December 2, 2021

Dear Mr. Perlman and Austin Housing Finance Corporation leaders:

We write on behalf of the 3511-3515 Manor Road Task Force and JJ Seabrook neighborhood to
summarize our discussions regarding the 3511-3515 Manor Road affordable and permanent
supportive housing project as well as what we believe are agreed upon contents of the RFP.
Furthermore, we strongly hope these discussion points inform the entire process (soliciting and
selecting developers and nonprofit partners for this project as well as community engagement).

Up to this point, we have agreed that the RFP will explicitly solicit project proposals that include:
● 200+ deeply affordable residences
● ~60 of residences will be reserved for permanent supportive housing
● Parking should be underground with access exclusively to Manor Rd
● All sides of property should have outward-facing interactive street frontage
○ Greenwood Av housing should address and complement the single family scale across
the street
○ Pershing Trail should be publicly accessible / interactive
○ Manor Rd ground floor should be commercial / nonprofit / publicly accessible
● The number of multi-bedroom units for families will be maximized.

We reiterate the essential importance of requesting proposals that substantively integrate the project
into our neighborhood fabric, especially in 3 main ways: a. existing resources; b. physical /built/ green
environment; and c. interpersonal neighborly interactions. These aspects are interconnected and if
integrated appropriately will allow synergism to produce a cohesive community and contribute to the
project's long-term success. Thus, RFP should ensure the desired benefits and needs to be met as
expressed by our neighborhood are clearly incorporated. The RFP also should indicate explicitly that
we desire a focus on those of whom might most benefit from our local resources and become an
integral part of our community. Moreover, this synergetic integration should be incentivized
throughout the entire project process. (See Addendum A.)

We discussed some lessons learned from the Tannehill project that are to be incorporated into the
process with this Affordable Manor project. For example, we think essentially important are
approachable summary proposals and "community input” evaluation component. (See Addendum B.)

We presented our JJSNA meeting poll results following the November city-community meeting hosted
by AHFC with 3 concerns about the Affordable Manor project:
● Prioritization of community benefits
● Number of dwelling units this site should support
● Populations we (JJSN) currently support well
(See Addendum C for survey highlights of the 18 respondents.)

The Kensington Apartments is one of our neighborhood’s most affordable complexes for residents
living on a fixed income. We conducted a recent survey (11/18/2021) in which residents were asked to
share input on current access to services, transportation and community spaces. (See Addendum D
for survey link and resident response details.)
Note, some critical questions remain.

One unresolved issue is the nebulous definition for the permanent supportive housing and the
idiomatic expression of “housing continuum” as specific to the affordable Manor project. The vision
and expectations should be made explicit sooner than later - i.e. not left for submitting proposals to
articulate. To what extent will the RFP solicit proposals for housing developments to address the
“entire continuum” of support service needs? Will there be a focus on permanent or transitional
housing or both? What is the evidence that 2 buildings are better than an integrated complex?

We have serious concerns as some types of supportive housing and scale would be inappropriate in
this location and thus detrimental to the success of the whole project and its relationships with the rest
of our community.

Another question is how the affordable housing will be prioritized for low-income households
previously displaced or at-risk of being displaced from the area. Like the City’s Tannehill project, we
want this priority, however, we desire to be intimately involved in the process. Retaining our
neighborhood diversity will require proactiveness. We suggest a TWO-PART contact database be
created now: part one - existing local resources and networks; and part two - recruiting past and
future displaced priority residents and their families. The urgency here is substantial given the project
timeline and the rate at which neighbors, particularly renters and historic elder homeowners, are being
displaced. As indicated elsewhere in this document, we strongly desire the RFP and solicited
proposals utilize a strong proactive holistic approach that is clearly defined from the start.

Finally, we want to confirm that the best ways for on-going engagement of JJ Seabrook neighbors is:
A. to utilize the SpeakUpAustin forum (for those with internet access).
B. to request E-MLK Contact Team help with supplies (paper, stamps, etc.) and liaison with
community members, especially to inform and engage those without computers / smartphones.
C. to continue JJSNA/Mueller Manor Road Task Force efforts and dialog.

We look forward to AHFC’s response to these issues, either as part of the 3rd remaining
city-community meeting hosted by AHFC or continued dialog with our Affordable Manor Task Force.
Thank you for enabling us to more fully participate in this important process. A number of firsts were
mentioned in these discussions – we will be proud to be part of setting an excellent example for
Austin’s affordable housing.

