Council Narrows List of Redistricting Plans to 3 : Government: Most members appear to favor a remapping proposal drafted by Councilman Ron Roberts.

For the second time in less than a year, San Diego City Council members tackled the politically sensitive task of redistricting Tuesday night, narrowing their options but deferring a decision until at least Friday.

By a unanimous vote, the council decided to largely restrict its debate over how to redraw district boundaries using the 1990 new census figures to three maps prepared by Councilmen Ron Roberts, Bruce Henderson and Bob Filner.

At a three-hour hearing attended by more than 100 people at Golden Hall downtown, the council had also considered but rejected two other maps--one prepared by a citizens advisory board last year, and the other offered by a South Bay resident. Like the three proposals that will be debated Friday, the two discarded maps sought to bring the city’s eight districts into conformance with federal standards requiring that they be roughly the same size.

Though Tuesday night’s action simply focused the council’s debate, leaving uncertain the question of whether it will even be resolved Friday, a consensus appeared to be developing for Roberts’ plan--which, among other things, would shift most of downtown from Filner’s 8th District to Roberts’ 2nd District.

Each of the three remaining maps seeks to balance political interests against other critical factors such as minority voting rights, community cohesiveness and population parity.

In addition, four dozen speakers Tuesday night urged the council to strive to meet myriad other goals: keeping or moving neighborhoods in or from particular districts, linking together communities with similar interests, and unifying groups such as Asians and homosexuals into single districts to enhance their political clout.

“I’m not sure that any map on the board right now satisfies all the concerns,” said Henderson, the author of one of the plans under consideration.

Similarly, Roberts described many of the objectives sought by both the council members themselves and the public speakers as “legitimate but also competing interests.”

Recognizing the futility of trying to satisfy all of those desires, Roberts suggested that the council settle for the more modest goal of simply modifying existing district boundaries “in the least disruptive . . . fashion” in order to adhere to the federal standard of one man, one vote.

The new round of redistricting hearings, which come only about 5 1/2 months after a federal court approved the boundaries drawn by the council last year, stems from census data showing large population disparities among the city’s eight council districts.

As a result, the council reluctantly returned to an issue that has scarred City Hall, generated protracted legal wrangling and helped to sweep one incumbent from office.

Beyond reconfiguring the council districts--an always difficult decision that can make or break political careers--the council also must decide whether to redraw the boundaries in time for this year’s council elections.

In order to meet administrative and legal deadlines relating to September’s primaries, the council would need to agree on a new redistricting map no later than May 9, according to city attorneys.

Under his interpretation of election laws, City Clerk Charles Abdelnour has advised the council that the deadline is even earlier--Friday.

Compliance with those deadlines, some council members argue, could produce a hasty judgment that would adversely affect the city and its politics for the next decade.

Others, however, have pushed for a quick decision, noting that the issue was debated at length last year and that the failure to act by this month’s deadline could cause the districts to be redrawn shortly after this fall’s elections.

Consequently, voters who elect one council member could be shifted to another district only weeks after Election Day.

Former 5th District Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt’s overwhelming loss in last month’s recall election could make her successor, Scripps Ranch lawyer Tom Behr, the swing vote on the volatile issue.

Bernhardt had been part of the council’s so-called Gang of Five majority that, by a 5-4 vote, adopted the current map.

With Bernhardt’s departure--and with Behr yet to establish a consistent voting record--council action on redistricting and other major issues has become less predictable than during her tenure.