The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 03-03-2026 Late Written CommunicationsCC 3-3-2026 #1 Parkland Ballot Measure Written Communications From:Ravi Rajagopalan To:Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Parkland Ballot Measure – The Sports Center Must Not Be Left Exposed Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:55:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please include the below in written comments for 03/03/26 council meeting agenda item on parkland ballot measure. Dear Mayor Moore, Cupertino City Council, I strongly support placing a parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot. Further I urge the Council to draft it broadly enough to include all city facilities including the Cupertino Sports Center. The current scope falls short. *The Sports Center Has Already Been Targeted* In October 2023, a $76,000 city-commissioned study by Cumming Management Group recommended selling or leasing the Cupertino Sports Center at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard to private developers to finance a new City Hall. The proposal was shelved, but only because the economics didn’t pencil out, not because any legal protection stopped it. A 3-2 council majority could resurrect this tomorrow. Residents deserve better than luck. *Close the Loophole* Because the Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA) rather than Open Space or Public Park, a narrowly drafted measure would leave it completely unprotected. The ballot measure must cover all city-owned facilities regardless of zoning designation, or it will protect meadows while leaving the Sports Center, Community Hall, and other beloved assets exposed to the next developer proposal. *Require Real Thresholds* The measure should require: ∙A two-thirds City Council supermajority before any city facility can be converted to private use — so no quiet 3-2 vote can initiate a giveaway; and ∙A two-thirds voter supermajority to ratify any conversion, consistent with what Milpitas and Santa Clara voters demanded and won in 2016. The Bottom Line The Cupertino Sports Center is not an underutilized asset. It is a community institution. This ballot measure is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect it permanently. Please don’t draft it in a way that leaves the door open. Please include the Cupertino Sports Center and all city facilities in the ballot measure. Respectfully submitted, [Your Name] CSC Member From:Robert Young To:City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject:Parkland Ballot Measure – The Sports Center Must Not Be Left Exposed Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:54:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please include the below in written comments for 03/03/26 council meeting agenda item on parkland ballot measure. Dear Mayor Moore, Cupertino City Council, I strongly support placing a parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot. Further I urge the Council to draft it broadly enough to include all city facilities including the Cupertino Sports Center. The current scope falls short. The Sports Center Has Already Been Targeted In October 2023, a $76,000 city-commissioned study by Cumming Management Group recommended selling or leasing the Cupertino Sports Center at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard to private developers to finance a new City Hall. The proposal was shelved, but only because the economics didn’t pencil out, not because any legal protection stopped it. A 3- 2 council majority could resurrect this tomorrow. Residents deserve better than luck. Close the Loophole Because the Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA) rather than Open Space or Public Park, a narrowly drafted measure would leave it completely unprotected. The ballot measure must cover all city-owned facilities regardless of zoning designation, or it will protect meadows while leaving the Sports Center, Community Hall, and other beloved assets exposed to the next developer proposal. Require Real Thresholds The measure should require: ∙ A two-thirds City Council supermajority before any city facility can be converted to private use — so no quiet 3-2 vote can initiate a giveaway; and ∙ A two-thirds voter supermajority to ratify any conversion, consistent with what Milpitas and Santa Clara voters demanded and won in 2016. The Bottom Line The Cupertino Sports Center is not an underutilized asset. It is a community institution. This ballot measure is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to protect it permanently. Please don’t draft it in a way that leaves the door open. Please include the Cupertino Sports Center and all city facilities in the ballot measure. Respectfully submitted, Robert Young CSC Member From:Derek Chen To:City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject:The Parkland ballot measure Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:14:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Cupertino City Council, I am writing to express my strong support for placing a comprehensive parkland protection measure on the November 2026 ballot. I respectfully urge the Council to ensure that the measure is drafted broadly enough to include all city-owned facilities, including the Cupertino Sports Center. Limiting the scope would leave