The Barrio Logan
Partnership
A Case Study
January 2003
Excerpted from the Report:
Towards an Environmental Justice Collaborative Model: Case
Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental
Justice Issues in Communities (EPA/1 OO-R-03-002)
Prepared for the Federal Interagency Working Group on
Environmental Justice by the U.S. EPA Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation
-------
This case study has been excerpted from the report: Towards an Environmental Justice
Collaborative Model: Case Studies of Six Partnerships Used to Address Environmental Justice
Issues in Communities ('January 2003/EPA/100-R-03-002). View this report on-line at:
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/ej.htm. This report is a companion report to Towards an
Environmental Justice Collaborative Model: An Evaluation of the Use of Partnerships to Address
Environmental Justice Issues in Communities (January 2003/EPA/100-R-03-001). View both of
these on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/ej.htm.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation.
Washington, D.C. A team based in EPAs Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
developed these reports. Eric Marsh was the project manager for this effort.
-------
The Barrio Logan Partnership: A Case Study
Table of Contents
Community History 2
Partnership Background 4
Partnership Activities 10
Measuring Partnership Success 11
Partnership Successes 11
Partnership Challenges 13
Interviewee's Recommendations for Improving the Partnership 14
Interviewee's Recommendations for Other Communities 14
Value of the Collaborative Partnership 15
Value of Federal Involvement In the Partnership 17
Key Findings (as of October 2001) 19
Afterword 19
List of Interviewees 21
Works Cited 23
Endnotes 25
-------
[This effort has] gotten people from these agencies talking and getting to know each
other which is critical.
We're talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that are important to
the community.
Previous enemies are working together to figure out what they can do to fix the
problem instead of fighting.
I saw this partnership as an opportunity to break the cycle that had been going on for
the last 30-40 years.
— Interviewees, