ICRC Final Report — original pdf

Backup

Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission of Austin, Texas January 2022 Final Report District Map adopted October 6, 2021 Certified October 27, 2021 Presented to the City October 29, 2021 page 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgments ....................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary .................................................................................... 5 Why ICRC: The origin story .......................................................................... 6 Commission Members .................................................................................. 8 Commissioner Errol L. Hardin (District 1) ........................................................ 9 Commissioner Selina Yee (District 1) .............................................................10 Commissioner Sara Inés Calderón (District 2) .................................................11 Commissioner Hoang Le (District 3) ..............................................................12 Commissioner Brigham Morris (District 3) ......................................................13 Commissioner Sterling Lands II (District 4) ....................................................14 Commissioner Prabhu Kannan (District 5) ......................................................15 Commissioner Eugene Schneider (District 6) ..................................................16 Commissioner Camellia Falcon (District 7) .....................................................17 Chair Christina Liu Puentes (District 7) ..........................................................18 Commissioner Joshua Blank (District 8) .........................................................19 Commissioner Shaina Kambo (District 9) .......................................................20 Commissioner Erin Dempsey (District 10) ......................................................21 Vice-Chair Luis Gonzalez (District 10) ...........................................................22 Challenges and Constraints .........................................................................23 Methodology: Public Input ...........................................................................24 Methodology: Mapping ................................................................................26 District Overviews ......................................................................................28 Final 10 District Map...................................................................................29 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 3 Table of Contents District 1 Details ........................................................................................30 District 2 Details ........................................................................................32 District 3 Details ........................................................................................34 District 4 Details ........................................................................................36 District 5 Details ........................................................................................38 District 6 Details ........................................................................................40 District 7 Details ........................................................................................42 District 8 Details ........................................................................................44 District 9 Details ........................................................................................46 District 10 Detail ........................................................................................48 Closing remarks .........................................................................................50 Appendix A: 2021 ICRC Values and Norms .....................................................51 Appendix B: 2021 ICRC Timeline ..................................................................52 Appendix C: 2021 ICRC Public Feedback ........................................................55 page 4 Acknowledgments The Commission extends its deepest gratitude to the people who helped produce Austin’s city council maps for this decade. Thank you to City of Austin staff Matt Dugan, Patricia Fraga, and Lisa Rodriguez for helping the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) navigate city systems at lightning speed. Thank you to City Demographer Lila Valencia, Caroline Webster with the City Attorney’s Office, and City Auditor Corrie Stokes for their support of the ICRC and its work. Thank you to the ICRC staff for your relentless energy and optimism, including administrative manager Christine Granados, legal counsel David Richards, and mapping specialist George Korbel. Special thanks to Peck Young for both his advocacy and everpresent support. We would like to thank the Community Impact Newspaper, Telemundo, Fox 7, the Austin Monitor, The Austin American Statesman, KUT, and The Austin Chronicle for their coverage of the redistricting process. We also appreciate the many venues across Austin that opened their doors to the ICRC, least of all through the COVID-19 pandemic, to allow us to solicit public input. Thank you to the Dell Jewish Communi- ty Center, Gus Garcia Recreation Center, Dove Springs Recreation Center, Northwest Recreation Center, Mayfield Cottage, South Austin Recreation Center, Travis County Community Center at Oak Hill, LBJ Wildflower Center, George Washington Carver Mu- seum, and Austin ISD. Most of all, we would like to thank our fellow Austinites for their civic engage- ment, without which this process would not have been possible. We hope that we made the citizens of Austin proud for having an independent citizens redistricting commission, one that entirely belongs to the people, by the people. 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 5 Executive Summary “Let the people draw the maps.” – Austinites for Geographic Representation, 2012 As established by Austin city code Article II, Section 3, the Independent Cit- izens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) has the sole legal standing to create and adopt maps for the City of Austin’s City Council districts while maintaining strict independence from influence by the city council. On October 6, 2021, after weeks of deliberation and several drafts, the ICRC voted unanimously to adopt a new map of Austin’s city council districts to be in place for the next ten years. Against the constraints of delayed 2020 Census data and the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2021 ICRC held over 40 open meetings, including 20 public forums across the city, and certified the final map by the deadline of November 1 as established by the City Charter. The ICRC stringently abided by the seven redistricting criteria provided by the charter, further detailed in the methodology section. Additionally, the Commission collaborated on a shared set of values and norms that guided the work (See Appen- dix A). Throughout the process of generating the map, the principles listed below informed the rationale for redistricting outcomes. Equal representation: at the core of redistricting is equal and fair representa- tion, including for historically underrepresented communities as defined and pro- tected under federal law, on the city council. Each district should have as close to the same number of city residents as possible, approximately 96,185 based on the 2020 United States (U.S.) Census. Independent input: an independent redistricting process allows residents to have a voice in how their community is shaped without political influence. The integrity of the redistricting process lies in the Commission’s integration of Austin voices. Rapid growth and change: an independent redistricting process allows the ICRC to focus on redrawing district boundaries based on population growth and movement rather than concerns about or considerations of the outcome of any election. page 6 Why ICRC: The Origin Story Commissioner Application Process 319 applicants Over 300 Austin residents applied for a seat on the ICRC in 2020. 60 applicants 3 independent auditors from a pool of 44 CPAs formed an applicant review panel (ARP) and whittled the list of 270 down to 267 and finally to 60. . 8 commissioners City Auditor randomly selected the first 8 commissioners from the 60 applicants. Presented Jan. 22, 2021 6 commissioners The ICRC selected the final 6 commissioners to serve on the board. Entire ICRC in place by its meeting on June 20, 2021 In 2012, Austin voted to set a standard for an open and transparent mapping pro- cess through the joint implementation of a 10-1 city council structure along with the creation of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) to draw the boundaries for those 10 single-member council districts. In 2013, Austin became the first city in the country to have its city council districts drawn through the volun- teerism of a completely independent group of Austinites. These historic milestones not only changed the city’s election system, but also its representation, providing a model for cities nationwide. The following election year, the makeup of the Austin City Council shifted into one that more closely represented the city’s diverse commu- nities. Three hundred nineteen (319) Austin residents applied to the Commission the year prior to its formation. The City Auditor’s Office randomly selected three indepen- dent auditors from a pool of 44 certified public accountants (CPAs) to form an appli- cant review panel (ARP), which selected 60 qualified applicants based on their voter registration history, participation in recent city council elections, metrics of analytical skills, impartiality, and appreciation of Austin’s geography and diversity. Applicants were disqualified if they had any political conflict(s) of interest, and they must have lived and voted in Austin for a minimum of five years. In January of 2021, the ARP drew eight names at random to serve on the Com- mission. The first eight commissioners were: e Why ICRC: The Origin Story 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 7 Erin Dempsey Luis Gonzalez Errol Hardin Prabhu Kannan Dr. Sterling Lands Hoang Le BJ Morris Eugene Schneider These commissioners were tasked with selecting six additional members to bring the ICRC to a total of 14 commissioners, including one student representative. These initial members spent three months deliberating the second six members, prioritizing geographical diversity across the ten districts, gender, race/ethnicity, age, and pro- fessional experience. The 2021 ICRC resulting from this process consists of members who reside in all ten city council districts, and reflects the racial/ethnic diversity of Austin, and range in age from 24 to 80. The second six commissioners were: Joshua Blank Sara Inés Calderón Camellia Falcon Shaina Kambo (student representative) Christina Puentes Selina Yee On June 2, 2021, the Commission unanimously selected Christina Puentes as Chair and Luis Gonzalez as Vice Chair. page 8 Commission Members The 2021 Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission posed for a photograph, after certification of the Austin City Council district map, at their meeting at the Permitting and Development Center (PDC), 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr. in Austin on Oct. 27, 2021. Commissioners from left to right are: First row – Vice Chair Luis Gonzalez (D7), Chair Christina Puentes (D7), Hoang Le (D3), Selina Yee (D1) and Sara Inés Calderón (D2). Second row – Joshua Blank (D8), Sterling Lands (D4), Shaina Kambo (D9), Errol Hardin (D1), Eugene Schneider (D6) and Erin Dempsey (D10). Not pictured were commissioners Camel- lia Falcon (D7), Prabhu Kannan (D5) and BJ Morris (D3). – Amy Dang Photography 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 9 District 1 Commissioner Errol L. Hardin Hardin is a native Austinite who attended Austin public schools and graduated from Reagan High School. He is a former Ama- teur Athletic Union (AAU) Track and Field Coach and is a founding member of the Austin Striders Track Club. Hardin also swam for the East Austin Givens Park swim team, which helped to integrate the Austin Parks and Recreation Citywide swim meet held at Deep Eddy Pool in West Austin during the 1964-68 period. He has authored two fictional works with the purpose of giving voice and visibility to the African American experience and con- tributing to the tapestry of world literature. He completed doctoral studies in Education-Organizational Leadership and earned a mas- ter’s degree in Christian Studies – Pastoral Ministry from Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Arizona and earned a bachelor’s de- gree in Business Management from Concordia University in Austin. He has worked in Human Resources Management in the government sector for 21 years. Errol worked for Motorola Semiconductors for 20 years. He also served on the Board of Directors for Austin Habitat for Humanity 1997-2001; served as the Chair of the Texas State Human Resources Association (TSHRA); and currently serves on the Board of Di- rectors of Foundations for the Homeless. D1 Map Details on page 30 page 10 District 1 Commissioner Selina Yee Yee grew up as a child and great-grandchild of immigrants in Lake Providence, a northeastern Louisiania town. She studied architecture, sociology, and cultural studies at Tulane Universi- ty. When she moved to Austin in 2013, she parlayed publishing, media, marketing, and advertising gained in New York City into a career in MarTech. She has volunteered consistently since 2000 with causes related to mental health; disaster relief; and financial, residen- tial and educational inequity. She completed Austin’s CityWorks Academy in 2019 to better understand how to leverage her pas- sion and commitment for effecting change. Yee’s personal experiences have informed her understand- ing of how laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act and Jim Crow can have lasting impact across generations. Serving on the Indepen- dent Citizens Redistricting Commission has been an honor for her and she hopes to be able to contribute to Austin’s sense of community and agency for years to come. She is an avid pool player and plant mom. Some of her favorite activities in District 1 include jogging at the Boggy Creek, Walnut Creek and Little Walnut Creek Greenbelts or in her neighborhood of North Acres, where she lives a mile away from her mother and brother, checking out an outdoor movie at Community First Village, and listening to mu- sic at Skylark Lounge. D1 Map Details on page 30 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 11 District 2 Commissioner Sara Inés Calderón Calderón has lived in South Austin exclusively – first in 2006 as a reporter for ¡ahora sí! at The Austin Amer- ican-Statesman, and later as a resident of District 2 in 2014 to pursue a career in software engineering. She was inspired to submit an application to join the Commission during the George Floyd protests against police violence in the summer of 2020. The work and passion of the protestors inspired her to do something to combat racial inequality in Austin, one of the most racially segregated cities in the country. Since coming back she’s made Austin her permanent home. She has worked at various tech startups in town, as well as community and non-profit organizations, such as Women Who Code Austin, to create events and platforms for more women and peo- ple of color to consider careers in technology. Her favorite things about living in District 2 are, above all, how awesome her neighbors are and the sense of community tied to the area. Some of her favorite District 2 hot spots include: Taquería Arandinas, The Little Darlin’, China Harbor, Mornin’ Donuts, El Pollo Rico, and tons of other great places that just happen to be across the street in other districts. Most recently Calderón began focusing on her company, Tercera, working with young engineers in a training capacity and pairing them with entrepreneurs to build mobile ap- plications for iOS and Android. Outside of work she enjoys learning about cybersecurity, gardening and learning about herbal medicine. D2 Map Details on page 32 page 12 District 3 Commissioner Hoang Le Le has lived in three different neighborhoods in District 3 – the Riverside/Montopolis area, Congress/Ben White area and Chicon/4th Street area. Le enjoys frequenting the late-night food trucks on East Riverside and exploring the Southshore District. He likes the quiet, serene scenery of trails and paths along the Colorado River and Longhorn Dam. Some of his fa- vorite things about District 3 are all that East downtown has to offer from bars and restaurants to the eclectic homes and neighborhoods. Le also enjoys all the things that the Roy G. Guerrero Park area offers like disc golf, secret beach, volleyball courts, baseball fields, etc. D3 Map Details on page 34 District 3 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 13 Commissioner Brigham Morris Morris has lived in District 3 since 2007. The landscape has evolved over the 14 years he has resided in the neighbor- hood. District 3 is Morris’ favorite because it is a gateway to the rest of the city from Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA). It has so much to offer from Roy G. Guerrero Park to the Boardwalk at Lady Bird Johnson Lake. He enjoys the hid- den Riverside ranchettes where Samuel Grey Horse “the Sixth Street Cowboy” regularly rides his horses and mules down the road. Morris appreciates the rich history of the area and, albeit waning, diversity that District 3 brings to Austin. D3 Map Details on page 34 page 14 District 4 D4 Map Details on page 36 Commissioner Sterling Lands II Lands, a senior pastor of Great- er Calvary Bible Church, is a civil rights and commu- nity activist, youth advocate, and author. He partic- ipated in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. He has been active in the National Association for the Advance- ment of Colored People (NAACP), Opera- tion Push and is a member of the Warrior Gospel Band. Born in Baton Rouge, Lou- isiania, Lands has a doctorate of Divinity degree from Master’s International School of Divinity. He has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from the Southern University School of Engineering in Baton Rouge, Louisiania. Lands moved to Austin in the fall of 1984 where he continued his crusade for justice, quality education and equity for African Americans. Lands found- ed the Eastside Social Action Coalition in 2000, which is just one of numerous coali- tions he spearheaded and engages in pro- tests for equal rights. 