Where I Stand

I live in the Fairway Park area of Hayward, and I've spent the last 30 years hiking and biking throughout the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). I love these parks and want to ensure they are protected, maintained, and enjoyed for generations to come.

No — I believe all park users deserve equitable, sustainable access, whether they have feet, paws, hooves, wheels, or some combination of those!

Having said that, it's worth pointing out that, per the District, there are 208 miles of narrow trails — the fun ones — in the District. Feet and paws have access to 98% of those, with a bit less for hooves. Wheels? About 30%.

Do all mountain bikers behave well on the trail? No — but other user groups have their bad apples, too. The solution is education, education, education.

Climate change, littering, discrimination, hate, animal cruelty, poor trail etiquette, dog owners that don't pick up poop (or leave a bag for the nonexistent poop fairy to pick up)… the list is long.

I'm lucky enough to have recently retired, so I have time to give back to my community. Serving as a steward to our parks seems like the best way to do that.

I spent the first half of my life in England. I can't help it. The other half I've spent in California, nearly all in Hayward — but I still can't pronounce the "r" in "park." Please don't hold it against me.

As of late August 2026, the East Bay Animal PAC has endorsed my campaign. I hope to earn many more — but I'd rather earn them than predict them.

No — this is my first time seeking public office, and I recognize both the similarities and differences between this and the private sector. What I bring is a career of getting things built and getting things done in large organizations: bringing people together, solving complex problems, and delivering results through practical leadership and collaboration.

Four things:

Mitigating the effects of climate change — including tree mortality, sea level rise, and wildfire prevention.

Expanding equitable access to parks for all socioeconomic groups by improving outreach, transportation connections, educational programs, and recreational opportunities.

Ensuring strong financial stewardship so that taxpayer resources are used efficiently and transparently.

Maintaining the balance between recreation and conservation that makes the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) so special.

I don't see conservation and recreation as opposing goals. The Park District has been successful because it recognizes that protecting nature and connecting people to nature through recreation reinforce one another. People protect what they love, and they love what they can experience.

I heard this neatly summarized in four words: "acquire strategically, steward relentlessly." Adding land seems like an obvious conservation strategy, but every new acre is a perpetual obligation.

So: look after our existing parklands first, while making careful acquisitions that strengthen the entire regional park system for future generations.

At a high level these are easy questions: is ecosystem health improving? Are facilities well-maintained? Is taxpayer money being spent wisely and as promised? The "how" should be data-driven — everything from progress toward carbon neutrality to the percentage of trails in good condition to the number of bald eagle nests.

The key is to publish everything in an easily accessible format, so the District, its users, and taxpayers all know where it's succeeding and where it can do better.

Biodiversity and native habitat restoration (especially prescribed fire and vegetation management); wetland and shoreline restoration — including the thorny opportunity of the Golden Gate Fields property; expanding the carbonizer/biochar program; supporting the existing Climate Smart Initiative; and initiatives that ease park access for underserved communities.

I'm particularly taken by the District embracing the idea that humans are active caretakers of the land, rather than separate from it — there's considerable overlap between Indigenous stewardship philosophies and the District's work on habitat restoration, prescribed burning, and grazing.

I'd like to see these relationships deepen: traditional ecological knowledge integrated more fully into stewardship programs, and acknowledgment of ancestral lands at every major trailhead — not just at Board site visits.

The District already performs well here: the parks cover a wide range of experiences for users of differing physical abilities, and a glance at the District's monthly magazine shows a wide range of activity and cultural opportunities.

Where I'd push further: outreach, transportation connections, and programming that reach communities who don't yet see the parks as theirs — and volunteer pathways that invite people to participate, not just visit. More people need to see the parks as places to take part in, not just to use.

I'm personally part of at least three under-represented groups, so it's hardly surprising that I'm passionate about these issues. Everywhere I've worked, I've made it my mission to get organizations to simply do better.

In my last two roles, I literally wrote — then implemented and enforced — the Voice & Tone Guidelines that lay out acceptable standards for every communication, both written and spoken.

Listening and respect lie at the heart of getting things done in public service. Throughout my career, I've brought people together, solved complex problems, and delivered results through practical leadership and collaboration.

Board members have a critical role in setting an inclusive and respectful tone for the whole organization — and compromise, at times, is how public bodies serve everyone rather than a faction.

With difficulty, and it's getting worse — local transit agencies are being forced to cut routes, including ones that stop at parks, which disproportionately impacts people without cars.

The District should work with transit agencies and build safe pedestrian and bike routes to trailheads — easy to say, hard to implement. What it can do right now: document and publicize the access that exists (partnerships like the BARTable campaign), and prioritize projects based on access and demographics.

The strategy is broadly correct — balancing wildfire resilience, recreation, habitat conservation, invasive species management and, let's face it, keeping the parks nice to look at. I applaud the District's success in obtaining grants to fund vegetation management.

The biggest gap is one of scale, which means funding. And based on 30 years in the parks, I'm saddened by the scale of tree die-off: I'd like to see far more effort put into reforestation and restoring native vegetation.

Yes. The District is embarking on working with native wisdom to incorporate prescribed fire where appropriate, and that's the right direction. Where prescribed fire is too risky, thinning is the preferred fuels-reduction option.

Measurable ones. The District should uphold the goals of the Paris Accord and follow its published plans — but work toward outcomes it can be held accountable for. It appears to be 12 years since the District last published a Strategic Energy Plan; that's too long.