significant community assets vulnerable. The Sports Center Has Already Been Considered for Disposal In October 2023, a $76,000 city-commissioned study by Cumming Management Group recommended selling or leasing the Cupertino Sports Center at 21111 Stevens Creek Boulevard to private developers to help finance a new City Hall. Although that proposal was ultimately shelved, it was due to financial feasibility — not because any legal safeguard prevented it. Under current rules, a simple 3-2 Council vote could revive such a proposal at any time. Our community’s public assets should not depend on political circumstance for their protection. Close the Existing Loophole Because the Cupertino Sports Center is zoned Public Buildings (BA) rather than Open Space or Public Park, a narrowly written parkland-only measure would not protect it. The ballot language must apply to all city-owned facilities regardless of zoning classification. Otherwise, while open fields may be safeguarded, valued community institutions such as the Sports Center, Community Hall, and other city properties could remain exposed to future privatization efforts. Establish Meaningful Safeguards To provide genuine protection, the measure should include: A two-thirds City Council supermajority requirement before any city facility may be converted to private use, ensuring that no simple majority can advance such action; and A two-thirds voter approval requirement to ratify any conversion, consistent with the strong protections adopted by voters in neighboring cities such as Milpitas and Santa Clara in 2016. The Bottom Line The Cupertino Sports Center is not an underutilized asset — it is a vital community institution serving residents of all ages. This ballot measure presents a rare opportunity to provide permanent protection for the places that define our city. I respectfully ask that the Council draft the measure in a way that fully safeguards the Cupertino Sports Center and all city-owned facilities, leaving no loopholes for future disposal without clear and substantial public consent. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Derek Chen CSC Member CC 3-3-2026 #8 Vacating a Portion of Public Right-of-Way on Mary Avenue Written Communications From:Connie-Comcast Swim5am To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:Written Communications City Council 2026-3-3 Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 8:45:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please add my comments to the written record. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham 2026-03-03 CC Written Communications; Mary Avenue Villa Project Agenda Item 8 Good Evening, Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: Thank you to the City Staff for their excellent work and to the City Attorney for opinions we can rely upon that the project meets all legal requirements. I urge you to approve the recommendations for Agenda Item 8. Exempt from CEQA, and Vacation of a portion of public Right of Way located along Mary Avenue. The project strikes a good balance among City needs: housing, roadway, parking, pedestrians and bicycling. Sincerely, Connie L. Cunningham 38 year resident and, currently, Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only. From Connie's iPhone From:Mark Zavislak To:Public Comments Subject:Re: Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 5:29:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To supplement my comment, the parcel to be vacated is in active use by the southbound bike lane, and the parcel is also being used at this very moment by students from Homestead High who are currently running across it. On Mon, Mar 2, 2026, 15:09 Mark Zavislak <comment2026@markzavislak.com> wrote: Dear City Council Members, In order to pass the resolution vacating a portion of Mary Avenue (APN 326-27-053), you must make a finding that such portion is "unnecessary" for present use as well as prospective use. However, as a resident of the neighborhood, I drive over that portion of the road several times a day, as do countless other individuals. Cars are literally driving over Parcel 1 as you consider this resolution. While long-term prospective use is under vigorous debate, present use is not. The proposed portion to be vacated is currently very much necessary for present use as an active, integrated part of the traffic network whose removal cannot be safely evaluated on paper. Until such time as the street is reconfigured to entirely remove that portion of Mary Avenue from active public use, you have no choice but to vote no on this resolution. The resulting impacts after reconfiguration will be easier to understand, and all residents and other road users will be fully informed about whether to make the change permanent. Sincerely, Mark From:Lina To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council Subject:Public Comment March 3 2026 City Council Meeting Items 8 and 9 Mary Ave Project Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:18:50 PM Attachments:Kids N Fun festival occupancy projection.png MPSP appendix A-41 Recs Maintain Mary Ave parking configuration.png Hexagon parking counts April 2025.png MSPS vendor parking quote.png I - Applicant Parking Exhibit.