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 15 D5 Map Details on page 38 District 5 Commissioner Prabhu Kannan Kannan has over 20 years of experience lead- ing teams and influencing mean- ingful change. He is passionate about giving back to the communi- ty and bringing together people, technology, and thought to deliver solu- tions and services to help others. He is a motorcycle enthusiast, and a fan of the outdoors. He loves camping, spending time with family and is always equipped with a camera to capture life’s moments. Some of the things Kannan likes to do in District 5 include: watching original events at the Zach Theatre, Long Center or Zilker’s Au- ditorium Shores; hitting the Barton Creek Greenbelt early for a hike with friends, family, and pups; grabbing tacos at one of the local triple T’s – Trippys, Torchy’s, or Taco Deli; chilling at the Barton Springs Pool; going to Cosmic or Merit for coffee; snapping a picture with the Greetings From Austin mural; and visiting South Congress and South First streets when they have great events showcasing the best of Austin artists, jewelry designers, and craftsmen. page 16 District 6 Commissioner Eugene Schneider Schneider retired to Austin in 2008 after a 44-year work- ing career in public education primarily as a community college instructor and administrator in Kansas, Colorado, and Arkansas, with additional teaching experience in Missouri and Minnesota. He earned a doctorate in higher education administrator from Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas, a master’s in English from Washington University/St. Louis, and a bachelor’s in philosophy/English from St. Louis University. He and his wife Kathy served as U.S. Peace Corps volunteers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, East Africa, shortly after they married in 1965. Since arriving in Austin, Schneider and his wife have been active in many community education and service organizations, striving to achieve access, equity, opportunity and justice for all resi- dents. He considers serving as an ICRC commissioner to be a unique opportunity to further those causes, and believes that knowledge and accurate information are among the most critical tools for reaching those goals. Schneider and his wife, Kathy, have three adult sons, and six grandsons living in Austin and Seattle. D6 Map Details on page 40 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 17 D7 Map Details on page 42 District 7 Commissioner Camellia Falcon Falcon works for equality and the dignity of life in her profes- sion and personal endeavors. Fal- con owns Codices Consulting, a di- versity consulting firm that advises organizations on their diversity pro- grams and strategies. Her 20+ year career that has spanned the United States and international countries, public and private entities, has focused on work that aligns with her personal values. During the pan- demic, Falcon started studying the inter- section of technology and community with several technology leaders across the U.S. Falcon studied engineering at Princeton and Public Policy at the University of Texas LBJ School. She is a member of the Aus- tin Junior League, serves on the Princeton Club of Austin Board and the St. Austin School Board, and finds joy in the rela- tionships she has with her several adopted siblings. D7 Map Details on page 42 page 18 District 7 Chair Christina Liu Puentes Puentes has lived in Austin since 2010. She is a proud alum- na of The Univer- sity of Texas at Austin, holding a bachelor’s degree and completing a master’s degree in public affairs (MPA) at the uni- versity. She is also a member of the inau- gural cohort of the LBJ Women’s Campaign School. As a former teacher at LBJ Early College High School and daughter of im- migrants, she advocates for equity and accountability in the K-12 education arena. Committed to public service, Puentes has been active in community coalitions and volunteering with local organizations since college. She works as a policy analyst for the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Some of her favorite activities in District 7 include dining along Burnet Road and The Domain, touring the breweries along Brak- er Lane by the Q2 Stadium, and trekking through Walnut Creek Metropolitan Park with her husband and their dogs. 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 19 D8 Map Details on page 44 District 8 Commissioner Joshua Blank Joshua Blank has lived in Austin since 2009. He is the research di- rector of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin and a principal partner of Stra- tegic Research Associates, LLC (SRA). He has a doctoral degree in gov- ernment from the University of Texas at Austin and a bachelor’s degree in political science from Boston University. Blank spe- cializes in all phases of attitude research, including research design, data collection, analysis, and reporting. He is an expert in both quantitative and qualitative research methods, including survey research, ex- perimental design, focus group research, in-depth-interviewing, data analysis, and data sciences. He has worked prolifically on attitude research in Texas and the U.S. for a wide range of public and private en- tities. Blank has played a primary role in most of the major public statewide polls conducted in Texas since 2011, including the University of Texas/Texas Tribune and Texas Lyceum Polls. Commissioner Shaina Kambo Kambo is a resident of District 9 who is serving as the stu- dent representative of the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. She is a senior at the University of Texas at Aus- tin majoring in Geography and Sustainability Studies. She is a graduate of Austin Community College (ACC) where she served in the ACC Student Government and developed a love for public service. Kambo is passionate about facilitating fair redistricting procedures that will help to serve the unique needs of Austin’s diverse and vibrant communities. Some of her favorite activities in District 9 include attending events on the UT campus, taking short bus rides downtown to the Central Library and TownLake YMCA, and spending time with family and friends by Lady Bird Lake either kayaking or traversing the neighboring Ann and Roy page 20 District 9 Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail. D9 Map Details on page 46 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 21 District 10 Commissioner Erin Dempsey Dempsey is an activist, attorney, former small business owner, and mother of two daughters. She spent the first 18 years of her career practicing law in various large U.S. law firms as a commercial real estate attorney. In 2017, she co-founded Bess & George, a women’s lifestyle and clothing company based in Austin. In April of 2021, she was accepted as one of seventy women leaders comprising the 2021 Cohort of the LBJ Wom- en’s Campaign School through the University of Texas at Austin. Dempsey continues to use her legal degree and her business background to support charitable causes that are close to her heart, such as the Head for the Cure Foundation which supports the brain cancer community, and she works to support and pro- mote voting rights in the State of Texas. Some of her favorite activities in District 10 include running around and paddle boarding on Lady Bird Lake; walking to music festivals in Zilker Park, especially ACL; meeting friends and sitting out- side at all of the local cafes, coffee places, and restaurants; and attending neighborhood, community, and school events held throughout the year. Dempsey applied to the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission in order to further serve her community and participate in the redistricting process. D10 Map Details on page 48 page 22 District 10 Vice-Chair Luis Gonzalez Originally from the South Texas area (Hebbronville, Texas), Gonzalez has called the city of Austin his home for the past 12 years. In his professional career, he has eight years of ad- ministrative and project management experience. He earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Tex- as at Austin. Following his graduation from the Moody College of Communication in 2013, Gonzalez joined UT-Austin as a full-time employee with the School of Architecture. He quickly climbed the administrative ladder, landing roles such as Senior Administrative Associate with the Office of the President and Administrative Manager with Dell Medical School. Through admission to the ATXelerator, a local political training program which identifies and prepares future-focused leaders for public service, Gonzalez learned of the importance and consequences of the redis- tricting process. He applied and was one of the first eight commissioners selected to the Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC). In addition to his service on the ICRC, he is the Executive Assistant to the CEO at Fluence, the leading lighting solutions provider for controlled environment commercial crop production. Gonzalez currently lives in District 10 with his partner Robert Trent and their adopted Great Pyreness, Appa. . D10 Map Details on page 48 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 23 Challenges and Constraints Winter Storm, Applicant Eligibility and the COVID-19 Pandemic The ICRC formation and swearing-in of the eight Commissioners were impacted by the severe winter storm of 2021, which delayed some commissioners being sworn into office. Shortly thereafter, the City Auditor’s Office identified discrepancies in applicant information and determined that some in the pool of applicants were ineligi- ble in accordance with Austin, Texas Code of Ordinances §3, D, 1. The seating of the final 14 commissioners was delayed for approximately two weeks to allow further review and selection considering all the se- lection criteria. Neither challenge adversely impacted the process of the Commission’s final work. The COVID-19 Pandemic had two pri- mary logistical impacts on the functionality of the ICRC, including a delay in the 2020 U.S. Census data and public engagement. 