BOCA RATON, FL (Boca Post) (Copyright © 2025) — The debate unfolded during Tuesday’s Boca Raton City Council meeting, with residents pushing back on the city’s latest version of the OneBoca campus plan.
Boca Raton’s “One Boca” government campus plan is smaller on paper and heavier on park space than its earlier versions, but the public isn’t buying all of it. Residents packed City Hall on Tuesday night with a steady message: the numbers look better, the renderings look greener, but the details don’t match what they expect from a true public park.
Staff, consultants and the Terra/Frisbie team walked Council through a reworked proposal that pushes all private development east of Northwest Second Avenue, cuts square footage by roughly a quarter and shows Memorial Park more than doubling in size. The presentation leaned hard on an image of a more open, more walkable extension of downtown.
But many in the room said the visuals felt like marketing.
Deputy City Manager George Lukasik recapped how the public-private partnership got here — unsolicited proposals in late 2024, a competitive bid process in early 2025, and months of revisions shaped by community input. Developers echoed that point, saying the design has been “through many evolutions” as they tried to match Council’s direction and neighborhood concerns.
The biggest talking point of the night centered on greenspace. The team repeatedly highlighted 15.4 acres of open areas, playgrounds, lawns and pathways. But residents said the numbers blend real parkland with rooftop lawns, elevated terraces and landscaped podium decks.
Several speakers accused the developer of “padding” the acreage by counting anything green — even if it sits on top of a garage. One resident said the images “look great until you realize half the trees are growing out of a roof.” Another called it “greenspace that isn’t greenspace,” arguing that renderings show lush lawns that, on closer inspection, are actually building tops, courtyards or private amenity areas that don’t function like public parkland.
A longtime neighborhood advocate warned that “every time you zoom in, it’s roof gardens, shade trees on platforms, or courtyards boxed in by buildings,” and urged the city not to count those toward memorial park acreage. Others said the presentation blurs the difference between true preservation of ground-level land and aesthetic landscaping designed to make density appear softer than it is.
Still, the city’s version of the plan includes a wide band of civic and recreation improvements: a rebuilt tennis center with ten courts staying onsite, indoor and outdoor basketball courts, a large informal lawn, a modern playground, a “Banyan village” built around signature trees, and a garden walk with new pathways and natural areas. Staff also pointed to a police and fire rescue substation, a renovated Singing Pines facility for history and children’s programming, and compensating ballfields planned at Sugar Sand Park.
The private portion remains east of Second Avenue, clustered around the Brightline station, with the total footprint trimmed from just under 1.6 million square feet to just over 1.1 million.
Consultants from CBRE laid out the revenue model: a 99-year ground lease with base rent tied to gross revenue, a minimum guarantee pegged to 75% of fair market value, ad valorem taxes on 7.72 acres once private development rises, and a share of “upside” profit beyond an 8–10% yield-on-cost. Over a century, they estimate $4.1 billion in total proceeds to the city, which they discount to $353 million in today’s dollars.
But here again, residents pressed for a clearer picture. Several asked why CBRE’s projections differ so sharply from numbers prepared by independent citizen analysts. One speaker said he’s “a tentative four” in favor after seeing the revisions, but still can’t reconcile the financial gap. Another said the city should run a side-by-side comparison showing the cost of the city building its own campus — without a private partner — so voters can judge the value of the deal.
A separate group questioned the risk profile altogether. One resident described the agreement as a “private equity deal” where a developer can borrow heavily and then sell to a real estate investment trust “five to seven years from now,” leaving the city locked into a 99-year structure while control shifts to future owners. Others asked about lobbying, consultant relationships and whether the process has been transparent enough.
Traffic remained a major flashpoint. Several parents said they are worried about adding thousands of cars into an already congested downtown grid. One said she and her children are “literally terrified every day” crossing Palmetto, and asked why a promised traffic study from August has not resurfaced as the city debates taller buildings, bigger structures and increased density.
City officials said multiple outside checks are underway. The municipal advisor PFM is reviewing projected city costs, expected revenues and discount rates separately from CBRE. Deputy Mayor Fran Nachlas repeated that PFM’s analysis is fully independent and will be released publicly with updated financials.
Looking ahead, ballot language for a March 10 referendum is due to Council on Dec. 2 ahead of a Dec. 5 deadline at the Supervisor of Elections. Planning and Zoning is expected to hear the ground leases on Dec. 18. In January, Council is scheduled to take up the partnership agreement, ground leases, construction management agreement and the master plan — all of which must pass before the question goes to voters.
Mayor Scott Singer thanked residents for their continued engagement, acknowledged the wide split in public opinion and said the project has already changed significantly because of community input. But he also said the city will not make everyone happy as the One Boca debate moves toward a major decision point next spring.
0 Comments