Agenda Item AGENDA STAFF REPORT ASR Control 25-000987
MEETING DATE:	03/24/26
legal entity taking action:	Board of Supervisors
board of supervisors district(s):	2
SUBMITTING Agency/Department:	County Executive Office (Approved)
Department contact person(s):	Thomas A. Miller (714) 834-6019
	Brian Bauer (714) 834-5663

Subject: Primary and Secondary Developer Selection for 1725 West 17th Street Development

ceo CONCUR

County Counsel Review

Clerk of the Board

Concur

No Legal Objection

Discussion

3 Votes Board Majority

Budgeted: N/A

Current Year Cost: N/A

Annual Cost: N/A

Staffing Impact:

# of Positions:

Sole Source: N/A

Current Fiscal Year Revenue: N/A

Funding Source: N/A	County Audit in last 3 years: No
Levine Act Review Completed: N/A

Prior Board Action: 10/14/2025 #S25H, 5/20/2025 #92, 8/9/2022 #26

RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):

Select TAP BFR Acquisitions LLC as the Primary Proposer and 1725 W 17th Street LLC as the Alternate Proposer for the development of County of Orange-owned property located at 1725 West 17th Street, Santa Ana pursuant to Government Code Sections 25515, et seq.

Authorize the Chief Real Estate Officer or designee to negotiate an Option and Lease Agreement with TAP BFR Acquisitions LLC as the Primary Proposer for the development of the property located at 1725 West 17th Street, Santa Ana, generally consistent with TAP BFR Acquisitions LLC’s proposal, mutually acceptable to the County and the Primary Proposer and return to the Board of Supervisors for final approval, if and when there is agreement with TAP BFR Acquisitions LLC on all terms and conditions.

Authorize the Chief Real Estate Officer or designee to negotiate an Option and Lease Agreement with 1725 W 17th Street LLC as the Alternate Proposer for submission to the Board for final approval if an agreement is not successfully negotiated with TAP BFR Acquisitions LLC on all terms and conditions within 60 days.

SUMMARY:

Selection of TAP BFR Acquisitions LLC as the Primary Proposer and 1725 W 17th Street LLC as the Alternate Proposer for the County-owned property at 1725 West 17th Street in Santa Ana will authorize the Chief Real Estate Officer, or designee, to negotiate an Option and Lease Agreement with the Primary Proposer, or with the Alternate Proposer if necessary, for Board of Supervisor’s approval, in order to maximize the value of the County’s property and support economic growth through job creation, infrastructure improvements, community-serving retail, and the development of affordable housing.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The Orange County Health Care Agency (HCA) operates one of the largest health care facilities owned by the County of Orange (County) on a 9.3-acre site located at 1725 West 17th Street, Santa Ana (Property). Commonly known as the 17th Street Clinic, the facility provides core public health services and programs to Orange County residents (HCA Clinic). The Property is bounded by 17th Street on the south, College Avenue and Kindred Hospital Santa Ana on the east, an existing single-family development on the north and most of its westerly border, and a small commercial development at its southwesterly border.

In 2018, the County completed a comprehensive condition assessment of the 17th Street Clinic, which determined that the facility’s major building systems had reached the end of their useful life and that rehabilitation would be significantly more costly than replacement. As a result, the County began evaluating long-term redevelopment options to ensure continued delivery of public health services while responsibly managing County assets.

On September 20, 2021, CEO Real Estate released a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking a public-private partnership to develop a new HCA Clinic, either on the Property or at an alternate location, along with revenue-generating uses on the site. On August 9, 2022, the Board of Supervisors (Board) selected 17th Street Partners, LLC as the Primary Proposer for this RFP, however this proposer later withdrew, prompting the County to reassess its development strategy. As part of this re-evaluation, the County conducted updated space programming and financial analyses, which demonstrated that relocating the HCA Clinic to an offsite location would provide substantial cost savings, ensure continuity of care, and allow the Property to be fully redeveloped for revenue-generating uses. Based on these findings, the County determined that redeveloping the Property through a public-private partnership, in compliance with the Surplus Land Act and Government Code Sections 25515, et seq., represented the most viable and fiscally responsible approach.

On May 20, 2025, the Board authorized the issuance of an RFP, pursuant to Government Code Sections 25515, et seq., for the development of the Property as a mixed-use project with an affordable housing component. The RFP sought a qualified development team to enter into a public-private partnership (P3) to finance, design, lease, construct, manage, and operate the project. CEO Real Estate released the RFP on May 22, 2025, and received five proposals by the September 25, 2025 deadline from Cesar Chavez Foundation (Cesar Chavez); 1725 W 17th Street LLC (C&C/Waterford); Jamboree Housing Corporation and Bayspring Real Estate (Jamboree/Bayspring); Storm Properties, Inc. (Storm); and TAP BFR Acquisitions LLC (TruAmerica/The Academy Group).