2020 U.S. Census Data Delay The delivery of the 2020 U.S. Census data to the ICRC was delayed by approx- imately four-months. The Commission, in accordance with Austin, Texas Code of Ordinances §3, G. was required to pro- duce the final map by November 1, 2021. The ICRC was, therefore, required to an- alyze the data and produce maps in three instead of seven months. This constraint impacted the ICRC by shortening the time- frame within which theywe were required to produce preliminary maps and limited the timeframe for review and public input. Public Engagement The COVID-19 Pandemic required the ICRC to find a delicate balance between public safety and public engagement. Ini- tially, a virtual meeting exemption granted by the Governor of Texas allowed the ICRC to meet using virtual forums. This exemp- tion expired on September 1, 2021. The ICRC used video conferencing methods to facilitate public participation in commission hearings and public forums. The ICRC, with diversity and inclusion in mind, recognized that the technological divide might be a barrier to certain demographic groups and moved to establish in person meetings with public safety as a priority. Public hearing site selections were contingent on contin- ued availability, the ability to implement the Center for Disease Control (CDC) guid- ance for public interactions, and geograph- ical location as directed by the City Char- ter. The ICRC mandated socially distanced seating, encouraged mask wearing and disinfected microphones between speakers. The mixture of in-person and virtual meet- ing strategies were continued throughout the process. page 24 Methodology Mapping Process First Round of Public Forums The ICRC held 12 public forums – one dedicated to each of the 10 city council districts and two city-wide virtual forums – using the 2013 city council district map. July 15 – Aug. 26, 2021 Public Input First Draft of Preliminary Map The first draft prioritized the creation of districts with reasonably equal population. Sept. 8, 2021 Preliminary Map Approved The second draft incorporated considerations of the Voting Rights Act and the integrity of neighborhoods based on public input from the forums. Second Round of Public Forums The ICRC took public comment on the preliminary map for 21 days. The commission reviewed and considered the testimony. Sept. 15, 2021 Sept. 18, 2021 e The ICRC recognized that public input was as essential to the redistricting process as the census data. Citizen engagement helped to translate quanti- tative data and statistics into qualitative themes that were anchored in individual, neighborhood, and community life ex- periences and values. Public input was garnered through email communications, public testimony at hearings and meetings, and other modes of communication (e.g. voicemail). The ICRC accomplished this by informally adopting the strategy of not only having open doors, but also open minds, which was necessary to facilitate authentic access. Public input came from indepen- dent individuals, neighborhood planning groups, neighborhood associations, and civil rights organizations — some of whom provided map proposals for consideration. Public input was essential in helping the ICRC to modify and fine-tune City Council Districts to preserve and create opportuni- ty districts, reunite some neighborhoods, and incorporate significant landmarks into appropriate districts. The following infor- mation helps quantify the number and purpose of the various public forums held by the ICRC and reflects the efforts under- taken by the ICRC to be as engaging and inclusive as possible. The First Round of Public Forums The ICRC held 12 public forums (one for each of the ten city council districts and two, city-wide virtual forums) from July 15, 2021 through August 26, 2021. The 2013 city council district map, which was created by the first ICRC, served as a foundation for redistricting in 2021. Worksheets with district focused maps and a questionnaire were provided to attendees, allowing par- ticipating residents to identify geographic features of importance and rationales for modifications to the districts. e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 25 Methodology Mapping Process Continued Final Map Adopted The ICRC incorporated testimony from the second round of public forums into the final draft, then approved and adopted the final map. Oct. 6, 2021 Third Round of Public Forums The commission presented the final map to the public for five days. Oct. 16-20, 2021 Final Map Certified The ICRC certified the final map by the deadline set in the City Charter and delivered it to the City Clerk’s Office. Final Report Published The commission approved and released the final report following the adoption and certification of the final map. Oct. 27, 2021 Jan. 19, 2022 The First Draft of the Preliminary Map On September 9, 2021, the ICRC pre- sented the first preliminary map, which prioritized the creation of districts with populations that were approximately equal. Public input was also leveraged and incor- porated into the drafting of this prelimi- nary map. This forum allowed attendees to review and respond with additional com- ments. The Second Round of Public Forums The ICRC held public forums in each of Travis County’s four commissioner’s court precincts and two, city-wide virtual forums from September 18, 2021 through Octo- ber 2, 2021, taking public comment on the preliminary map for 21 days. The ICRC analyzed and discussed the additional pub- lic feedback on the preliminary map and incorporated some of the recommendations into the final map. The Adoption of the Final Map On October 6, 2021, the ICRC present- ed the final map to the public. The ICRC continued to receive public input and con- tinued its discussions about incorporating information garnered from the public tes- timony given during the second-round of public forums. The ICRC moved to adopt the proposed final map during the October 6, 2021 meeting. The Third Round of Public Forums The ICRC presented the final map to the public for five days of additional feed- back. During this period, the ICRC also provided three additional opportunities for the public to provide input on the final map. The ICRC held two in-person forums, one north of Lady Bird Lake and one south of Lady Bird Lake, on October 16 and 20, 2021 and one virtual forum on October 18, 2021. These forums were supplemented by email communications from stakeholders who viewed the map on the ICRC website. The Final Map Certification On October 27, 2021, the ICRC voted unanimously to certify the final map, which met the November 1, 2021 deadline set forth in the City Charter. e page 26 Methodology Mapping Preliminary and Final Map Develop- ment: The ICRC hired a mapping specialist with 50 years of experience with redis- tricting processes as a subject matter and technical expert to execute the technical development of the preliminary map. The ICRC studied the 2013 maps and once the 2020 U.S. Census data was received, the mapping specialist populated the 2013 maps with the 2020 Census data to show how populations changed by district — ini- tially using DRA2020 (a free mapping web- site application) and confirmed on RedAppl, (a Texas map drawing software) based on the ESRI mapping software (a software that provides access to demographic data). The Mapping specialist also identified trends in population growth and attrition among relevant demographic groups and geographic locations, including voting tab- ulation districts, race, and ethnicity counts in both the general and voting age popu- lations. Based on the configuration of the 2013 districts and population growth pat- terns, the ICRC determined that it was pru- dent to use the 2013 map as a foundation for developing the 2021 City Council dis- tricts. The Mapping Specialist used State of Texas 2020 Census Data files to preserve the alignment between the ICRC map data and the State of Texas. The mapping spe- cialist, with input and direction from the e Sect. City Charter, Article II; Section 3E What does it mean? 1 2 3 4 District shall comply with the United States Constitution. Each district shall have reasonably equal population with other districts, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or is allowable by law. Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and any other requirement of federal or state law. Districts shall be geographically contiguous. Balancing the current population (as measured through the 2020 Census), as close to 0% deviation as possible, in each district. Districts should be drawn in such a way so as to avoid unnecessary or illegal dilution of the vote of any person including those who are representatives of recognized minority groups. All areas of a particular district should be connected. The geographic integrity of local neighborhoods or local communities of interest shall be respected in a manner that The ICRC focus of public input, engagement, and events should be to take into account the public's definition of its minimizes their division to the extent own community boundaries, without possible without violating the requirements violating considerations mentioned of any of the preceding subsections. previously. District boundaries shall be drawn to Districts should not be sprawling. encourage geographical compactness such Unannexed areas may impact this 5 that nearby areas of population are not criterion. bypassed for more distant populations as is practical. District boundaries shall be drawn using the In Austin, our voting tabulation districts boundaries of existing election precincts, as (VTD) are drawn by Travis County. VTDs 6 is practical. should remain intact to support ease of voting but can be split when deemed necessary. District boundaries shall be drawn using Austin has many natural, historical, and 7 geographically identifiable boundaries, as is manmade boundaries. These were considered in the redrawing process. practical. 