Boca Raton planning board unanimously recommends council consider 99‑year lease for 7.8‑acre downtown campus

BOCA RATON, Fla. — The Boca Raton Planning & Zoning Board on Dec. 18 voted 7–0 to recommend that the City Council consider conveying a 99‑year leasehold interest in about 7.8 acres east of Northwest 2nd Avenue for a proposed downtown government campus public‑private partnership.

Deputy City Manager Andy Lukaszek told the board the leases and a related master partnership agreement (MPA) are intended to implement a mixed‑use, transit‑oriented redevelopment adjacent to the Bright Line station. "You're here this evening to talk about the Downtown Government Campus project," Lukaszek said, describing a program that staff said would include about 947 residential units (182 condos not subject to the lease and roughly 708 rental units on city property, 77 of which would be workforce housing), roughly 120,000 square feet of office, about 79,100 square feet of retail and commercial, a 180‑key hotel and a 30,000‑square‑foot grocery.

Brandon Chad, the city's development services director, reviewed the regulatory path should the council move forward: small‑scale comprehensive plan amendments to bring parcels into the Central Business District (CBD), amendments to the Downtown Development of Regional Impact ordinance (No. 4035), creation of a new downtown form‑based zoning framework with subdistricts, and site plan reviews subject to public hearing. Chad recommended the board find the private improvements described in the lease consistent with the comprehensive plan and the amended downtown plan.

Several speakers from the public urged support for the project as a way to revitalize underused surface parking and to take advantage of transit proximity. "The choice is clear: renew or fade away," one resident said, urging the board to recommend adoption. Other residents opposed the proposal, targeting the 99‑year lease term, questioning whether the city would receive fair market value, and arguing that the public should retain control of city land. "What does 99 years look like?" asked a resident who described the term with a list of historical events to emphasize the uncertainty of such a long commitment.

Financial concerns were a recurring theme. Two residents with accounting backgrounds told the board the city's financial modeling used a discount rate that understates commercial project risk. One speaker cited an independent appraisal of roughly $116 million for the site and said using industry commercial discount rates (7–12%) would meaningfully lower the present‑value benefit to the city. Another resident echoed a similar concern, noting a possible roughly $100 million gap between consultant estimates and appraised values.

Supporters pushed back on the opposition's claims, noting the developer reduced the project's footprint during public outreach from a larger earlier concept to the current ~7.8 acres, and that redevelopment near the Bright Line station could increase walkability, add green space and generate revenue for civic improvements. "This project can be strengthened in the civic core," a resident said, praising developer outreach and urging that financial safeguards be included as the plan advances.

Board members framed their vote narrowly. Chair Seville (responding as the chair during roll call) and other members emphasized the planning and land‑use question before them, not lease economics or partner selection. "You're not considering the economics," Lukaszek reminded the board during a clarification; the board's task was limited to whether conveying leasehold interests as a mechanism is advisable from a planning and land‑use standpoint. Several board members voiced financial concerns but said those issues are outside the board's scope.

After public comment, a motion to recommend the lease's advisability passed on a roll call vote recorded as 7–0. The board's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, which staff said will consider the master partnership agreement and the leases in January; a referendum on the project is expected in March.

What happens next: If the council votes in favor in January, staff said the MPA and leases would be set before the project goes to a public referendum in March. Any future private development would undergo separate formal approvals, including site plan reviews and applicable rezonings.

Authorities and next steps referenced by staff included section 13‑62 of the city code (P&Z advisory review) and the DDRI ordinance No. 4035; staff stressed that the board was reviewing planning consistency, not final lease economics.

(Reporting based on the Planning & Zoning Board meeting transcript, Dec. 18.)