Sincerely,
the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association Executive Committee
(Liz Johnson, Michael Brennan, Elizabeth Greenwood, and Dianna Dean Holman)
and the Affordable Manor Task Force
(Delia Brownson Hindman -co-chair, Andrew Clements - co-chair,
Ben Heimsath, Michael Maney, Toni Templeton)
Addendum A. RFPs must indicate real integration into our neighborhood fabric
We have identified at least 3 main aspects for a successful affordable Manor project:

1. Capitalize on immediate neighborhood’s already existing resources, including:

○ American Red Cross
○ SAFE Alliance
○ Boys & Girls Club
○ Motion Media Arts
○ Maplewood Elementary and a future AISD Middle School as well as daycares,
aftercare, and Montessori programs
○ Elder communities (Wildflower Terrace & Franklin Gardens)
○ Faith communities (Bahai, Quaker Friends, St. James Missionary Baptist, New Bethel,
etc.)
○ Medical facilities (DaVita dialysis clinic, FastMed Urgent Care, Dell Children's Medical
Center, Integral Care, etc.)

2. Develop the physical / built / green environmental aspects, such as:

○ accessible courtyard / greenspace / roof-top gathering space
○ a community garden /
○ roof-top gardens / gathering space [neighbor architects specialize in green roofs]
○ fruit trees, shade garden [we are in a high priority tree area]
○ outdoor classroom, playscape, exercise area
○ a community room,
○ a barbequing / picnic space, a dog run/park

3. Foster social neighborly connections.

Again, these aspects are interconnected and must be thoughtfully considered and purposefully
integrated.

The built environment will either be a physical barrier or it can synergistically foster social
connections as well as contribute to all aspects of residents’ health (e.g., physical, mental, emotion).
For example, publicly accessible spaces where current long term, recently arrived and future
residents can mix and mingle free of charge over shared interests/endeavours will ensure true
community growth and success.

Currently, our neighborhood possesses a healthy diversity in so many respects

(e.g., ethnicity, income, age, etc.). We don't want to lose this! Thus, the project must be carefully
planned to further foster this. Inspired design of much needed housing range -from larger
family-friendly units and perhaps intergenerational with accessibility - would allow extremely
beneficial synergism with our existing local residents, businesses, nonprofits, and resources. Also to
this end, the priority feature to identify and recruit displaced / potentially displaced residents, historic
neighbor families, and eligible current renters should be attended to now early in the project process.

(Back to Summary Letter)

Addendum B. Tannehill Project: lessons learned TO APPLY to Manor Project
Some of the key lessons cited by the East MLK - Contact Team that should be utilized in the City’s
affordable housing process are given here in context for very strong consideration in our affordable
Manor project:
● Require developers to create a 2-3 page summary of their project for a non-developer
audience’s quick approachable review. Similarly, request developers create a 2-3 minute
video to explain their proposal in an engaging way.
● Allow "community input component" - either via distribution of points based on the proposal
that gets the most votes ("Proposal with the most community votes gets 10 additional points,
2nd most gets 8 additional points, etc.") OR designating community voting as its own phase in
the process. This would clearly announce which proposal is the "community input” winner.
● Ranked-choice scoring ("Please number these proposals from 1 as the best, and 10 to the
worst, from your perspective) OR Top-Choice selection (Please select your top 3 options).
This would give the decision makers more information about what the residents think about the
proposals.
● Consider filtering proposals down to manageable top-tier (e.g., top 5) Information- overload
can result in exhaustion for volunteer, citizen participants, causing dis-engagement. (If
transparency is an ultimate priority or other reason exists for full consideration, this should be
stated.).
● Allow paper surveys and a phone number where residents can leave a voicemail response.
This is an especially important option to engage the full community, many of whom do not
have computers/smartphones.
● Insert the Contact team as a formal step. For example, every-other-week status updates,
detailed conversations about the City's priorities for a given project, how this current
development project fits into AHFC's annual/multi-year planning for affordable housing.
“We could also vote separately from the general resident survey, because our input is
informed by our members' participation in ongoing development projects in our area. The
Contact Team is meant to be a citizen group that supports the city in its decision making
processes around development, and proactively notifying us about these new processes sets
us all up for success.”
● Disaggregate votes & comments to easily highlight those from the residents of the
property's immediate zip code (plus possibly the bordering zip codes) from all city residents.
Many City analyses are being done by zipcode & disaggregating to capture local nuances.
● Revise rubric and prompts for the developers that encourage them to tackle multiple aspects
than just housing alone including the city’s affordability pillars including, for example: job
retraining, food insecurity, education and childcare, prioritizing local workers, etc.. There could
be bonus points or a category in the rubric for addressing more than housing. (Please see
Addendum A regarding our emphasis for synergistic integration.)

