cause soil erosion.
“Nobody is against mountain biking,” said Pursell. “It’s about mountain bikes to the exclusion of all other things. If someone is walking along, they don’t have the space to step aside because these trails are very narrow.”
Mountain bikes are allowed in more than a dozen regional parks, but only two of them are in west Contra Costa County: Wildcat Canyon and Crockett Hills. And although most visitors to East Bay regional parks are hikers, according to a 2021 survey, there has been a growing push from mountain bikers to create more bike-only trails, in part to avoid conflict with other users.
“For the past two decades, only 25 miles of bike trails have been added to the regional parks system, while hikers have access to hundreds,” said Cooper, one of the contenders for a seat on the west Contra Costa County executive committee.
Andrew Butt agrees.
“For a long time the East Bay Regional Parks have not been friendly to bikers, especially when it comes to single track trails,” said Butt, who is also a volunteer coach for the El Cerrito High School mountain biking club. Butt said he was asked to run for a seat on the Sierra Club committee by other mountain bikers concerned about access to local trails. Asked if there were other reasons he was interested in serving, Butt acknowledged that he was also enticed by the potential to bring a “new perspective on development.”
“The local chapters under the current leadership have been very anti-development, and that’s a disservice to the needs of the region,” Butt said. “Point Molate could have been an ideal candidate for brownfield development for housing, a project that would have rehabilitated the historic Winehaven site and restored access to open space, all of which would have been paid by the developer. It could have been a transformative project.”
Former mayor Butt has gotten involved in the debate as well, last month sending an email asking his supporters who are members of the Sierra Club to vote for the “pro mountain biking” slate to oust LaForce, who also serves as the chair of the East Bay Public Lands committee and several other Sierra Club committees.
“Norman believes that parks are not for multi-purpose activities like for playing fields and dogs, but should be pure nature,” Butt told Richmondside. “The west Contra Costa ex-comm (executive committee) has historically been a very closed group that has supported very radical views and is not at all in line with the views of the greater public.” As an example, Butt cited Point Molate, which he called “a fiasco.”
“The narrative has been controlled by a small group of people who have their own agenda and are out of touch with what the majority of residents want,” he said.
But Pursell and Johnson, another west Contra Costa County Sierra Club executive committee candidate, say that opponents are playing dirty to get the Sierra Club to take a different stance on local environmental issues.
“The idea behind the tactic is that they will vote as a block and coordinate around what their end goal is, which is undermining progressive causes and candidates,” Pursell said.
While the finger-pointing continues, so does the voting, which is open to any Sierra Club member who joined the organization by Nov. 1. It continues through Dec. 11.
This article is generally well-written, and gets most things right, but the headline is deeply misleading, and does a real disservice. Mountain biking advocates, particularly those (including myself) seeking a leadership role in the Sierra Club, are (and can be) strong advocates and allies for environmentalism, and open space preservation, we just see it a bit differently (and with a more open mind).
Why do you live in Richmond and act possessive to run the city because of your dad, but use a different city for your kids school. Why are you helping run an El Cerrito high school mountain biking club
Wow, that is an interesting perspective, but not totally correct. The work of the mountain bike community has a singular goal. Pushing the EBRPD to consider the needs of ALL park users (that includes a lot of cyclists) as they expand trail networks. As the pilot project in Briones has shown, cyclists, equestrians and hikers can share trails and contribute to their maintenance. Please don’t drag Richmond’s dysfunctional politics into our effort.
I encourage g gladstone to continue advocacy for the trail triad that includes cyclists, equestrians and hikers. Not all trails can be multi-purpose, the focus on the sharing of trails will contribute to the development of access for the physically and socially disadvantaged. Let’s grow the trails team!
The current SC EC has been extremely anti-mountain bike. Mountain biking, now a world-wide phenomena and multi-discipline olympic sport, originated in the Bay Area on Mt. Tam in the 70s. High-school mountain bike racing, now a nationwide sport producing multiple Tour de France racers, originated at Berkeley High. Now mountain bikers are treated like skateboarders in the 90s–as criminals and hooligans. There are very few mountain bike-legal trails in the East Bay, while miles and miles of singletrack go unused by hikers. Yet any attempt to build new trails is shut down through litigation, like that employed by LaForce or destroyed by EBMUD or EBRPD. Equestrians, “environmentalists”, and municipal and regional administrative agencies have presented a well-funded and unified front to prevent any expanded trail access for riders and have refused suggestions, such as one-way trials or alternating day use, to accommodate mixed-used trails. This same NIMBY-ist attitude has prevented the construction of new housing, driving rent and home prices out the reach of many young people and families in the area. All this under the guise of progressivism Access for me but not for thee is anti-progressive.