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers: The Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety submits this formal correspondence to highlight critical factual inconsistencies and legal risks associated with tonight’s Agenda Items 8 and 9. While the Council has expressed a strong desire to support housing goals, proceeding with the street vacation and surplus land declaration on the current administrative record constitutes a documented Abuse of Discretion that jeopardizes the City’s legal standing. 1. "Surplus" Inaccuracy: The City’s Own Records Prove Necessity To declare land "Surplus" or "Unnecessary for Public Use" (Streets & Highways Code § 8324), the City must prove the land is not needed. The City’s own concurrent records prove the opposite: The Westport Admission: On May 20, 2025, this Council reviewed the neighboring Westport Project (Building 1), which has a 19-space on-site parking deficit. In that record, the City’s "mitigation" was to suggest residents park 8 miles away in San Jose (Oakmont Properties). The Contradiction: It is legally indefensible to declare Mary Avenue "surplus" land for the Villas project while simultaneously acknowledging that the project next door is so starved for infrastructure that its residents must be sent to another city. 2. Violation of the Adopted 2024 Memorial Park Specific Plan (MPSP) Approval of Item 8 directly contradicts the City’s newly adopted planning documents. The 2024 MPSP Parking Study (Recommendation #6) explicitly mandates: "Maintain current parking configuration along Mary Avenue." * A "Yes" vote tonight ignores the City’s own expert study which signals Mary Avenue as the sole unrestricted relief valve for a regional park where 87% of internal lots are closed during peak events. Ignoring an adopted Specific Plan recommendation to facilitate a land disposition is a violation of General Plan consistency requirements. 3. Engineering a "Functional Failure" on Mary Avenue .The City’s reliance on the Hexagon Study—conducted during Spring Break (April 14–18, 2025)—is a failure of due diligence. Baseline Error: By counting cars when Garden Gate Elementary was closed, the City ignored the primary daily users of this artery. It also excluded study during festival conditions. Krupka Consulting - new report: New data shows that removing these 95 spaces will push parking occupancy to 157% during regional events. Under General Plan Mobility Policy M-1.2, this is a "functional failure." You cannot find a project consistent with the General Plan if it intentionally breaks the circulation network. Recall that the only other park-adjacent residential parking (Ann Arbor, Christensen, Lauretta Dr.) is permit-only. Vacating Mary Ave is a direct loss of essential civic infrastructure. 4. The "De Anza" Myth Relying on De Anza College parking to mitigate the loss of Mary Avenue is legally speculative: De Anza is moving to a paid model ($5–$10), which drives visitors onto free neighborhood streets. Measure G expansion (the 1,000-seat Events Center) will consume De Anza's internal capacity. The City cannot legally vacate a public asset based on the hope that a third-party private entity will provide a low-cost or free alternative. 5. Correcting the Legal Sequence The "backward" procedure employed here—where the Planning Commission was asked to ratify Council’s pre-determined decision—violates Government Code § 65402. Legal findings of consistency must precede the commitment to dispose of public land. This procedural error, combined with the unaddressed lead and arsenic soil contamination, makes the current CEQA exemption invalid. Conclusion: A "moral" vote does not provide immunity from state law. We urge the Council to protect the City from the liability of an indefensible record. Do not declare this land "surplus" when your own Westport and Memorial Park records prove it is essential. We request that you vote NO on Items 8 and 9 and direct staff to perform a full EIR that addresses the whole of the action. Sincerely, Lina Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety Attachments: Memorial Park Specific Plan Parking Study 2024 Hexagon Parking Study Report November 2025 Krupka consulting Feb 25, 2026 Attached PDF is from the May 20, 2025 CC meeting on Westport Project Cupertino Assisted Living - Project Modification Back Up Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) Parking Needs: Use Expected Count Typical Parking Need Onsite Stalls Potential Surplus Reasoning for Delta Alternative for Potential Overflow Residents 171 Units 14 Stalls = 8% Utilization Rate (# of Cars / # of Units) 3 11 Residents will be encouraged against bringing cars. Onsite stalls will be dedicated to concierge vehicles. Concierge vehicles take Residents w/in 25 min radius, nearby Oakmont Properties have surplus parking (6.5-8.0 miles away in SJ) Staff 110 Staff / 3 Shifts = 37 Staff per Shift 10-13 Stalls = 25-35% of Max 40 Shift Staff 10 3 75% of staff at nearby Oakmont Properties take alt transit, staff will be incentivized through vouchers, etc. Bus, Bike, Hopper, Carpool, De Anza, Use of Retail Space when not open (i.e. night shift) Visitor 30 Daily throughout Day = 5-10 at given time 5-10 Stalls = 17-33% of Daily Visitors 5 5 Guest count is variable on day/time, estimated 30 guests per day spread across 3-6 visit times Uber/Carshare, De Anza Public Parking Subtotal - Senior Assisted Living 37 Stalls 18 Stalls 19 Stalls Retail 4 Stalls per 1,000 