80B - AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pre -Commitment of Affordable Housing Funds and a Ground Lease to Related Companies July 2, 2019 Page 10 with Related's title company, tax credit investor, and legal counsel, it was confirmed that splitting the buildings through the existing parcel line would require extensive discussions for approval. As a result, in order to develop the site plan as -is, parcel line changes would be necessary in order to make the development amendable to key stakeholders in the Project. The following options were explored during the proposal process: 1) Separate parcels (same site plan) — Two options were explored to retain the separate ownership of the parcels. With the first option (1 a), the parcel line would be changed and the City and County would enter a covenant and agree that both lots are considered "tied" and hold property as one (1) parcel. With the second option (1b), the parcel lines would be changed to divide the property, and the buildings and units would be separated through a building firewall(s) in a manner that would allow the property to be divided into two different and independent properties. The two options were reviewed by City of Santa Ana's Planning and Building Agency which advised that they will not consider lot tie agreements of parcels with separate owners for the purpose of the development with buildings that cross property lines as it is prohibited in the California Building Code. Firewalls will only serve to separate a building with fire resistance ratings at the property line and a "lot tie" and many easements would still be required. Retaining separate ownership of the parcels would also pose challenges with the authority for jurisdiction over the review and issuance of permits which would complicate the development and permit process. 2) Separate parcels (different site plan with separate buildings) — In this option, the Project would be redesigned to account for two individual buildings and site plans. Additional agreements between the City and County allowing an easement from the County parcel through the City parcel would be required. Additional variances to reduce setback requirements imposed on each parcel and between buildings to minimize design impact and maximize units would also be required. This option would create two separate projects which would also affect the competitiveness of the Project in applying for 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit financing due to the smaller size of each individual project. 3) Consolidated Parcels (same site plan) — In this option, ownership of the City and County parcels would be consolidated under one ownership. Two options were explored. In the first option (3a), the City or County would sell the land to the other landowner (City/County) and the Parcels will be under one ownership. In the second option (3b), the City and County would execute a "grant deed" for joint ownership of the parcels. Joint title to the property would be held as "Tenants In Common." Following discussion with the County, City and County staff recommend to develop the properties underjoint ownership. Consolidating ownership of the site retains the integrity of the site plan and does not require a redesign or complicate the development, permitting or lending processes. City and County staff recommend that each landowner (the City and the County) enter into negotiations on a "grant deed" to merge the ownership of the parcels into one joint ownership by the City and County, and to convey an interest in the respective parcels into a jointly held "tenants in common" ownership structure, with title for the joint property to be held as Tenants in Common (TIC). This TIC structure would be comprised of an ownership arrangement in which the two jurisdictions would jointly own a single parcel formed from APN Nos. 398-092-13 and 398-092-14, and title would be held individually to the extent of each party's proportional interest in the combined two parcels. FOODIME1