CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the number of speakers for or against the trail.
Much to the disappointment of environmental leaders, the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) board of directors on Tuesday voted to move forward with building the Wildcat Canyon Bicycle Flow Trail in Wildcat Canyon Regional Park.
The proposed 1.4-mile trail, which is being touted as a solution to what bicycling advocates say is a shortage of trails in Richmond, El Cerrito, Albany and Berkeley, would include various mountain biking trick features such as rollers, jumps and berms. It would only be open to bicyclists.
About 80 people attended Tuesday afternoon’s meeting at the district’s Oakland office, about half of them virtually, to share their opinions on the project, which has been in development for more than two years.
According to the EBRPD, high school mountain biking teams accumulate 40,000 hours of riding in a season but must use the same 30 miles of multi-use trails. The new trail would give them new terrain to ride.
Youth members of local mountain biking club Wildcat Composite voiced their support for the trail.
“Mountain biking has given me confidence in myself and taught me that I can do hard things,” Richmond middle schooler Brandon Young said. “I hope you will approve this flow trail because it will give us a trail close to our home to ride.”
Proposed Wildcat Canyon bike trail
What: A 1.4 mile bicycle-only trail located along a grazed, grassy hillside in central Wildcat Canyon. It would be accessible via the Mezue, Leonard’s and Wildcat Creek trails
Details: Visit EBRPD for more information and to share your feedback.
Max Korten, EBRPD manager, and Suzanne Wilson, EBRPD senior trails planner, emphasized that the trail is expected to reduce instances of bikers using illegal, unofficial bike trails and ultimately would increase mountain biking safety.
“Our goal here is to provide a sustainable design that is attractive to cyclists, that pulls them off of the illegal trails in the area and gives us the opportunity to successfully restore those trails,” Wilson said in the presentation to the board.
Environmentalists urge the board to reject Wildcat Canyon bike trail
The proposal, however, sparked push-back from environmentalists, including the Sustainability, Parks, Recycling, and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund, which sent a letter to the park district urging them to reject it.
According to the group, the EBRPD has inaccurately marketed the intended use of the trail, arguing that it is actually designed for recreational, thrilling mountain biking experiences, rather than for training because it will feature jumps, banked turns, rollers and other features that offer a fast riding experience.
The area where the trail would be located, according to the park district’s 1985 Land Use Plan for Wildcat Canyon is designated as a “Natural Area,” meaning it “shall be free from intensive, recreational activities and of any development except hiking, equestrian, and service use,” as the document states.
The trail would run through open grassland along a southwest facing ridge line with views of the San Francisco Bay. It would be centrally located within Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, with access from the Alvarado Staging Area in Richmond via the Wildcat Creek Trail or by way of the Nimitz Trail from the Inspiration Point Staging Area in Berkeley.
To build the trail, the wildlife group points out, the district would have to first amend its land use plan, a process that requires notifying the public.
Norman La Force, president of the defense fund, told Richmondside that he is concerned about the EBRPD’s willingness to “disregard” the original park master plan and land use plan.
“What I think they’re trying to do, is essentially nullify their restrictions on how they plan parks, and essentially revoke their master plan policies, and essentially have the park district staff and board in a position that they can do anything they want in any of the parks, anytime, no matter what,” La Force said. “To me that’s extremely dangerous.”
According to a Public Records Act filed by the defense fund, the park district has been promised a $1 million donation that’s contingent on the trail being approved. The money is set to be donated by Barbara Smith and Cortis Cooper. Smith is the chair of the East Bay Public Lands committee of the Sierra Club, and Cooper ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Sierra Club’s west Contra Costa executive committee last fall. In his candidate statement, Cooper, head coach of Wildcat Composite, said since 2013 he helped 500 middle schoolers get into mountain biking.
contingent on the approval of the trail, which will have an estimated construction price tag of $500,000 to $700,000. Courtesy Sierra Club
The board on Tuesday was told by Wilson that construction is estimated to cost between $500,000 and $700,000.
La Force said the donation may sway the board to vote in favor of the trail.
“Even if [they] have an environmental impact report to find serious flaws with this project environmentally, if [they] don’t certify it, [they] don’t make the money,” La Force told Richmondside.
However, Wilson emphasized in her board presentation that they are not influenced by such financial factors.
“We’re lucky to have a community that really supports the work that we do,” Wilson said. “But it’s also really important that our work is not driven by those donations and that we approach our work based on the merits of the project.”