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 27 Methodolgy 2 3 4 1 2 5 3 6 4 7 5 Sect. City Charter, Article II; Section 3E Mapping What does it mean? ICRC, leveraged public input to equitably District shall comply with the United States allocate the city population to the ten dis- Constitution. Each district shall have tricts. The preliminary map was published reasonably equal population with other on the internet for public review and com- districts, except where deviation is required ment, and was presented at public forums to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act for further review and public comment. or is allowable by law. 1 This methodology ensured that the process Balancing the current population (as was inclusive and met the following criteria measured through the 2020 Census), as close to 0% deviation as possible, in each for producing the city council districts as district. required by the City Charter, summarized in the following table. Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and any other requirement of federal or state law. Sect. City Charter, Article II; Section 3E Districts shall be geographically contiguous. The applicable section of the VRA for redistricting states that if a minority opportunity district can be drawn, it must be drawn. All areas of a particular district should be What does it mean? connected. The geographic integrity of local District shall comply with the United States neighborhoods or local communities of Constitution. Each district shall have interest shall be respected in a manner that reasonably equal population with other minimizes their division to the extent districts, except where deviation is required possible without violating the requirements to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act of any of the preceding subsections. or is allowable by law. The ICRC focus of public input, Balancing the current population (as engagement, and events should be to take measured through the 2020 Census), as into account the public's definition of its close to 0% deviation as possible, in each own community boundaries, without district. violating considerations mentioned previously. District boundaries shall be drawn to Districts shall comply with the federal Voting encourage geographical compactness such Rights Act (VRA) and any other requirement that nearby areas of population are not of federal or state law. bypassed for more distant populations as is practical. Districts shall be geographically contiguous. District boundaries shall be drawn using the boundaries of existing election precincts, as The geographic integrity of local is practical. neighborhoods or local communities of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent District boundaries shall be drawn using possible without violating the requirements geographically identifiable boundaries, as is of any of the preceding subsections. practical. District boundaries shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant populations as is practical. Districts should not be sprawling. The applicable section of the VRA for Unannexed areas may impact this redistricting states that if a minority criterion. opportunity district can be drawn, it must be drawn. All areas of a particular district should be In Austin, our voting tabulation districts connected. (VTD) are drawn by Travis County. VTDs The ICRC focus of public input, should remain intact to support ease of engagement, and events should be to take voting but can be split when deemed into account the public's definition of its necessary. own community boundaries, without Austin has many natural, historical, and violating considerations mentioned manmade boundaries. These were previously. considered in the redrawing process. Districts should not be sprawling. Unannexed areas may impact this criterion. District boundaries shall be drawn using the In Austin, our voting tabulation districts boundaries of existing election precincts, as (VTD) are drawn by Travis County. VTDs 6 is practical. should remain intact to support ease of voting but can be split when deemed necessary. District boundaries shall be drawn using Austin has many natural, historical, and 7 geographically identifiable boundaries, as is manmade boundaries. These were considered in the redrawing process. practical. page 28 District Overviews tricts created following the process outlined in the City Charter. The following pages offer a summary of findings about the ten Austin city council dis- All ten districts comply with the Voting Rights Act and the Constitutional man- date of one-person, one-vote. Districts are contiguous, compact, and preserve neighbor- hood integrity to the extent practicable. 2020 U.S. Census Population, Austin, TX: 961,855 Ideal Population per District: 96,185 District Population (2013) Population (2020) Population per New District (2021) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 76,111 (-3.85%) 97,387 (+1.25%) 94,010 (-2.26%) 79,587 (-0.25%) 98,165 (+2.06%) 98,165 (+2.06%) 79,536 (-0.31%) 86,733 (-9.83%) 91,533 (-4.84%) 79,360 (-0.53%) 80,710 (-16.09%) 94,936 (-1.30%) 80,675 (+1.15%) 102,617 (+6.69%) 97,457 (+1.32%) 82,747 (+3.72%) 108,460 (+12.76%) 95,409 (-0.81%) 80,924 (+1.43%) 102,929 (+7.01%) 95,077 (-1.15%) 77,399 (-2.99%) 96,001 (-0.19%) 99,175 (+3.11%) 79,735 (-0.06%) 91,801 (-4.56%) 98,949 (+2.87%) 10 81,152 (+1.72%) 97,052 (+0.90%) 97,196 (+1.05%) Total Deviation: 7.70% Final District Map 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 29 page 30 District 1 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 94,010 (deviation: -2.26%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White .............................................................................. 29.5% Hispanic .............................................................................................. 39.4% Black .................................................................................................. 22.4% Asian .................................................................................................... 8.8% Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: East and Northeast e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 31 District 1 Major landmarks • George Washington Carver Museum and Cultural Center; Huston-Tillotson Universi- ty; Travis County Expo Center; Walter E. Long/Decker Lake; LBJ Presidential Library and Museum; Millennium Youth Sports Complex; Texas State Cemetery; Gus Garcia Recreation Center; French Legation State Historic Site; Rosewood Park and Recre- ation Center; Doris Miller Auditorium; Givens District Park and Recreation Center; Downs-Mabson Fields; W.H. Passon Historic Society; L.C. Anderson High School and Yellow Jacket Stadium; The Victory Grill and Rosewood Courts; Ebenezer Third Baptist Church; Wesley United Methodist Church; Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church; Reverend Jacob Fontaine Home; The Phillip’s House; Texas Music Museum; Dr. Exalton and Wilhelmina Delco Activity Center; I.I. Nelson Field; LBJ Early College High School; Northeast Early College High School; Asian American Resource Center; and Oakwood, Plummers and Bethany cemeteries Major arteries • Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard; U.S. Hwy 183; U.S. Highway 290 East; Loyola Lane; Manor Road; Springdale Road; East 12th Street; East Parmer Lane; Cameron Road; Dessau Road; Harris Branch Parkway; Decker Lane; and Johnny Morris Road A sampling of district neighborhoods • Rosewood; Windsor Park; Windsor Hills; University Hills; Blackland; Chestnut; Coro- nado Hills; Springdale Hills; Colony Park; Copperfield; Pioneer Crossing; Heritage Hills; Sendero Hills; North Oaks; Las Cimas; River Ranch; Frontera; Parker Acres; Woodcliff; Glenn Oaks; Robinson Hill; Stone Gate; Craigwood; Cavalier Park; Holy Cross Heights; McKinley Heights; and Harris Branch Rationale • The 2021 Commission based on the 2020 Census data affirmed the continued rel- evance of the rationale of the 2013 Commission. However, Austin’s growth in pop- ulation over the previous ten years necessitated rebalancing by allocating some of District 1’s population to District 4. The 2013 rationale was as follows: “Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, this area of Austin qualified as a minority opportunity district un- der the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), as it contained a large concentration of Austin’s African American community. The Commission was also aware of the sur- rounding communities and historic neighborhoods. Certain precincts, such as 133 and 156, were split in order to comply with the VRA. • Members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)...and others well versed in the VRA testified that this district as drawn would provide the best opportunity for African Americans to elect a city council member of their choosing. • Including the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and State Capitol in District 1, a minori- ty opportunity district, was a symbolic gesture made by the Commission, recognizing that President Johnson signed the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. page 32 District 2 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 98,165 (deviation: +2.06%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White .............................................................................. 