(Back to Summary Letter)

Addendum C JJSNA poll highlights

Top 5 community benefits priorities (18 respondents):

● Affordable housing for retired public servants and teachers (14/18 neighbors).
● Shared greenspace (14/18 neighbors).
● Pedestrian enhancements (13/18 neighbors).
● Onsite support services (10/18 neighbors).
● Ground floor commercial (9/18 neighbors).

Neighbors were split on the # of dwelling units the site can support (17 respondents)
● The site can support <200 [140 deeply affordable and 60 PSH] units (10/18 neighbors)
● The space can support >360 units [60 PSH] (4/18 neighbors).
● More information is needed (3/18 neighbors).

Populations neighborhood sees our community supporting well (14 respondents)

● Elders living on a fixed income (14/14 neighbors).
● Single-parent families and victims of domestic violence (13/14 neighbors).
● People with intellectual and physical disabilities (10/14 neighbors).
● Youth experiencing homelessness (7/14 neighbors).
● People working to recover from addiction (6/14 neighbors).
● New ideas (3/14 neighbors) including larger families and intergenerational residents.

(Back to Summary Letter)

Addendum D. Kensington Apartments’ Survey
Residents (13 total) gave input on current access to services, transportation and community spaces.
(Complete survey linked here.)
Top services residents needed more access to were mental health therapy, dental, medical,
addiction treatment/counseling/rehab and food pantry.
While most respondents used the bus and walked, most respondents requested increased access
to use of a car. Most cited cost and hours or operation as the primary obstacle to accessing
transportation.
Top community spaces residents use are sidewalks, library, computer and laundry room. That being
said, residents requested increased access to community spaces/resources most specifically for an
exercise room and community garden. And common themes regarding what would improve access
were communication and transportation.

Summary of Kensington Resident Survey

● Services Accessed:
○ Medical - 6 Dental - 6 Vision - 4 job training - 2
○ Education - 1 Financial - 1 Childcare - 1 mental health - 1
○ Addiction Recovery / Counseling / Rehab - 1
○ Housing - 1 Food bank - 1 Public Safety - 1
● Services Would like Increased Access to:
○ mental health therapy - 5 Dental - 5 Medical - 4
○ Addiction recovery counseling/rehab - 4 Food Pantry - 4
○ Childcare - 3 Financial - 3 Job training - 3
○ Education - 2 Vision - 2
○ Library - 1 Physical Therapy - 1 Clothing Swap - 1
● Transportation Accessed:
○ Bus - 9 Walk - 6
○ Personal Auto - 3 Metro access - 3
○ Bicycle - 2 Motorcycle - 2 Rideshare/service - 2
● Transportation Would like to use More:
○ Personal Auto - 5 Bus - 3 Metro Access - 3
○ Carpool - 2 Ride share/ service - 2
○ Walk - 1
● Transportation Obstacles:
○ Cost - 5 Hours of Operation - 5
○ License Status - 3 Commute Distance - 3
○ Comfort / Care - 1
● Community Spaces Accessed:
○ Sidewalks - 6 Library - 5 Computer - 5 Laundry - 5
○ benches/seating - 4 Public Trash Cans - 4 Wi-fi - 4
○ Park - 3 Food trucks - 3 Greenbelt / trails - 3
○ Recycling / Composting - 2 exercise room - 2
○ Outdoor BBQ/Gas Grill - 2
○ Playground - 1 shared kitchen - 1 Community Garden - 1
● Community Spaces Would like Increased Access to:
○ Exercise Room - 5 Community Garden - 5
○ Wi-fi - 3 Laundry room - 3 Food Trucks - 3
○ Library - 3
○ benches/seating - 2 Gaming / Community Room - 2
○ Shared Kitchen - 2 community garden - 2
○ Computer - 1 Outdoor BBQ / Gas Grill - 1 Outdoor Sink - 1
○ Recycling / Composting - 1 Greenbelt / trails - 1
○ Sidewalks - 1 Public Trash cans - 1 Playground - 1
○ shared kitchen - 1 Park - 1
○
● What would improve access to community spaces / resources / services / transportation?
○ 24 hour bus service
○ Transportation
○ Information / Communication
○ Money
○ Flyers
○ Tenants meetings of local residents
○ Door tags
○ More Community Space in HOA / New Housing to be Developed
○ Having them Offered
○ Free Community Garden

(Back to Summary Letter)