RE: NSP Conditions

Dear Chair Newcomb and County Commissioners,

ShelterJH remains committed to ensuring that Northern South Park (NSP) becomes an inclusive neighborhood that meaningfully addresses our housing crisis. The steadfast involvement from the landowners, non-profit partners, elected officials, the public, and countless other stakeholders has made this opportunity possible. While we are optimistic about the future of this neighborhood, our fundamental concerns have not changed, nor have they been sufficiently addressed.

We accept that the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) have passed and that they are the basis for development for NSP, in addition to the Neighborhood Plan (NP). We want to recognize the work to codify minimum densities in the different zones (i.e. 4.5.5.E.6). We know that these binding minimum densities will help ensure that the 70/30 ratio is achieved.

We also appreciate the work of the Planning Commissioners to suggest traffic management and park conditions; however, there is additional progress to be made regarding the deed-restricted housing portion of the Master Site Plan (MSP). The LDRs require that the MSP comply with the NP (4.5.1.a). There are central tenets of the NP that are not represented in the MSP including phasing and integration (NP 16-17).

We ask that the Board attach additional binding conditions to the MSP that will address our concerns outlined below and bring the MSP into alignment with the NP. Firstly, we ask that the applicant submit a meaningful phasing plan that is more detailed than the one provided, specifying a realistic path forward for the concurrent development of free-market and deed-restricted homes.

• Does the Board feel confident that the community will realize deed-restricted homes concurrently with (or before) the free-market development? We are unsure, as the phasing plan in the MSP relies wholly on the deed-restricted developers’ timeline and not the timeline of the free-market construction.
• We ask that you take this opportunity to condition meaningful concurrency to protect the community’s investment in NSP (via the significant upzone and resources spent on the Neighborhood Planning Process) by guaranteeing that locals will be able to access deed-restricted homes in a reasonable timeframe. For example, landowners/non-profit developers could be required to submit a phasing plan for review and Board of County Commissioners approval that links the timing of unrestricted and restricted housing for the purpose of ensuring timely production of restricted housing. Concurrency is even more important to solidify as the NSP units have already been removed from the unit pool and will not be available to other developers if deed-restricted development at NSP is delayed. 

Secondly, we ask that the Board seek more detail regarding the location and type of the affordable, workforce, and unrestricted homes throughout the development. It is imperative that NSP embody a well-integrated neighborhood as outlined in the NP.

• Does the Board feel confident that the variety of deed-restricted homes (based on affordability levels and unit types) will be meaningfully integrated across the neighborhood and amongst the free-market residences and avoid unintended segregation? We are unsure, as the blocks are divided between deed-restricted and unrestricted homes, and there is no specificity regarding where affordable vs. workforce homes will be located, nor how unit types will be placed within the neighborhood.
• We ask that the Board seek additional clarification regarding integration so the value of integration is upheld as represented in the NP.

Thirdly, we request that the Board explore the feasibility of a condition that would revert some of the land, entitlements, or other planning aspect to public control if deed-restricted housing developers seek public funding to achieve the 70/30 ratio. 

• Does the Board feel confident that the deed-restricted portion of NSP will be fully developed without the use of public funds? We are unsure, as the capital gap is significant and represents an unprecedented level of development for the intended deed-restricted developers. Furthermore, the final fundraising need is unknown.
• While the applicant’s team maintains that this endeavor does not and will not necessitate financial public subsidy, we anticipate that the immense capital gap presented in this project may result in deed-restricted developers seeking public funds. If taxpayer funds will be utilized to build the deed-restricted homes in NSP, we ask that you make sure that taxpayers have appropriate opportunities and leverage for input, as any public funding diverted to this project would limit the community’s ability to invest in other initiatives.

We strongly support building the deed-restricted housing our community desperately needs, and we urge the Board of County Commissioners to ensure these concerns are addressed so that NSP fulfills its potential and adheres to the NP as an inclusive, well-planned, and sustainable neighborhood.

Best,

Clare Stumpf

On behalf of ShelterJH board members and membership