Meeting attendees discuss pros, cons of bike trail
An estimated 42 addressed the board about the project. According to La Force, 26 were against it and 16 were for it.
Supporters emphasized that mountain biking is a growing sport, and bikers need more access to trails in the East Bay.
“Mountain biking improved my health. It helps me connect with nature and provides a sense of well-being and refreshment that I have not been able to find in other activities,” said an Albany resident who gave his name as “Steve F.” “I think a dedicated single track so near me, so close to where I live, would totally transform my quality of life.”
Those opposed to the project said they fear there will be an increase in reckless riding in an otherwise peaceful park. Neighbors of the park shared that they’ve received little information about the development and called for the park district to do better in engaging their community.
“I am not opposed to a diverse group of people having fun in the park,” attendee Maxine Andrew said. “But when other people’s reckless activity impacts my safety, I’m going to be upset. I am protective of my own abilities.”
Some board members were hesitant to move forward with approving the trail. Board vice president Olivia Sanwong, who represents Ward 5, primarily cities in eastern Alameda County, proposed postponing the vote on the project, which was seconded by Ward 2 board member Lynda Deschambault, whose territory includes Oakland, Piedmont and portions of eastern Contra Costa County.
Sanwong wanted to wait until the board reviews its land use plan and holds a capital improvements priorities workshop. She also wanted more time to discuss how to improve community outreach and engagement.
The motion to delay the vote was denied by a 5-to-2 vote.
Mountain biking controversy has previously loomed in west Contra Costa County environmental politics
The decision follows a controversy over the governing control of a local chapter of an environmental group, which La Force fears is being taken over by mountain biking enthusiasts.
Last fall, environmentalists and cycling advocates clashed over an election held by the Sierra Club’s west Contra Costa County executive council.
Candidates, including Andrew Butt, Cooper, Ed Jerum and Jeff Royal, did not share the traditional environmental work experience as the other four candidates: Janet Johnson, Jamin Pursell, Sue Wilson and Hari Lamba.
Lamba was ultimately elected.
Next steps for trail development
The next step will be for an environmental impact report to be completed to determine whether the site is environmentally appropriate.
After compiling the findings, getting community feedback, the project must be approved by the EBRPD board of directors.
Wilson predicts that, if approved, construction would begin in 2027 at the earliest.
Skills, perhaps, not “thrill.” That is a mistaken notion made up of whole cloth. Not sure where Richmondside gets the idea. Maybe that is just click bait. For shame.
This article is a poor representation of the process. A variety of eco concerns were aired; bird populations falling in general, sensitive native plants, various crawly creatures, migration patterns, drainage. All valid concerns. Their solution was simply to go someplace else. However, they seem to think that saying so makes it so and that should be enough to steer the process. What is wanted from the eco perspective is actual data of which they provided very little.
First off, there has been no determination that these concerns actually apply here. The location of the proposed trail is on a bald ridge next to the Mezue Trail which has been there forever. It has been grazed, arguably, for scores of years, even centuries. It is your basic exposed ridge of gopher holes without drainage into any local creek or ravine. But that is MY perspective as a Wildcat Canyon user of 35 years.
So we disagree, as all intelligent people can. What is needed is an authoritative assessment to clarify things. The proposed EIR will go a long ways to clarify eco concerns. Why there was resistance to getting facts is beyond me. Perhaps anything that looks like support for the process unless it serves the anti-faction is anathema. However, this is why you have procedures, to avoid that sort of manipulation.
Expressing concern for a $1,000,000 donation that wants to support the trail, Mr. LaForce is trying to smear the intentions of the EBRPD. The trail, if approved, will go forward with or without the donation. In the past the Nature Area and the Roberts Pool were the destinations of large donations. None of the donors got a free ride on a goat or a reservation for a private swim lane in the pool. This is little more than a desperate red herring.
Your reporting suggest that the attendees were evenly split. In fact, it was more like 65-70% against the proposed trail according to a Board tally, perhaps after the Richmondside representative left the meeting.
What was apparent was that commenters and at least 1 board member expressed concerns that were already addressed in the large number of reports and studies available to the public. These would have addressed their concerns. Yet folks would rather air their desires, fears, and opinions as if that were enough. All of those things are important but find true resolution in facts provided by the District.