I'd like to see a target date for carbon-neutral park operations, trail corridors periodically assessed for wildfire, erosion, and flood vulnerability, the promising fuel-reduction pilots given a district-wide timetable, wetland restoration accelerated, and increased car-free access to parks.

The District's policy framework already stresses biodiversity, ecosystem connectivity, and habitat restoration — I'd build on that so our parks don't become a series of fragile habitat islands.

That means programs that look at the region as a whole, not just District lands: controlling invasive species, expanding wildlife corridors, managing for changing species ranges, and growing native habitat at the largest practical scale. And greatly expanded monitoring, so we know what's working and what isn't.

When different user groups have separate trails, conflicts are eliminated — and that's obviously a good thing. If suitable places are available to build such trails using environmentally friendly, sustainable techniques, why not? This model has been used successfully all over the world.

The Wildcat Canyon project is a model example of how to approach it: the field surveys performed so far indicate the environmental impact is less than significant, a full CEQA review will happen before ground is broken, and by removing bike access from the nearby Leonards Trail, the project also provides a win for hikers, runners, and equestrians.

With good will and education, different user groups can share trails. In my personal experience from 30 years of hiking and biking, the shared trail systems at Crockett Hills and Fernandez Ranch work particularly well. I also support adding bike-only narrow trails where suitable, for the reasons above.

I support adopting sustainable unsanctioned trails and restoring unsustainable ones — with the obvious caveats that such trails form part of a coordinated District-wide plan, aren't causing environmental damage, and can be made sustainable.

The District's pilot project at Briones demonstrates this can work: properly built bike trails adapt or replace bootleg trails, actually restore habitat, and reduce the potential for conflict.

Differentiate by type. Class 1 e-bikes are permitted in the District, as are devices that assist people with disabilities — that should continue.

Everything else is prohibited and should remain so — especially unregulated "e-motos," which are essentially electric motorcycles: unsafe and illegal in public space everywhere. When apprehended, the bike should be confiscated and a citation issued.

Dog policies should be science-based — not written to favor one user group, and not the easy default. It pains me when parks ban dogs or require leashes with no explanation of why. A good part of the reason I live where I do is that the District has made voice control the default, not the exception. Of course some places need restrictions, like areas with ground-nesting birds — and trailhead signs should explain why.

Cats are harder: there's no such thing as voice control for cats, and they're non-native predators with catastrophic impacts on birds, reptiles, and small mammals. The answer is humane and science-based: partnerships with animal welfare groups to trap and neuter, discouraging feeding stations on parklands, and education.

The intent of Measure WW was to fund specific projects aligned with the plan at the time. If the specific projects change over time — as other funding sources are found and new opportunities emerge — then shifting spending seems appropriate, provided the plan process is properly followed.

These projects are always open to different interpretations by different stakeholders. The ability to participate constructively and collaboratively in unravelling those conundra is a key skill of a park director.

All of the above! A pragmatic mix of bond funding, grants for climate-resilience projects, philanthropic gifts, and reasonable fees for park use.

Park fees should be positioned specifically as paying for maintenance of the facilities people are using — and there should always be mechanisms to accommodate economically disadvantaged users.

The District's current process to develop the next District Plan seems broadly correct to me: it guides park acquisition, conservation, recreation, and trail development through the lenses of protection, stewardship, and public access, while encouraging public participation and partnership.

On whether plans should be binding, the honest answer is it's a governance trade-off: a binding plan protects parkland from, shall we say, "whim-based" decisions and makes sure long-term commitments are met. But the District also needs to react to short-term realities — external policy decisions, funding issues, catastrophic weather and seismic events, and opportunities to acquire new land.

The District appears to possess a large and well-equipped police service — but you more often see them driving on city streets than in the actual parks. I'd ask whether enforcement can be made more effective by changing what officers do, rather than finding additional resources.

Given the apparent backlog of maintenance, reducing funding for actual stewardship to pay for more enforcement would be a step backwards.

The existing program is quite comprehensive, but there's an opportunity to move beyond individual volunteering: a "Friends" network for volunteering and fundraising could be powerful — supporting the conservation imperative while building the District a broader base of engaged supporters.

Recruiting more assistance from underserved communities would pay dividends too. More people need to see the parks as places to participate, not just to use.

Entirely by me. My campaign is self-funded, as reported on Form 470 — the form for candidates expecting to spend less than $2,000 in total. I am not planning to take contributions from anyone.

And there are contributions I would refuse outright: not a cent from anyone whose interests run counter to the well-being of our parks and visitors. No fossil fuel interests, no developers, no one against social justice or democracy, and absolutely no climate change deniers.

Everyone, housed or unhoused, has a right to be treated with compassion and respect. At the same time, the District's primary responsibilities are keeping parks safe for visitors and protected from wildfire hazards and environmental damage.

The District should coordinate with Alameda and Contra Costa county cities to meet those responsibilities while connecting unhoused individuals with services — supporting outreach, while keeping our parks healthy, welcoming, and available to everyone.

Yes, carefully. Drones and sensor networks can catch wildfires early in inaccessible places; remote sensing can map vegetation across vast areas; wildlife cameras collect data we could never gather by hand. AI is why these tools work at scale.

But their use should be guided by experts so the technology doesn't harm the things it's meant to protect (drone noise can deter nesting birds), and privacy should follow established frameworks with full transparency about what's collected and why. And I would insist on limiting facial recognition in law enforcement: such systems have built-in biases, and properly trained humans should always be in the loop.