23.7% Hispanic .............................................................................................. 63.7% Black .................................................................................................... 9.3% Asian .................................................................................................... 3.3% e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 33 Geographic Integrity ● Approximate geographic distribution: Southeast and South District 2 Major landmarks • Austin Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA); Dove Springs Recreation Center; Cir- cuit of the Americas; Ditmar Park; McKinney Falls State Park; Onion Creek Soccer Complex and Park; Armadillo Neighborhood Park Major arteries • William Cannon; IH-35 South; U.S. Hwy 183 East; South Congress Avenue; Nuckols Crossing; State Hwy 130; and State Hwy 71 East (East Ben White Boulevard and Bas- trop Highway) A sampling of district neighborhoods • Dove Springs; Franklin Park; Bluff Springs; Nuckols Crossing; Sweet Briar; and Stoney Ridge Rationale • The district’s population and growth remained relatively stable over the course of the past seven years, thus, the need to change or update the boundaries for population growth was minimal outside of the accommodations for nearby districts. In keeping with maintaining a Hispanic opportunity district, and given the sparse community feedback from residents in this area, the district remained largely unchanged. • Individuals informed on the VRA testified that this district as drawn would provide the best opportunity for minority representation. page 34 District 3 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 91,533 (deviation: -4.84%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White .............................................................................. 38.7% Hispanic ............................................................................................. 44.4% Black ................................................................................................. 10.4% Asian ................................................................................................... 5.8% e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 35 Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: East-Central and South-Central District 3 Major landmarks • Colorado River; Montopolis Recreation Center; St. Edward’s University; Austin Com- munity College Riverside Campus; Riverside Golf Course; Roy G. Guerrero Metropol- itan Park Plaza; Secret Beach; Oswaldo A.B. Cantu/Pan American Recreation Center; Krieg Fields; Fiesta Gardens; Burdett Prairie Cemetery; and Govalle Park Major arteries • East Cesar Chavez Street; East Riverside Drive; Pleasant Valley Road; U.S. Hwy 183; Montopolis Drive; East 7th Street; and Airport Boulevard A sampling of district neighborhoods • Montopolis; Govalle; Johnston Terrace; River Bluff; Gardens; Dawson; Galindo; and Holly Rationale • Based on the 2020 United States Census, this area of Austin qualified as a minority opportunity district under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as it contained a large concen- tration of Austin’s Hispanic community.The Commission was also aware of the sur- rounding communities and historic neighborhoods. • There was a desire among a coalition of neighborhoods primarily in District 9 and District 3, represented by South River City Citizens (SRCC) to keep as much of that community together as possible given their shared interests, within the constraints placed by their adjacency to a Hispanic opportunity district. Precinct 420 was thus moved from District 3 to District 9 to accommodate one of the preferred outcomes of the SRCC, given that the change also slightly improved Hispanic representation in District 3. page 36 District 4 e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 37 District 4 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 94,936 (deviation: -1.30%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White ................................................................................... 25.6% Hispanic ................................................................................................... 59.2% Black ....................................................................................................... 10.4% Asian .........................................................................................................4.6% Geographic Integrity Approximate geographic distribution: North-Central Major landmarks Austin Community College Highland Mall Campus; Quail Creek; Fiskville Cemetery; Bar- tholomew District Park Major arteries North Lamar Boulevard; Kramer Lane; Rundberg Lane; IH-35 North; St. Johns Avenue; and Cameron Road A sampling of district neighborhoods North Park Estates; Woodbridge; Norwood Park; Quail Creek; Georgian Acres; and Wind- sor Park Rationale Based on the 2020 U.S. Census, this area of Austin qualified as a minority opportunity district under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as it contained a large concentration of Aus- tin’s Hispanic community. The Commission was also cognizant of the surrounding com- munities and historic neighborhoods. Certain precincts were split in order to comply with the VRA. page 38 District 5 e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 39 District 5 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 97,457 (deviation: +1.32%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White ................................................................................... 54.7% Hispanic ................................................................................................... 31.3% Black .........................................................................................................6.6% Asian .........................................................................................................6.0% Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: South-Central and Far South Major landmarks • South Congress Business District; The Broken Spoke; Southpark Meadows; Zach The- ater; Mary Moore Searight Metropolitan Park; Austin Community College South Cam- pus; and Barton Creek Greenbelt East Major arteries • Menchaca Road; South Lamar Boulevard; Westgate Boulevard; South 1st Street; and Slaughter Lane A sampling of district neighborhoods • Onion Creek; Garrison Park; Zilker; Barton Hills; and Westgate Rationale • This district borders two VRA-protected districts – 2 and 3; which traverse IH-35 into south-central Austin. The district, coupled with the situational logistics, experienced population growth, such that significant changes to the boundaries were unnecessary. page 40 District 6 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 95,409 (deviation: -0.81%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White .............................................................................. 46.7% Hispanic ............................................................................................. 16.6% Black ................................................................................................... 7.1% Asian ................................................................................................. 28.4% e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 41 Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: Far Northwest District 6 Major landmarks • Canyon Creek; Concordia University; Steiner Ranch; Avery Ranch; Metrorail Lakeline Station; Mansfield Dam; and Windy Point Major arteries • Ranch Road 620; Parmer Lane; Anderson Mill Road; State Hwy 45; U.S. Hwy 183; and McNeil Drive A sampling of district neighborhoods • Four Points; Grandview Hills; and Canyon Creek Rationale • District 6 experienced significant population growth during the period between the 2013 map and the 2020 redistricting process. Absent significant changes, District 6, at 108,460 residents, would have been significantly overpopulated from the target population of 96,185. In order to accomplish this, much of the southwestern portions of District 6 were moved into District 10. Additionally, a small area in the north-cen- tral portion of District 10 was moved into District 6 to make the district slightly more compact. • While not recognized as a federally protected class for the purposes of redistricting under the VRA, the large concentration of non-Hispanic Asian residents led the com- mission to prioritize maximizing the non-Hispanic Asian share of the population in this district as if it were an opportunity district. page 42 District 7 e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 43 District 7 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 95,077 (deviation: -1.15%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White ................................................................................... 54.2% Hispanic ................................................................................................... 22.9% Black .........................................................................................................9.4% Asian ....................................................................................................... 