One board member (I believe it was Linda Deschambault) kept hammering away at what she saw as procedural problems. In fact, the public commentary was delayed nearly 30 minutes with a panoply of questions by Ms. Dschambault. A commentator suggested in his 3 minutes that, in future a Board member should be limited in the time for questions; Linda could have gone on by her own admission.
This Ms. Deschambault also complained that this vote was too soon, had not seen enough public participation, and that qualified trails builders and experts were not consulted. This was reality tested by Board member, Luana Espana, who cited the authorities used in the provided publications. Several members described the accessibility of many groups on either side of the issue, and the large April 25, 2025 meeting with 200 in attendance. The Board Member Deschambault said that she was not at the meeting.
I could flat-out wrong, but my sense was that this Ms. Deschambault, who had missed several meetings, was covering her lack of familiarity with the information at hand with her strong suit; politics and procedure. Not sure how this serves Park supporters.
This all gets down to making a good-faith effort to understand the issues in the service of transparency and informing the public with peer-reviewed facts and determinations. Why anyone would want to avoid good information is beyond me.
One more thing; the division between the sides showed a very strong age bias. With a few exceptions the elder were in opposition, the younger in support. A commenter said that he was pretty tired of older people and boomers controlling everything. From the mouths of babes…
This lopsided representation is a simple thing to understand. Elder and retired folk can come to a 1PM meeting; most anyone else is at work. Which brings us to Mr. La Force who believes that the new Sierra Club is going anti-eco. Ms. Deschambault expressed concern that the District might be losing support by not listening to this elder population, raising the specter of lost bond measures in the future. I think these three ideas touch on a new reality. Power is changing hands as boomers age, and our elders are not happy about this. You can feel the desperation.
Michael Mejia’s comment is an accurate representation of the intent and facts of the proposed flow trail. This article and the opposition are clearly not. There is an embedded knee jerk reaction by certain “eco” groups to oppose any new bike trails with no thought given to facts or weighing the interests of others in use of public lands.
It is disappointing that the tone of this article pits bike riders against environmentalists as if they are on mutually exclusive sides. I have been a mountain biker for 30+ years but I have been an environmentalist my entire life. Most of my friends are environmentalists and happen to be mountain bikers. The mis-characterization of this proposal as a “thrill” trail is inflammatory and detracts from the actual purpose of this project. The proponents of this project see a future where young kids can bike in a safe, maintained environment. Norman La Force, a lawyer, is a long-time opponent of access to our natural spaces and has a long history of initiating legal actions to stop it. His current actions highlight his personal animosity toward mountain biking, in particular.
This is quite the biased article. What’s interesting is the boomer “environmentalists” are alienating younger citizen voters. The very people their environmental orgs will depend on for donations.
This is shaping up to become exactly what’s happened with labor union members who overwhelmingly voted for Trump. The Democratic Party alienated their core constituents. Environmental orgs (and their supporters) are following a similar path and alienating people who would ordinarily be allies. Such strange behavior.
I’m an avid hiker and near-daily rambler in these hills 2 mins from where I live. I consider them my 2nd home. I see firsthand the diverse groups of people using the trails, including mountain bikers, e-bike riders blitzing by at hight speeds, runners, walkers of all ages. For the most part I see courteous sharing of the space. I also see the wildlife we’re lucky enough to co-exist with. I’m not on any “side” here – but I do hope for a full and thorough EIR and consideration of concerns. This park, and the peaceful contemplation it invites, is among the East Bay’s gems. I believe that to potentially increase the disturbance of that peace and the delicate habitat systems sustaining both animals and us humans who also thrive there would be a grave mistake. I really hope another, less disruptive and more suitable location is found.
Thank you, Richmondside, for the article about the mountain bike recreation development proposed for Wildcat Canyon Regional Park. I was surprised that this mountain bike run project could get this far without notice to neighbors that surround or regularly visit the park. It includes jumps and berms in the very heart of the park. I attended a meeting in 2023, but never heard back from either the park or the mountain bike group about what was discussed and nothing was decided at that time. There were many concerns and issues brought up, but no decision was made nor subsequent meetings announced. This is natural and wildlife beauty designated a Natural Area of Wildcat. Mountain bike runs are a great idea, but not here. The public needs to be informed, not after it is all figured out but before it begins. A recreational facility like this needs to be done with transparency and planning, informing all stake holders (neighbors, hikers, bikers, equestrians) and it needs to be in the appropriate location, and this plan has done none of that.