Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The San Ramon City Council is scheduled to talk in closed session Tuesday night about selling city-owned property on Boardwalk Place that was once home to the old Mudd’s restaurant.

The closed-door conversation will follow a public discussion with city staff earlier Tuesday evening about why the city needs to sell that site, along with larger considerations on the process for disposing of assets in the aftermath of the dissolution of the San Ramon Redevelopment Agency.

During its open-session meeting, the council will hear from city attorney Bob Saxe, who compiled a report regarding the legal requirements surrounding the proceedings for the former redevelopment agency’s assets, which includes the old Mudd’s site off Crow Canyon Road near the Deerwood Road intersection.

“Specifically,” Saxe wrote, “the question has been asked whether the City Council in its capacity as Successor Agency to the former San Ramon Redevelopment Agency is required to sell the Mudd’s property which was purchased in 2008 with Redevelopment funds. The answer to that question is yes.”

The redevelopment agency was in place for over 20 years, acquiring property for public projects like the Senior Center, Fostoria Way overcrossing and for commercial and residential projects like the Alcosta Mall.

But in 2011, the state legislature dissolved redevelopment agencies across California. “Throughout the state, construction projects,

contractual relationships, ongoing negotiations, loan commitments and a variety of other transactions were put in limbo,” Saxe said.

Successor agencies were created to help wind-down ongoing redevelopment agency projects, and to administer “all assets, properties, contracts, leases, books and records, buildings, and equipment of the former redevelopment agency,” according to the California Government Code.

Properties fall into four potential categories: government purpose properties, housing properties, properties with legally enforceable obligations or properties without these obligations, according to Saxe.

The Mudd’s restaurant property belongs to the last category, meaning that it must be sold, with profits distributed to the taxing entities that would have “received a share of the property tax used to purchase the property had there been no redevelopment agency,” he said.

During closed session immediately after the open session, the council — sitting as the successor agency’s board — will instruct City Manager Joe Gorton on pricing and terms of payment for the sale of the Mudd’s property.

The council’s regular meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. inside the council chambers at 7000 Bollinger Canyon Road.

In other business

* The City Council will also hear a presentation about East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), a community-governed energy provider in Alameda County, with presenters proposing to the council that San Ramon become an EBCE jurisdiction.

The provider would use renewable sources like solar, wind and geothermal for a large percentage of its electricity source. PG&E would still deliver electricity.

In October 2016, Alameda County board of supervisors approved $2.4 million to support the program’s implementation and to create a local business plan. EBCE is set to be the largest community choice energy (CCE) provider in California — with or without Contra Costa jurisdictions — and at this point, includes nearby cities such as Dublin and Livermore.

According to the presentation, the offer extended to Contra Costa jurisdictions includes the following: each jurisdiction that joins will have a seat on the EBCE board of directions, EBCE will absorb all implementation costs of the program, jurisdictions would need to pass the joint powers authority resolution and a CCE ordinance to join and enrollments from Contra Costa jurisdictions are likely to begin in summer 2018.

To be included in 2018 enrollment, EBCE asks for a decision by June 30.

The council is debating wither to join EBCE, MCE Clean Energy or remain with PG&E as its sole electricity provider.

* Council members will hear various special presentation during the regular meeting, including a presentation of the Exchange Club U.S. Constitution Scholarship Competition Winners, a recognition of 2016-17 Student Parks and Community Services Commissioner Raj Dasani, a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to finance division manager Candace Daniels and a recognition of the 2017 Art and Wind Festival title and gold and silver sponsors.

* A couple hours before the regular meeting, the council and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors are set for a joint meeting at 5 p.m. at City Hall to review the first year of the San Ramon Valley 911 Communications Center.

The communications center is a joint emergency dispatch center for the San Ramon Police Department and San Ramon Valley Fire, which has been on-line since June 2016.

Before the center’s opening, dispatch calls were contracted out to the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, but the joint center allows both agencies to be the first to receive emergency calls dialed within San Ramon’s city limits, improving efficiency and response times, according to agency officials.

The center on San Ramon Valley Boulevard also takes redirected calls from the sheriff’s office or California Highway Patrol for Danville and from unincorporated San Ramon Valley locations like Alamo or Blackhawk.

* After the joint meeting and immediately before the regular meeting, the City Council is set to conduct a public hearing regarding the levying of an assessment for the Geologic Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) at 6:30 p.m.

The GHAD area includes West Branch, Gale Ranch, Windemere, Old Ranch Summit and a Bollinger Canyon Road parcel.

According to the staff report compiled by district engineer Robin Bartlett, staff expects to see the residential assessment for 2017-18 increase by 4% to $157.08 per residence, and the non-residential assessment increase from $0.0483 per square foot to $0.0503.