Historically, equestrians are supportive of multi-use trails. They are at the top of the right-of -way standards. Education, rules, and a mix of dedicated trails are the solutions for trail conflicts. Exclusion is a tool of
As a gray-haired mountain biker and community builder I have learned the only way to really make change is to await the passing of the old guard. EBRPD, Sierra Club, doesn’t matter. I ma reminded of the strangle hold Avery Brundage had on the Olympic committee in the 70s. He had to pass on to get things to move forward. The Sierra Club lives in constant fear of the nose of the camel in the tent and trots out the same old boogey man of looming development when mountain bikers want to see improved access. Most mountain bikers would simply be happy with the same access as Equestrians who get all up on their hind legs at that idea; never seeing their privilege and exclusivity. See thoughts above on awaiting passing.
What is with this binary title? People are not only an environmentalist or a mountain biker! I have been an environmentalist for decades and also picked up mountain biking a few years ago. Ultimately, the need is a balance. We need to protect the environment and to have plenty of access for different users to enjoy nature without cramming them into the same trails. In this article, it clearly shows the current committee members are one sided and do not value equal access to all.
Bikers can access all trails they just need to leave their bikes at home!
The community of mountain bikers are among the most avid environmentalists around. This is about access to the outdoor public spaces, especially for East Bay youth, not about development vs. pro-development. The WCCC group rejects the national Sierra Club stance on Mt. biking and has taken it upon themselves, in cahoots with the local chapter of the CA Native Plant Society, to oppose every effort to safely incorporate bike access while ignoring existing research on the minimal impact of biking to trails. If they were serious about our trails, they would throw up lawsuits against cow traffic in our parks, not bicycles.
I’d like to believe that the way this is titled is to generate engagement, but after reading the whole thing it’s safe to assume that this is written with the agenda of swaying voters against mountain bikers. Being an environmentalist and a mountain biker are not mutually exclusive things. If anything, it is in the best interest of mountain bikers to be environmentalists themselves.
Expanding trail access for mountain bikers would mean safer trail usage not just for bikers but for hikers and equestrians. Demonizing mountain bikers the way you did in this article only prevents making trails safer for ALL users.
Sad to see good writing being used as propaganda.
What is needed is more access and more trails. Building biking trails decreases trail congestion for all. These places are not pristine wilderness. Many have been trampled by cows, destroyed by past development, and infested with non-native species. The Sierra Club has acted to block any trail building in many of our parks, which are now enjoyed by more and more people, and more people on bikes. It is time to evolve these spaces to serve all of the public. Mtn Bikers are some of the most vocal advocates for environmental causes and volunteer hundreds of hours to support the parks and open spaces. More trails in all of our local parks would better serve the people that use them, bikers and hikers alike.
I’m not sure how building a new trail for mountain biking in an area where there is cows roaming around, no threat to native plants, no trees, and steep fire roads equates to allowing housing developments in Richmond. This is not Environmentalists vs. Mountain Bikers because as many have said, many Mountain Bikers ARE Environmentalists themselves including me! We love our parks, nature, and trails out here but sadly there are very few singletrack trail options we can ride with our youth. This isn’t about building housing this is about opposition to building a new biking only trail to reduce the amount of bikes going down existing multiuse trails. We have seen that building biking only trails has been successful in many places including Briones. This same group that wants more access to trails also is involved in trail work and maintenance REGULARLY to keep the trails in good shape. Just over the summer there were 2 trail work volunteer efforts in both Tilden and Wildcat Canyon and I can see the benefits of both following the rain. This isn’t about building a trail and destroying the environment or poisoning it, the studies were already done, it is to give more access to trail users who will be better served on trails that are purpose built for bikes and continue to properly maintain them.
Richmondside lists among its 5 core values the “courage to report without favor,” but this article clearly falls short of that ideal. I am surprised at the clear slant casting people who are seeking to keep biking in our parks to a minimum as “environmentalists,” and failing to note that the local Sierra Club leadership is out of step with the national club’s stance, which is more in favor of expanding bike access since it encourages more users to experience and respect natural spaces. I am a long time pro-environment voter and recent mountain biker who became involved to coach kids, and I have seen an outsized number of those kids go on to seek careers in forestry, environmental studies, clean energy engineering, etc. To those young people rising to take our places in the environmental fights of the future, framing this debate as “environmentalists vs mountain bikers” is as nonsensical as saying something like “homeowners vs vegetarians.”
It looks like the lead here is hidden: these new candidates may be pro mountain biking, but they are using that as a distraction from their ambitions to push for development on Pt Molate. The sudden surge of coordinated pro-mountain bike comments on this article is likely just another one of Andrew’s attempts to steer the social media narrative, as he has tried to do many times on other platforms. Good luck Mr Butt, but the residents of Richmond see through it.