On October 14, 2025, the Board of Supervisors received and filed the proposals for consideration by the Board, as required by Government Code Section 25515.2(f). Based on the established evaluation criteria, four of the five proposing teams were invited to participate in interviews.

EVALUATION PANEL SCORES AND RANKINGS

A five-member evaluation committee comprised of public and private sector subject matter experts in areas including real estate development, finance, construction and project management, affordable housing, and local government reviewed and ranked the proposals based on established criteria and participated in the interview process. Evaluation of the written proposals was followed by oral interviews. The top four Proposers were invited to present their team, outline their proposed development plan, and respond to questions from the committee. Based on the evaluation and selection criteria outlined in the RFP, the committee determined the final rankings of the Proposers as follows:

Proposer	Subtotal Written Scores	Subtotal Interview Scores	Total Scores (Out of Points)	Rank
TruAmerica/The Academy Group	3780	2545	6325	1
C&C/Waterford	3725	2315	6040	2
Jamboree/Bayspring	3660	1695	5355	3
Cesar Chavez	3115	1300	4415	4
Storm	2245	Did not advance to interview	N/A	N/A

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

TruAmerica/The Academy Group

- Development Team: TruAmerica (developer), The Academy Group (co-developer), Affordable Housing Access (capital structuring), AO Architecture, Ground Review.

- Proposed Development: 300 residential units (40 percent affordable, 60 percent market-rate) and 21,000 square feet (SF) of commercial space with community open space.

- Financing Approach: Private capital structure with approximately 60 percent debt and 40 percent equity, without reliance on competitive public subsidies for core capital stack.

- Option Term: Initial 18-month option term with two additional six-month extensions. (Up to 30 months)

- Lease Term: Initial 70-year lease term with two optional 10-year extensions. (Up to 90 years)

- Ground Lease Proposal: Greater of $300,000 annually or 6 percent of gross revenues, 5 percent of Net refinance and sale proceeds.

- Stabilized Rent: $573,496 annually at stabilization.

- Additional Costs: As part of their proposal, TruAmerica/The Academy Group requested that the County fund demolition of the existing improvements and deliver the Property as a vacant site prior to lease commencement. However, this request is inconsistent with the terms of the RFP and will be addressed during negotiations and subject to Board approval.

C&C/Waterford

- Development Team: C&C Development and Waterford Property Company (co-developers), KTGY (architect), MJS Landscape Architecture, C&V Consulting, The Diamond Group.

- Proposed Development: 360 residential units (mixed-income affordable housing); limited commercial and community-serving uses.

- Financing Approach: Tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds and institutional investors.

- Option: Initial 24-month option term with two additional six-month extensions. (Up to 30 months)

- Lease Term: 99-year lease term.

- Ground Lease Proposal: 2% of Effective Gross Income upon stabilization, and 2% of Net refinance and sale proceeds.

- Stabilized Rent: $316,400 annually at stabilization.

Jamboree / Bayspring

- Development Team: Jamboree Housing Corporation and Bayspring (co-general partners), Gensler (architect), Snyder Langston (general contractor).

- Proposed Development: Approximately 311 residential units (affordable and workforce housing) and approximately 50,000 SF of medical office space with a café and public plaza.

- Financing Approach: Mixed private capital and public subsidies including LIHTC, AHSC, and State Infrastructure funds.

- Option Term: Initial 5-year option term with two additional three-year extensions (Up to 11 years)

- Lease Term: Initial 55-year term with four 10-year extensions (Up to 95 years)

- Ground Lease Proposal: Multiple ground leases proposed for project parcels, which would require additional structuring and negotiation.

- Stabilized Rent: $436,000

Cesar Chavez

- Development Team: Cesar Chavez (developer), ONYX Architects, EPTDESIGN, The Arroyo Group.

- Proposed Development: 321 residential units, predominantly affordable housing, with limited community-serving commercial space and amenities.

- Financing Approach: Tax-exempt bonds, 4 percent LIHTC, AHSC funding, and deferred developer fee.

- Option Term: Initial 36-month option term with one additional 12-month extension (Potential Option Term up to 48 months)

- Lease Term: 55-year lease term.

- Ground Lease Proposal: $1 annual ground rent. No County participation in sale or refinancing proceeds.

Storm

- Development Team: Storm (developer)

- Proposed Development: 303 residential units, including market-rate townhomes and affordable senior apartments, with no commercial or mixed-use components.

- Financing Approach: Construction loans, sponsor equity, limited partner equity, and LIHTC for senior housing. Financial documentation provided was limited relative to RFP requirements.

- Option Term: 36-month option term.

- Lease Term: 99-year lease.

-Ground Lease Proposal: $800,000 annually escalating every five years, with no participation in sale or refinancing proceeds.

COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

The evaluation committee reviewed five proposals and identified TruAmerica/The Academy Group and C&C/Waterford as the proposers most closely aligned with the County’s objectives for mixed-use development, fiscal return, implementation feasibility, and long-term value maximization of the Property.

TruAmerica/The Academy Group. The TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal offered a balanced mixed-use program with both affordable and market-rate housing, commercial uses, and a private financing structure that minimized reliance on competitive public subsidy programs thereby enhancing schedule certainty and reducing implementation risk. While the proposal includes market-rate and affordable units, it does not provide a graduated range of affordability levels.

The proposal provided the most competitive fiscal return to the County, including a base rent of $300,000 per year with 3 percent annual escalations, percentage rent equal to 6 percent of gross revenues, and County participation equal to 5 percent of net sale and refinancing proceeds. Financial analysis indicated that the projected stabilized ground rent under the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal would be approximately 1.8 times higher than the C&C/Waterford proposal.

TruAmerica/The Academy Group also proposed commencement of base rent during the construction period, providing earlier revenue to the County. The proposal demonstrated a feasible and near-term development path, including an entitlement strategy utilizing ministerial approval pathways under State law applicable to surplus public land, which would minimize discretionary approvals and reduce entitlement and CEQA-related schedule risk. The proposed option and ground lease framework are closely aligned with the County’s standard P3 terms, reducing negotiation complexity and implementation risk.

C&C/Waterford. The C&C/Waterford proposal provided a strong affordable housing program with community-serving uses and a credible, experienced development team. The proposal included a large residential program with a significant affordable housing component and a broader mix of affordability levels, along with limited non-residential space, architectural design, site planning, and open-space programming. The financial structure relies on tax-exempt multifamily housing revenue bonds and institutional capital markets, introducing dependency on market conditions and capital availability.

The C&C/Waterford proposal demonstrated a feasible entitlement strategy utilizing the AB 2011 ministerial approval pathway applicable to qualifying affordable and mixed-income housing developments, providing a low-risk approval framework. The proposal includes a $200,000 option-period payment, with County revenue commencing after construction start through milestone payments totaling $700,000. Ongoing County participation is limited to ground rent equal to 2 percent of effective gross income upon stabilization, along with 2 percent participation in net sales and refinancing proceeds. However, the proposal offered a lower projected fiscal return to the County and a more limited mixed-use program, with no commercial uses, compared to the top-ranked proposal.

Jamboree/Bayspring. The Jamboree/Bayspring proposal presented a robust mixed-use concept incorporating medical office, affordable housing, and workforce housing components; however, the proposal included a more complex deal structure, extended option periods, and reliance on multiple competitive public subsidy sources, which introduced implementation and timing considerations. The proposal also requested several deviations from the County’s standard lease framework. The evaluation committee noted limited demonstration of delivery experience by the identified lead medical office development entity for comparable-scale projects. While the proposal projected competitive fiscal terms, the deal structure complexity, reliance on competitive subsidies, and deviations from County standard lease terms introduced greater implementation, financing, and schedule risk compared to the selected proposals.

Cesar Chavez. The Cesar Chavez proposal emphasized deeply affordable housing and community-serving uses; however, it proposed a nominal ground rent structure of $1 per year, which would result in minimal direct fiscal return to the County. The proposal included limited diversified revenue-generating components or discretionary financial participation for the County, and was therefore less responsive to the RFP objectives related to long-term value capture and revenue generation from County-owned land, as contemplated under Government Code Section 25515 et seq. In addition, the proposal relied heavily on competitive public subsidy sources, including tax-exempt bonds, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funding, which introduced additional timing and award uncertainty.

Storm. The Storm proposal focused on a lower-density, residential-only development with market-rate townhomes, and senior housing. The proposal did not include mixed-use or community-serving components and provided limited documentation regarding financial capacity and project feasibility. In addition, the proposal did not identify key development team members, including an architect, engineer, general contractor, or financing partners, limiting the County’s ability to assess team qualifications, delivery capability, and implementation readiness. While the proposal included a fixed escalating ground rent structure, the proposal did not include audited financial statements, lender or equity commitment letters, nor sufficient development cost details to allow the evaluation committee to independently verify feasibility and the developer’s capacity to sustain the proposed rent obligations. Development cost assumptions and financial projections were not supported by sufficient documentation, which introduced uncertainty regarding project viability and long-term fiscal delivery to the County.

SELECTION RATIONALE

The TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal provides the County with multiple diversified revenue streams, including an upfront option payment, earlier rent commencement during the construction period, percentage rent tied to project revenues, and participation in sale and refinancing proceeds. In contrast, the C&C/Waterford proposal includes an upfront option payment, construction milestone payments and percentage rent, with ground rent commencing upon stabilization and lower participation in project upside. As a result, the C&C/Waterford proposal allocates a greater portion of project revenues to the developer, resulting in lower projected rent and more limited long-term revenue participation for the County compared to the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal.

The TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal is projected to generate approximately 1.8 times the stabilized annual ground rent compared to the C&C/Waterford proposal, providing greater predictable annual revenue and long-term fiscal upside for the County. TruAmerica/The Academy Group’s proposal offers both earlier revenue generation and stronger long-term fiscal performance while delivering affordable housing and community benefits.

The evaluation committee determined that both proposals met the RFP requirements and presented implementable development concepts with experienced teams and feasible entitlement strategies. However, the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal provided a more balanced mixed-use program, higher projected fiscal return, and a private financing structure that reduced reliance on competitive public subsidy programs, thereby enhancing schedule certainty and reducing implementation risk. In addition, the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal is more closely aligned with the County’s objective to leverage publicly owned land to generate long-term fiscal value under Government Code Section 25515 et seq.

The C&C/Waterford proposal provided a strong affordable housing program, community-serving uses, and a low-risk entitlement pathway, but offered lower projected fiscal return and a more limited mixed-use program compared to the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal. While the proposal included meaningful community benefits, the financial structure provided less predictability and diversified revenue to the County over the lease term.

Based on these factors, the evaluation committee ranked TruAmerica/The Academy Group first and C&C/Waterford second and recommends their selection as the Primary and Alternate development teams, respectively. The selected proposal reflects a balance between delivering affordable housing, supporting community benefits, and maximizing long-term fiscal value and implementation feasibility, consistent with the County’s fiduciary responsibilities to steward publicly owned land under Government Code Section 25515 et seq.

CEQA COMPLIANCE:

This action is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and is therefore not subject to CEQA, since it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The approval of this agenda item does not commit the County to a definite course of action in regard to a project since the action authorized herein is the selection of a developer to lease, develop, construct, manage, and operate a mixed-use development. The developer would be responsible for obtaining all required permits and environmental approvals. This action does not approve the Project for construction until CEQA compliance occurs. This proposed activity is therefore not subject to CEQA. Any future action connected to this approval that constitutes a project will be reviewed for compliance with CEQA.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Summary of Option and Ground Lease Financial Terms

Category	TruAmerica/The Academy Group	C&C/Waterford
Initial Option Payment	$300,000 upon execution of Option Agreement	$200,000 upon execution of Option Agreement
Option Extension Payments	$50,000 for each of up to two six-month extensions	None
Construction Period Payments	Base rent begins during construction period	$700,000 in post-construction milestone payments ($350,000 at months 12 and 24)
Base Rent	$300,000 annually with 3% annual escalation	None
Percentage Rent	6% of gross revenues; County receives greater of base rent or percentage rent	2% of Effective Gross Income upon stabilization
Sale / Refinancing Participation	5% of net proceeds	2% of net proceeds
Lease Term	70 years with extension options	99 years

Projected Fiscal Comparison

TruAmerica/The Academy Group projects stabilized gross revenues of approximately $9.6 million, while C&C/Waterford projects stabilized gross revenues of approximately $15.9 million. Although the C&C/Waterford proposal reflects higher overall project revenues due to a larger residential program, TruAmerica/The Academy Group’s higher percentage rent structure results in significantly greater projected revenue to the County. As a result, a greater share of project revenues under the C&C/Waterford proposal is retained by the developer, yielding lower projected rent to the County compared to the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal.

At stabilization, projected annual rent to the County under the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal is approximately $573,000, compared to approximately $316,000 under the C&C/Waterford proposal, representing approximately 1.8 times greater fiscal return to the County. This comparison does not include additional County participation from net sales or refinancing proceeds, which is also expected to be higher under the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal due to the higher participation rate.

The TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal provides the most competitive fiscal return to the County while also delivering affordable housing and community-serving uses, consistent with the County’s fiduciary responsibility to maximize long-term value from County-owned land under Government Code Section 25515 et seq.

Projected Stabilized Operating Revenue to the County

Metric	TruAmerica/The Academy Group	C&C/Waterford
Projected Gross Revenue (Stabilized)	Approximately $9.6 million	Approximately $15.9 million
Percentage Rent Rate	6.0%	2.0%
Projected Annual Rent to County (Stabilized)	Approximately $573,000	Approximately $316,000
Relative Fiscal Return	Based on projected stabilized annual rent, the TruAmerica/The Academy Group proposal is expected to generate approximately 1.8 times greater revenue to the County compared to the C&C/Waterford proposal.

Note: Projections are based on proposer-submitted financial models and subject to negotiation and market conditions.

STAFFING IMPACT:

N/A

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Evaluation Panel Scores and Ranking
Attachment B - 17th Street RFP - Detailed Proposal Summaries
Attachment C - Project Location Map
Attachment D - Government Code Sections 25515, et seq.