Final OK of Remap Proposal Blocked : Education: Valley opponents claim partial victory over the plan that they say would weaken the area’s voice on the school board.

San Fernando Valley lawmakers and their allies Tuesday blocked final adoption by the Los Angeles City Council of a school redistricting plan they claimed would weaken the Valley’s influence over how Los Angeles Unified schools are run.

The plan, championed by City Councilman Richard Alatorre, had been approved on a preliminary 9-6 vote last week.

But since then, City Councilwoman Joy Picus, San Fernando Valley school activists and others have lobbied intensely to block the plan, claiming it would compromise Valley representation by leaving only one board seat entirely in the Valley.

The result was a stalemate Tuesday during a required second vote.

Neither faction in the bitter fight could muster enough support to prevail--the Alatorre plan failed 6-7, and an alternative proposed by Picus failed 7-6. Eight votes are required for approval.

Part of the impasse was because of the absence Tuesday of two of the Alatorre plan’s supporters--Council President John Ferraro, recovering from open-heart surgery, and Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, who left before Tuesday’s vote.

The third change came when Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky switched sides to vote against the Alatorre plan.

“I’m pleased,” Picus said. “It’s a victory--actually sort of a step toward a victory because we still need to adopt some redistricting plan.”

“We don’t know what’s going to happen now,” said Alan Clayton, an aide to state Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles) and a key architect of the Alatorre plan.

The council will take up the issue again today. But only 10 of the council’s 15 members are expected to attend the meeting, and no one expects either side to have enough votes. The issue is now likely to be decided next Tuesday, when 14 members will be present and the council may have new legal opinions on the plans.

Yaroslavsky said he voted against final approval of the Alatorre plan because he wanted to get a clear opinion about the legality of Picus’ alternative, which is being backed by the 31st District Parent-Teacher-Student Assn. and Valley chapters of African-American groups such as the Black American Political Assn. of California.

Yaroslavsky indicated that the Picus plan--if legal--may be more attractive to him than the Alatorre plan because Picus’ proposal would create two Latino seats “with a lot less disruption.”

“I’m basically crying out for legal help,” Yaroslavsky said.

During a 30-minute, closed-door huddle with its redistricting experts, the council was unable to get a definitive opinion on the question of how the Picus plan would square with the federal Voting Rights Act, which seeks to enhance the political power of minorities.

Based on 1990 census figures, the council is required to draw boundaries that could lead to the election of a second Latino to the board. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has said it would sue the city if this is not done.

Now only one of the school system’s seats is dominated by Latinos.

But Picus says her plan creates two Latino seats while retaining two of the seven school board seats wholly in the Valley.

The Picus plan would create an East Valley-based school board seat, located east of the San Diego Freeway and including the heavily Latino communities of Sylmar, Pacoima and San Fernando. This seat would be represented by board member Roberta Weintraub.

The second Valley seat, represented by board member Julie Korenstein, would include the West Valley and Sunland-Tujunga.

Both of the Picus plan’s Latino seats would be located wholly outside the Valley. Under federal law, the plan’s East Valley seat would not be recognized as Latino-dominated because, although 48.7% of its population would be Latino, only 14.9% of its registered voters would be Latino.

Picus said her plan’s East Valley seat should be viewed as a boon to Latinos, calling it a “growth district” where Latinos could expect to gain political power in coming years.

Under the Alatorre plan, the Valley would be represented by four districts, including one now represented by east side school board member Leticia Quezada. That one would stretch to Sylmar from Quezada’s current political base in Boyle Heights, El Sereno and Highland Park.

This district also would include the Valley communities of Pacoima and San Fernando.

With Quezada representing them, Latino parents in the Valley would have an increased say in the school system, Alatorre plan advocates said.

By contrast, the Picus plan “would deny Latino empowerment” in the East Valley, said Ed Guzman, president of the San Fernando Valley chapter of the Mexican American Political Assn.

But according to Korenstein and other Valley-based activists, three of the four seats created by the Alatorre plan would be mostly based outside the Valley, resulting in diminished Valley influence over school board matters.

In another assist to the Picus camp, Councilman Marvin Braude ordered that a special meeting be held Monday by the council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Redistricting. In Ferraro’s absence, Braude, who voted for the Picus plan, has become chairman of the redistricting panel.

Monday’s meeting could alleviate concerns of the city’s legal experts that the Picus plan has not undergone as much public scrutiny as the Alatorre plan.

Alatorre and Councilwoman Rita Walters sharply criticized the Picus plan for being presented at the eleventh hour in a way that violates the “integrity of the process.”

But Picus replied that the city had until very recently denied Valley critics of the Picus plan full access to the tools needed to craft an alternative.