I am one of those candidates and my family is a long-time RPA member, NRDC financial supporter, and a strong opponent of developing Pt Molate. Please do not spread falsehoods in order to further your anti-biking agenda.
Totally agree that the powers that be have kept mountain bikers off of single track trails and precluded us from being able to enjoy the parks for the last 30 years or so. It’s 100% true that for all these years a small radical group of environmentalists have controlled the sierra club and policy for the parks which have precluded Trail access for mountain bikers.
The radical view held by Norman Laforce and the others that are only meant for nature and should not allow mountain biking and recreational activities for fear they will disrupt the nature is a radical view that the community does not support. I look forward to the removal of this radical small group Precluding the massive group of mountain bikers ranging an age from about six years old all the way to 80 from enjoying the parks that they pay taxes to be able to use.
We need the Sierra club and east Bay regional parks to be led by people who have an open mind to all user group needs as opposed to an anti-mountain bike which they have been for as long as I can remember and I am 42 years old.
EBRPD has a conflict of interest. They aree major recipients of funds from taxpayers, but then piggy- back additional funding from habitat preservation programs. The outcome is that the recreation and transportation infrastructure of EBRPD suffers at the expense of wildlife habitat and bloated salaries oof senior park district staff. It always comes down to the money.
Thank you for the excellent article about the Sierra Club elections. It is very hard to tell what candidates stand for just by reading their statements. (Everybody says they are for the environment and want to serve.) The quote from Andrew Butt, however, wanting the Sierra Club to take a “new perspective on development” shows there are other agendas in play.
I attended a meeting of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) this afternoon, where the primary agenda item was adoption of their groundbreaking Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan. This plan will guide how local governments will create coordinated, locally planned sea level rise adaptation actions required by state law (SB 272).
Climate change and sea level rise are two of the thorniest and most pressing environmental issues of our time, and during public comment a number of Sierra Club advocates spoke knowledgably about various aspects of the plan. Absent was Andrew Butt and his “passion for environmental advocacy.” No surprise there: I’ve been championing local and global environmental causes since I quit my day job in ten years ago, and I have yet to encounter him at a meeting, rally, conference, or any other environmental gathering.
Serious environmental and environmental justice issues are playing out in our communities, and they will only become more acute with time. We are not doing our youth any favors by engaging in a surface discussion of the merits of mountain biking while their literal futures are at stake.
My record of 12 years serving as a planning commisioner (4 in El Cerrito, and 8 in Richmond) speaks for itself. Feel free to go back and review it. I was proud to have participated and voted on adoption of the Richmond 2030 General Plan, which was groundbreaking in it’s strong climate adaptation policy (https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8813/80-Energy-and-Climate-Change-Element?bidId=). It’s nice that you were able to quit your day job 10 years ago Janet, but some of us still have to work full time, raise a family, and mentor the next generation of open space advocates (by getting them out on trails on their bikes). When you and I are long gone, it will be them who keep up the fight to protect those spaces that you don’t want them in.
I quit my day job because I was eligible for SSI and wanted to devote my life to climate action and environmental justice. I have never once said I didn’t want kids biking on trails; just like development, there’s appropriate and inappropriate trail uses.
And yes, I remember well when you led the Richmond Planning Commission to recommend against adoption of the Richmond Coal Ordinance (which city staff supported). You opposed an environmental justice measure developed and supported by the Sierra Club to address the health harms from toxic coal and petroleum coke dust. Fortunately for Richmond’s most impacted communities, the city council didn’t agree with you.
Coal still rolls through and gets loaded on ships out of Richmond every day. I argued for something stronger, more effective, and more actionable.
It seems to me that the biking community has made plenty of their own trails w/o bothering with due process. Why start now?
If one were to reflect for a minute, one might understand the reason for this. Decades of inequity have led a few out of a large and growing user group, to expedite the inevitable. One doesn’t have to condone this behavior to understand it.
Let’s set aside the hostile takeover aspect of this. John Muir lived in Martinez. Did he ride a bike in the hills? I understand the bikers. They want more w/o giving much consideration to the rest of us. How do I know that? Have you seen the west bound 580 traffic at times backed up in the morning to Harbor Way? Waiting for the GG 580 was just too much of an inconvenience. While those of us on the freeway….
Congestion on the RSR bridge has nothing to do with the path. And your double standard is glaring. Those of you on 580 in your vehicles just couldn’t wait for the bus either, I guess. Mountain biking wasn’t born when John Muir was around, but I’m sure he would have looked kindly on fellow environmentalists and adventurers riding their bikes to and in the hills instead of driving 2000-lb cars to the trailhead and leaving plastic baggies of poop all over the place. And as for the “hostile takeover”, the flip side of that looks like a decades-long hostile occupation depriving a legitimate user group, including many current and would-be Sierra Club members of access and opportunity to pursue wholesome outdoor recreation on two wheels.