GSF on 4,000 GSF 16 Stalls 16 0 N/A Total 53 Stalls 34 Stalls 19 Stalls ALTERTNATIVE: REMOVE RETAIL SF Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls to Resident/Staff Parking 16 Stalls to Residential/Staff Parking Total - Senior Assisted Living 53 Stalls 34 Stalls Impacts to Building 2 (Senior Independent) if Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) doesn’t get built: 1. Added Annual Maintenance Costs per REA Budget: Year 1 REA Budget $97,945 Building 1 Share $50,931 2. Loss of 7 Parking Stalls to be provided following construction of Building 1 7 Parking Stalls Cost PSF SF per Stall Total Cost Underground $ value $300.00 325 $682,500 Surface $ value $60.00 325 $136,500 3. Loss of Common Open Space (Building 2 Open Space included in Building 1’s Central Green) Park SF Cost PSF Total Cost Estimated Cost of Park 12,250 $170 $2,082,500 includes Hard + Soft Costs From:Lina To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council Subject:Mar 3 2026 CC meeting follow-up video of 10 ft wide City truck Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:03:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please include this Follow-up to tonight's hearing. Here are photos of the truck I showed tonight at the City Council meeting that City staff denied as being City-affiliated. It pulled into the Cupertino City Public Works lot at 10555 Mary Ave. This is confirmed in this video recording of its path. https://photos.app.goo.gl/uSkABhCspxcz9myf8 truck 1.png truck 4 end route.png Lina Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Ave Safety From:Lina To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council Subject:Mary Ave project and wide service truck safety issues- photos for Mar 3 2026 City Council meeting Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:05:31 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image006.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City, Please include this for the public record. The Coalition has continuous video recording in addition to photos below of Cupertino public works vehicles (with city logos) on Mary Ave. · Approximately 16 Public Works vehicles per hour, including utility trucks, boom trucks, garbage trucks, and semi-trucks with trailers, travel through Mary Avenue. Semi-truck with trailer: up to 10 feet wide. Parked cars are seen on Mary Ave parked into the buffer lane, appearing to avoid the traffic lane. Utility truck 8 to 10 feet wide Garbage truck 8 to 10 feet wide Flatbed utility trailer 8-10 feet wide Boom truck 8 to 10 feet wide Lina Coalition for Mary Ave Safety CC 3-3-2026 #9 Mary Avenue property Exempt Surplus Land Written Communications From:Connie-Comcast Swim5am To:City Clerk; City Council Subject:Written Communications City Council 2026-3-3 Agenda Item 9 Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 9:29:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Please add my comments to the written record. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham 2026-03-03 CC Written Communications; Mary Avenue Villa Project Agenda Item 9 Good Evening, Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers, City Manager, and City Attorney: Thank you again to the City Staff for their excellent work and to the City Attorney for opinions we can rely upon that the project meets legal requirements. I urge Council to approve the recommendations for Agenda Item 9: Find the project exempt from CEQA, and Declare the Mary Avenue property to be exempt surplus land pursuant to the provision of the Surplus Land Act codified in the California Government Code. This project strikes a good balance among City needs: housing, roadway, parking, pedestrians and bicycling. Sincerely, Connie L. Cunningham 38 year resident and, currently, Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only. From Connie's iPhone From:Lina To:Public Comments; City Clerk; City Council Subject:Public Comment March 3 2026 City Council Meeting Items 8 and 9 Mary Ave Project Date:Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:18:50 PM Attachments:Kids N Fun festival occupancy projection.png MPSP appendix A-41 Recs Maintain Mary Ave parking configuration.png Hexagon parking counts April 2025.png MSPS vendor parking quote.png I - Applicant Parking Exhibit.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mayor Moore, Vice-Mayor Chao, and Councilmembers: The Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety submits this formal correspondence to highlight critical factual inconsistencies and legal risks associated with tonight’s Agenda Items 8 and 9. While the Council has expressed a strong desire to support housing goals, proceeding with the street vacation and surplus land declaration on the current administrative record constitutes a documented Abuse of Discretion that jeopardizes the City’s legal standing. 