The GHAD was formed in 1990 “to provide a funding mechanism to prevent, mitigate, abate, or control a geologic hazard; and to mitigate or abate structural hazards that are partly or wholly caused by geologic hazards,” wrote Bartlett.

GHAD maintenance has been minimal in recent years due to drought conditions, read the staff report. But rainfall this year has been 145% to 175% of the normal amount, resulting in landslides, erosion damage and other weather-related problems throughout the GHAD.

Last year, staff expected that the 4% levy would only be implemented in 2017-18, as part of the district’s plan to grow its reserve fund to $8 million. However, due to this year’s winter storms and landslides, “an additional one year 4% increase for 2018-19 is warranted,” wrote Bartlett, in part to replace the $1.2 million from the reserve fund that was used for the slides and repairs to Albion Road.

Join the Conversation

6 Comments

  1. The public hearing is expected to draw in numerous objections to the sale of the former Mudd’s, which is an historical landmark in our City. The grounds around the property were visited yearly by elementary schools, Girl Scouts, and numerous visitors who learned about the trees, plants, flowers and vegetation that remains there to date. There is likely wildlife and birds that would need to be studied before the neighboring property can be sold which would result in an expensive CEQA process for the City amongst other costs the City would incur prior to the sale of the property.

    There is no reason the City Council cannot vote to change the category Mud currently falls into and vote to deem it “for government use.” The State is encouraging and fully supportive of preserving our habitat and wildlife and the property can be turned into a nonprofit tourist attraction with a restaurant that could yield revenues for the City. This Council and Mayor need to heed the voices of the residents and not take public hearings as a means to tell the residents what they have already decided. Why are they having a closed meeting before public comment?

    Residents should have a say on one of the few historical landmarks we have and listening to what the residents want after 500 residents voiced objection to the sale is the very least they can do. Alternatives need to be explored. It’s not to be based on some interim attorney’s legal analysis. Other lawyers would find alternatives– trust me, there are numerous ways to work with State laws and accomplish the preservation of nature.

    More development and traffic isn’t what San Ramon needs. We need a Mayor, Council and City Attorney to fight to maintain our quality of life, not work for the developers.

  2. The abandoned property at Mudd’s is also a haven for kids to hang out and smoke weed down by the creek. It may be a good idea to sell the property and put a stop to the local drug sales/getting high hangout as the SRPD tend to look the other way.

  3. The Mudd’s property has been used by the City for many years, as a summer camp venue. My children were campers and later became camp counselors and loved every minute. In addition, on any given day, you will see professional and non-professional photographers use the property as aback drop as it has one of the best lighting and easy access you can find in one location in San Ramon. It would be a shame for the city to give up this small piece of rural countryside amidst ALL of the housing that is going up just blocks away. What will this property be zoned as if it goes for sale? Can more apartments/condos be built on this land? Or is it zoned for a commercial building?

    I agree with Karyne that the city should designate it as government property and use it as an additional city park where extremely dense housing is now coming up.

    But, we have a city council that just wants housing and commercial growth with no sense of balance for open space/park land. It would be interesting to know what the City’s General Plan has stated for this property as that has been the city council’s excuse for all the building going up north of Crow Canyon Road and west of San Ramon Valley Blvd.

  6. I’ve been trying to save Mudd’s for almost ten years. I went back and copied the blogs I wrote about Mudd’s when I was still writing my blogs for the Express. Here is a list of the one’s I found in reverse chronological order.

    v=Jan 25, 2014
    Meeting with Mark on Mudd’s

    Dec 3, 2012
    Disposition of Mudd’s

    Mar 29, 2012
    CCI, Mudd’s, and the Oversight Board

    Feb 9, 2012
    Kerry Marshall answer questions & Virginia Mudd

    Mar 31, 2011
    My Visit to CCG and Mudd?s

    Feb 24, 2011
    There’s nothing tasty about replacing Mudd’s

    What’s particularly ironic is I was the one who told the City Council to buy the Mudd’s property back in 2008 when it was first put up for sale. I wrote a blog or two about it back then. I thought they would make it into an historical site, but instead they were going to sell it to a restaurant owner from Oakland who planned to tear it down and build a Plantation style building for Southern food.

    Fortunately for Mudd’s, but not anyone else, the great recession of 2008 prevented that from happening. But the property has been on the chopping block ever since. I got very little support for saving the property from anyone. Almost no one who had anything to do with Mudd’s, including Virginia Mudd herself, seemed to care about preserving the building.

    I burned out tilting at windmills, or Muddmills, so when this latest Council meeting brought the topic up again, I passed on going. I’m too old and too tired to care, but I hope more of you posting here will do something to save it.

    Rosalind Rogoff
    AKA San Ramon Observer

Leave a comment