12.3% Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: North and Northwest-Central Major landmarks • The Domain; Quarry Lake; University of Texas Pickle Research Center; Shoal Creek; Austin Memorial Park Cemetery; Austin Community College Northridge Campus; and Q2 Stadium Major arteries • Burnet Road; Parmer Lane; Gracy Farms Lane; Metric Boulevard; and Shoal Creek Boulevard A sampling of district neighborhoods • Gracy Woods; Allendale; Wooten; Wells Branch; Scofield Farms; Gateway; Brent- wood; Crestview; North Shoal Creek; and North Burnet Rationale • The ICRC heard similar testimony as was heard by the previous ICRC about the makeup and residential patterns of the area. As noted in the prior ICRC’s rationale for the creation of District 7: “The areas in District 7 share similar suburban transpor- tation and land use patterns; age and income demographics; and growth pressures such as traffic and urban infill; Testimony pointed out Burnet Road as ‘the spine’ of the area; driving many issues related to transportation and small business develop- ment.” • Changes to District 7 were therefore relatively minimal. Precinct 248 was moved from District 7 into District 4 to balance the population, moving the entirety of the Wooten neighborhood out of District 7 and into District 4. Precinct 267 was moved from Dis- trict 6 to District 7, bringing together the Balcones Woods neighborhood into a single district. Precinct 246 moved from District 7 to District 10, a location that the commis- sion determined to be a more natural fit, west of Mopac and south of U.S. Hwy 183. Several other changes to District 7 brought together the Allendale neighborhood that had previously been split into surrounding districts. page 44 District 8 e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 45 District 8 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 99,175 (deviation: +3.11%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White ................................................................................... 64.0% Hispanic ................................................................................................... 18.6% Black .........................................................................................................3.4% Asian ....................................................................................................... 12.1% Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: Southwest Major landmarks • Barton Springs Greenbelt; the “Y” at Oak Hill; Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center; Zilker Metropolitan Park; Veloway; Violet Crown Trail; Circle C Metropolitan Park; Dick Nichols District Park; and Arbor Trails Major arteries • South MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1); Southwest Parkway; Escarpment Boulevard.; State Hwy 360; West Slaughter Lane; U.S. Hwy 290; and State Hwy 71 A sampling of district neighborhoods • Oak Hill; Circle C Ranch; Travis Country; Western Oaks; Scenic Brook; Sendera; Ma- ple Run; Heights at Loma Vista; Meridian; and Esquel Rationale • District 8 remained largely unchanged in the redistricting process, with areas south of the river and east of Loop 360 (VTD 212) moved from District 10 into District 8 to better balance population growth in District 6 that required District 10’s extension further to the north and west. The movement of VTD 212 helped maintain population balance and geographic compactness in both districts 8 and 10. • As the last ICRC noted in their creation of District 8: “The neighborhoods in this dis- trict share common concerns and constitute communities of interest. The main trans- portation artery is MoPac; which provides residents of southwest Austin their primary access route to downtown Austin. MoPac Boulevard south of Lady Bird Lake is entirely encompassed by this district. Environmental concerns related to the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone and Barton Creek also unite the neighborhoods in District 8.” page 46 District 9 e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 47 District 9 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 98,949 (deviation: +2.87%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White ................................................................................... 62.3% Hispanic ................................................................................................... 16.5% Black .........................................................................................................5.0% Asian ....................................................................................................... 15.0% Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: Central Major landmarks • University of Texas at Austin; 6th Street Entertainment District; Lady Bird Lake; Au- ditorium Shores; Waller Creek; City Hall; Bouldin Creek; Austin Convention Center; Congress Avenue Bridge; Texas State Capitol; Texas Governor’s Mansion; “The Drag”; Ann and Roy Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail; Seaholm Power Plant; Austin Central Library; Neill-Cochran House Museum; Rainey Street; Waterloo Park; Wooldridge Square; Austin History Center; Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium; Auditorium Shores at Town Lake Metropolitan Park; Auditorium Shores at Town Lake; Bullock Texas State History Museum; Blanton Museum of Art; St. Mary Catholic Cathedral; Treaty Oak Square; Elisabet Ney Museum; Shipe Park; and St. David’s Episcopal Church Major arteries • Congress Avenue; Barton Springs Road; Riverside Drive; 38th Street; Red River Street; Airport Boulevard; 45th Street; East 38th Street; Guadalupe Street; IH-35; and West Cesar Chavez Street A sampling of district neighborhoods • Travis Heights; Hyde Park Historic District; West Campus; North University; East- woods; Hancock; Bouldin Creek; Mueller; Triangle; and Downtown Austin Rationale • The Commission believes District 9 represents much of the foundation and heart of the city and its economic lifeblood. It is a quickly developing economic hub that at- tracts tourists from around the country and the world. The district is linked through educational, political, historical, and medical institutions — including the Texas State Capitol. The district, with a large concentration of students from the University of Tex- as, is also representative of the youthful vibrancy of Austin. page 48 District 10 Constitutional compliance Total Population: 97,196 (deviation: +1.05%) Racial/Ethnic Population Percentages Non-Hispanic White ........................................................................... 69.9% Hispanic ........................................................................................... 13.5% Black ................................................................................................. 3.8% Asian ............................................................................................... 11.1% e 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 49 Geographic Integrity • Approximate geographic distribution: West-Central and Northwest District 10 Major landmarks • Pennypacker Bridge; Emma Long City Park; Arboretum; Mount Bonnell; Lake Austin; Brushy Creek; Camp Mabry; Laguna Gloria Art Museum; Mayfield Park; Pease District Park; Lions Municipal Golf Course; and Deep Eddy Municipal Pool Major arteries • Mesa Drive; Exposition Boulevard/FM 2222; North Capitol of Texas Hwy (Loop 360); Spicewood Springs Road; RM 620; and MoPac Blvd (Loop 1) A sampling of district neighborhoods • Great Hills; Jollyville; Bryker Woods; Tarrytown; Mesa Oaks; Highland Hills; North- west Hills; Cat Mountain; Mayfield Park; Jester Estates; and River Place Rationale • The Commission balanced population with an over-populated District 6 by incorporat- ing neighborhoods near the west end of the river, including River Place and Grandview Hills, into the newly drawn District 10. This shift allowed both districts to remain geo- graphically contiguous. • The Commission balanced population with an over-populated District 9 and hon- ored requests to keep the Old Enfield and Bryker Woods neighborhoods together and aligned with Tarrytown, based on public testimony. Pease District Park was included in the newly drawn District 10 to keep the entire park within one district. • Previous District 10 areas incorporated into other districts: VTD 240 east of MoPac into District 7 (to keep the Allendale neighborhood within one district); VTD 326 (High Vista/Northview Hills) into District 6 to support the creation of a possible Asian oppor- tunity district; and areas south of the river and east of Loop 360 (VTD 212) into Dis- trict 8 to better balance population. page 50 Closing Remarks With fidelity to city charter mandates approved by Austin voters in 2012, the 2021 Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (ICRC) followed in the footsteps of its predecessor to produce a city council district map that will impact local rep- resentation for the next decade starting with the 2022 general elections. Utilizing the 2013 map as the base, the 2021 ICRC leaned on the expertise of its staff, city experts, and community testimony to suggest and adopt district boundary adjustments. Much of the map remains the same, with changes driven by population growth, the creation of four minority opportunity districts, and a desire to bring neigh- borhoods split between districts back together in one district. The ICRC did not take this responsibility for granted. The volunteer citizens of the commission are proud to have created Austin’s City Council districts jointly with the people of Austin. Through a fair, transparent, and inde- pendent process, the ICRC produced a map that addressed the drastic population growth that Austin has experienced over the past decade, respected the requirements of the federal Voting Rights Act, and honored the input of residents every step of the way. Even as the city has changed and