1. "Surplus" Inaccuracy: The City’s Own Records Prove Necessity To declare land "Surplus" or "Unnecessary for Public Use" (Streets & Highways Code § 8324), the City must prove the land is not needed. The City’s own concurrent records prove the opposite: The Westport Admission: On May 20, 2025, this Council reviewed the neighboring Westport Project (Building 1), which has a 19-space on-site parking deficit. In that record, the City’s "mitigation" was to suggest residents park 8 miles away in San Jose (Oakmont Properties). The Contradiction: It is legally indefensible to declare Mary Avenue "surplus" land for the Villas project while simultaneously acknowledging that the project next door is so starved for infrastructure that its residents must be sent to another city. 2. Violation of the Adopted 2024 Memorial Park Specific Plan (MPSP) Approval of Item 8 directly contradicts the City’s newly adopted planning documents. The 2024 MPSP Parking Study (Recommendation #6) explicitly mandates: "Maintain current parking configuration along Mary Avenue." * A "Yes" vote tonight ignores the City’s own expert study which signals Mary Avenue as the sole unrestricted relief valve for a regional park where 87% of internal lots are closed during peak events. Ignoring an adopted Specific Plan recommendation to facilitate a land disposition is a violation of General Plan consistency requirements. 3. Engineering a "Functional Failure" on Mary Avenue .The City’s reliance on the Hexagon Study—conducted during Spring Break (April 14–18, 2025)—is a failure of due diligence. Baseline Error: By counting cars when Garden Gate Elementary was closed, the City ignored the primary daily users of this artery. It also excluded study during festival conditions. Krupka Consulting - new report: New data shows that removing these 95 spaces will push parking occupancy to 157% during regional events. Under General Plan Mobility Policy M-1.2, this is a "functional failure." You cannot find a project consistent with the General Plan if it intentionally breaks the circulation network. Recall that the only other park-adjacent residential parking (Ann Arbor, Christensen, Lauretta Dr.) is permit-only. Vacating Mary Ave is a direct loss of essential civic infrastructure. 4. The "De Anza" Myth Relying on De Anza College parking to mitigate the loss of Mary Avenue is legally speculative: De Anza is moving to a paid model ($5–$10), which drives visitors onto free neighborhood streets. Measure G expansion (the 1,000-seat Events Center) will consume De Anza's internal capacity. The City cannot legally vacate a public asset based on the hope that a third-party private entity will provide a low-cost or free alternative. 5. Correcting the Legal Sequence The "backward" procedure employed here—where the Planning Commission was asked to ratify Council’s pre-determined decision—violates Government Code § 65402. Legal findings of consistency must precede the commitment to dispose of public land. This procedural error, combined with the unaddressed lead and arsenic soil contamination, makes the current CEQA exemption invalid. Conclusion: A "moral" vote does not provide immunity from state law. We urge the Council to protect the City from the liability of an indefensible record. Do not declare this land "surplus" when your own Westport and Memorial Park records prove it is essential. We request that you vote NO on Items 8 and 9 and direct staff to perform a full EIR that addresses the whole of the action. Sincerely, Lina Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety Attachments: Memorial Park Specific Plan Parking Study 2024 Hexagon Parking Study Report November 2025 Krupka consulting Feb 25, 2026 Attached PDF is from the May 20, 2025 CC meeting on Westport Project Cupertino Assisted Living - Project Modification Back Up Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) Parking Needs: Use Expected Count Typical Parking Need Onsite Stalls Potential Surplus Reasoning for Delta Alternative for Potential Overflow Residents 171 Units 14 Stalls = 8% Utilization Rate (# of Cars / # of Units) 3 11 Residents will be encouraged against bringing cars. Onsite stalls will be dedicated to concierge vehicles. Concierge vehicles take Residents w/in 25 min radius, nearby Oakmont Properties have surplus parking (6.5-8.0 miles away in SJ) Staff 110 Staff / 3 Shifts = 37 Staff per Shift 10-13 Stalls = 25-35% of Max 40 Shift Staff 10 3 75% of staff at nearby Oakmont Properties take alt transit, staff will be incentivized through vouchers, etc. Bus, Bike, Hopper, Carpool, De Anza, Use of Retail Space when not open (i.e. night shift) Visitor 30 Daily throughout Day = 5-10 at given time 5-10 Stalls = 17-33% of Daily Visitors 5 5 Guest count is variable on day/time, estimated 30 guests per day spread across 3-6 visit times Uber/Carshare, De Anza Public Parking Subtotal - Senior Assisted Living 37 Stalls 18 Stalls 19 Stalls Retail 4 Stalls per 1,000 GSF on 4,000 GSF 16 Stalls 16 0 N/A Total 53 Stalls 34 Stalls 19 Stalls ALTERTNATIVE: REMOVE RETAIL SF Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls Reallocate 16 Retail Stalls to Resident/Staff Parking 16 Stalls to Residential/Staff Parking Total - Senior Assisted Living 53 Stalls 34 Stalls Impacts to Building 2 (Senior Independent) if Building 1 (Senior Assisted Living) doesn’t get built: 1. Added Annual Maintenance Costs per REA Budget: Year 1 REA Budget $97,945 Building 1 Share $50,931 2. Loss of 7 Parking Stalls to be provided following construction of Building 1 7 Parking Stalls Cost PSF SF per Stall Total Cost Underground $ value $300.00 325 $682,500 Surface $ value $60.00 325 $136,500 3. Loss of Common Open Space (Building 2 Open Space included in Building 1’s Central Green) Park SF Cost PSF Total Cost Estimated Cost of Park 12,250 $170 $2,082,500 includes Hard + Soft Costs