|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The city of San Ramon will now seek permanent ownership of the former Mudd’s property after a potential buyer of the parcel withdrew their offer in light of the high cost of creek mitigation, city officials said Wednesday.
The 2.2-acre parcel at 10 Boardwalk Place was originally purchased in 2008 by the city’s redevelopment agency, but after statewide redevelopment agencies were dissolved in 2011, the city was required to sell the property and return tax revenue back to local districts, according to assistant city manager Eric Figueroa.
After a year of searching for an appropriate buyer of the Mudd’s site, the San Ramon City Council — serving as the board of the successor agency charged with dealing with the former redevelopment projects — had been nearing a deal with local residents, who were planning on building a “nature-themed” educational center on the site, Figueroa said. The identity of the potential buyer has not been disclosed.
But after a recent comparative engineering analysis revealed the cost of creek mitigation, the prospective buyer withdrew their offer, leading the city to start the process of seeking permanent ownership of the land, city officials announced Wednesday afternoon.
“We were committed to finding the right buyer for this special property that would improve a forgotten asset through a true public-private partnership with people vested in our community,” said Mayor Bill Clarkson. “The City Council is hopeful that the state will now recognize that the land no longer has any commercial value and will return ownership of Mudd’s to the City.”
The proposed sale has been contested by some local community members, several of whom expressed the concern that the land, which abuts the Crow Canyon community gardens and is viewed as a natural wilderness area, would be used for further housing developments — or, as Franette Armstrong wrote in an online petition that garnered over 1,000 signatures, “another office building, more traffic.”
But Figueroa said that the city worked hard to find a local buyer who would preserve the property’s park-like qualities.
The vision of the potential buyer, he said, was for the land “to be protected as a de-facto nature preserve rather than bulldozed for offices or commercial buildings.”
Some of the components in the buyer’s plan included community events like a farmers market, the creation of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit to maintain the community garden and the construction of some new community facilities for the public, according to Figueroa.
“In addition,” he said, “the buyer proposed to dedicate a full-time gardener to maintain the gardens, work with the community to establish a master garden program and provide a place for local school children to get their hands dirty as they experienced the farm to table vision pioneered by Virginia Mudd.”
Figueroa said that if the city retains the property, Mudd’s would become part of the adjacent Crow Canyon gardens.
On the grounds that the creek mitigation cost is greater than the appraised value of the land, the council — which met in closed session Tuesday night as the successor agency board — directed City Manager Joe Gorton to request approval from the San Ramon Oversight Board to seek approval from the state to retain permanent ownership of Mudd’s.
The request will be presented at the oversight board’s Aug. 10 meeting.
-
The sale of the Mudd’s property fell through due to the high cost of creek mitigation. (Photo by Erika Alvero) -
The city of San Ramon purchased the property that used to house Mudd’s restaurant back in 2008 with redevelopment funds. (Photo by Erika Alvero) -
The property covers 2.2 acres and is adjacent to the Crow Canyon gardens. (Photo by Erika Alvero)
Adieu Clementine's, hola Casa Mia: San Ramon restaurant closed for rebrandingOctober 21, 2026 12:21 am
Hooray for Mudd’s Land!
Now maybe the City Council will consider keeping it as a park, as it was intended to be when it was purchased.
@Franette – Did you even read this story? That’s what this new owner was supposed to do but they coudn’t afford it.
City is ‘required to sell’
You shouldn’t ignore the parts that don’t fit your agenda.
Dear SR Resident:
I did read the article, of course! The Assistant City Manager said that the buyer wanted to make Mudd’s a “nature center.” That doesn’t translate into a public park with access for everyone.
The City is only required to see this land because it designated “nongovernmental use” in 2013 and again in 2015. If it had listed it as one of the 9 properties the City had purchased to be parks (and Mudd’s was purchased in 2008 to be a park), then it never would have had to go up for sale. All the City has to do to reclaim it is file a third Long Range Property Management Plan redesigning Mudd’s as governmental use. Other cities have done this and gotten back even things like a parking lot! The City can prove it made more than a good-faith effort to sell the land but that repairing the creek slide would cost more than the land itself, no doubt, and no buyer will go for it.
I don’t see what parts of that article I ignored. And, unlike you, I am willing to sign my name to what I write here.
Franette Armstrong
Thank you, Express, for this updated version of the article you posted yesterday. What would we do without you and your reporters letting us know what is going on in our city?
I am thrilled with the latest news that the City is going to try to keep the land because it can’t be sold. Even if it just sits there in its current state, someday some Council with vision will figure out a way to make it and the neighboring garden the magnificent public park it can become.
The decision by the Council is the first step and someday future residents and maybe our children will be thanking them.
Franette Armstrong
Good! Now maybe all the nastiness can stop on social media. I’ve never seen such mean spirited things being said.
I protected Mudd’s for almost ten years when the restaurant building was under constant threat of being torn down. The land was rezoned to Park years ago. The land was always safe from development, but the restaurant building was not. You can go back and read the articles I wrote as “The San Ramon Observer” to save that building. It is architecturally and historically important, and I hope it will be retained in it’s original form.
Blogs on Mudds
https://danvillesanramon.com/blogs/p/2011/02/24/theres-nothing-tasty-about-replacing-mudds
https://danvillesanramon.com/blogs/p/2012/12/03/disposition-of-mudds
https://danvillesanramon.com/blogs/p/2012/03/29/cci-mudds-and-the-oversight-board
https://danvillesanramon.com/blogs/p/2014/01/25/meeting-with-mark-on-mudds