grown, Austin remains rooted in its history of dis- proportionate representation through its decades-old at-large system that incorporated a “gentlemen’s agreement” that gatekept representation for African Americans and Lati- nos on the city council. In an open rejection of that old order, the people of Austin chose a non-partisan, apolitical redistricting process that deserves to be celebrated time and time again, providing a sharp contrast to most redistricting systems. Every ten years, the city renews its commitment to a fair process for equitable representation through the formation of a new Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. Our redistricting process matters and will continue to matter because it is directly connected to fair representation. We believe the ICRC is the antidote to gerrymandering practices across the country, where political districts are drawn for the purposes of re- election and political advantage rather than to ensure fair representation and increased democratic participation. Our process makes it possible for residents of Austin to have the opportunity to vote for a candidate of their choice – someone whom they believe will fight for them when they get into office. We hope our passion and commitment to the ICRC will carry on in subsequent com- missions and light a spark in cities across the country. We thank the citizens of Austin for the opportunity to serve as the second-ever Aus- tin Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. Let’s keep it going, Austin. Signed, Chair Christina Liu Puentes and Vice Chair Luis Gonzalez 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 51 Appendix A 2021 ICRC Values and Norms Integrity Be who we say we are and follow through with our commitment. Respect Listen to each other’s opinions, honor each other’s efforts, and show up on time. Inclusivity Prioritize the public interest and needs of all community members. Dignity Center diverse voices and perspectives in every interaction with each other and the public. Patience Take input with an open mind and heart and give others the benefit of the doubt. Fairness All voices must be heard. Make decisions supported by data as well as the perspectives and needs of the community. Trust Honor the expertise and strengths of all commissioners. Trust that we work in the best interest of the full body. Prioritization Use the city charter as the guide for the order of importance and urgency. This document was jointly formed by the ICRC during the general meeting on July 7, 2021.Commission- ers Joshua Blank, Erin Dempsey, Camellia Falcon, Luis Gonzalez (Vice Chair), Errol Hardin, Sara Inés Calderón, Prabhu Kannan, Shaina Kambo, Dr. Sterling Lands, Hoang Le, BJ Morris, Christina Puentes (Chair), Eugene Schneider, Selina Yee, Administrative manager Christine Granados and City Communica- tions Liaison Patricia Fraga contributed. page 52 Appendix B 2021 ICRC Timeline 2020 June 1, 2020 Sept. 1, 2020 Oct. 1, 2020 Oct. 31, 2020 – City Auditor publicizes application process for ICRC commissioners application process – City Auditor closes application process (i2) – City Auditor randomly draws three names from applicant pool of auditors to serve on applicant review panel – City Auditor provide names of potential commissioners to applicant review panel Jan. 15, 2021 Jan. 16, 2021 Jan. 28, 2021 March 11, 2021 March 15, 2021 April 9, 2021 May 21, 2021 June 2, 2021 June 16, 2021 June 30, 2021 July 7, 2021 2021 – Applicant review panel narrows applicant pool to 60 – Applicant review panel gives city council 60 applicants for review – City Auditor randomly draws eight names from pool of applicants at public meeting and those individuals will serve on the commis sion (Erin Dempsey, Luis Gonzalez, Errol Hardin, Prabhu Kannan, Sterling Lands, Hoang Le, Brigham Morris and Eugene Schneider) – ICRC approved Sara Inés Calderón, Whitney A. Finch, Shaina Kambo, Christina Puentes and Nuria Zaragoza as ICRC commis sioners – U.S. Census announces data release date will be postponed – City auditor discovered unique errors (March 31, 2021) that found Nuria Zaragoza did not meet the minimum qualifications for the ICRC – ICRC approved Selina Yee as an ICRC commissioner – ICRC approved Joshua Blank as an ICRC commissioner – ICRC voted to unanimously to name Christina Puentes and Luis Gonzalez as interim chair and vice chair respectively – Hiring committee was formed – Voted to unanimously to select Christina Puentes as chair and Luis Gonzalez as vice chair of the commission – Whitney A. Finch resigned from the commission – Voted to conduct regular weekly meetings every Wednesday at 6 p.m. beginning July 1, 2021 – ICRC approved Camellia Falcon as an ICRC commissioner – ICRC formed following working groups and subcommittees: com munications, public hearings, finance and final report – First full commission meeting with current commissioners – ICRC approved hiring David Richards, legal counsel, George Kor bel, mapping specialist and Christine Granados, administrative e manager – ICRC approved public forum meeting dates 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 53 July 7, 2021 July 15, 2021 July 22, 2021 July 24, 2021 July 27, 2021 July 31, 2021 Aug. 3, 2021 Aug. 7, 2021 Aug. 10, 2021 Aug. 12, 2021 Aug. 14, 2021 Aug. 17, 2021 Aug. 21, 2021 Aug. 27, 2021 Sept. 9, 2021 Sept. 10, 2021 Sept. 11, 2021 Sept. 12, 2021 Sept. 15, 2021 Sept. 16, 2021 Sept. 18, 2021 Sept. 21, 2021 Sept. 25, 2021 Sept. 28, 2021 Sept. 29, 2021 Oct. 2, 2021 Oct. 6, 2021 2021 ICRC Timeline Continued – Mapping specialist gave presentations about current district map – ICRC held first of twelve public forums in D9 at Austin City Hall – ICRC held second of twelve public forums in D10 at Dell Jewish Community Center – ICRC held third of twelve public forums in D7 at the Northwest Recreation Center – ICRC held fourth of twelve public forums in D8 at the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center – ICRC held fifth of twelve public forums in D4 at the Gus Garcia Recreation Center – ICRC held sixth of twelve public forums in D6 virtually – ICRC held seventh of twelve public forums in D3 virtually – ICRC held eighth of twelve public forums in D2 at Mendez Middle School – U.S. Census raw data release dump – ICRC held ninth of twelve public forums in D1 at George Washing ton Carver Museum and Cultural Center – ICRC held tenth of twelve public forums in D2 virtually – ICRC held 11th of twelve public forums for all districts virtually – ICRC held 12th of twelve public forums for all districts virtually – Commissioners one-on-one meetings with Korbel – Commissioners and NAACP/Hispanic Coalition one-on-one meet ings with Korbel – Commissioners one-on-one meetings with Korbel – Commissioners one-on-one meetings with Korbel – Korbel presents first draft of a preliminary map to the ICRC during the general meeting. Commission will discuss and provide sug gested edits, vote and adopt the preliminary map – 2021 ICRC reserved this date for general meeting in case map was not approved – U.S. Census data easy-to-read toolkit released to public – ICRC held its first of five county public forums at Gus Garcia Rec reation Center, 8-11 a.m. – ICRC held its second of five county public forums at Mayfield Cot tage, 6-8 p.m. – ICRC held its third of five county public forums at Dove Springs Recreation Center, 1-3 p.m. – ICRC held its fourth of five county public forums via videoconfer ence, 6-8 p.m. – ICRC meet to discuss changes – ICRC held its fifth of five county public forums at Travis County Community Center at Oak Hill, 11 a.m.-1 p.m. – Mapping specialist Korbel presented the first draft of a final map to the ICRC during the general meeting. Commission e page 54 Oct. 7, 2021 Oct. 16, 2021 Oct. 18, 2021 Oct. 20, 2021 Oct. 27, 2021 Oct. 29, 2021 Nov. 1, 2021 Dec. 15, 2021 Jan. 19, 2022 2021 ICRC Timeline Continued discussed and provided suggested edits, votes and adopted the preliminary map – 2021 ICRC reserved this date for general meeting in case map was not approved – First of three public hearings at South Austin Recreation Center, 1100 Cumberland Road, Austin, TX 78704 (North/South of LBJ Lake) – Second of three public hearings virtual – Third of two public hearings at Dell Jewish Community Center, 7300 Hart Lane, Austin, TX 78731 (South of LBJ Lake) – Deadline for final public input on maps – Certification of final map, after Korbel and ICRC work to redraw final map with public input – City Hall received map – Commission submits final map to Austin City Council – ICRC adopts annexations and de annexations – Final Report adopted 2021 ICRC FINAL REPORT page 55 Appendix C 2021 ICRC Public Feedback Documentation of public feedback was compiled by the administrative manager into four files totaling 400 plus pages. The feedback includes summaries of speaker testimo- ny from public forums and regular meetings, emails, maps, letters and voice calls. ICRC commissioners spent over 100 hours in 40 meetings (regular meetings and public fo- rums) related to redistricting. They hosted 20 public forums and 173 speakers, listened to 82 public testimonies, looked at 70 maps, read 187 emails and listened to nine voice messages. Commissioners used the summaries of citizen communication to create quan- titative data and statistics into qualitative themes anchored in individual, neighborhood, and community life experiences and values that could be used for mapping purposes. In addition, individual commissioners volunteered their time to speak with civic and busi- ness clubs, neighborhood associations and organizations and collected information from each of those engagements.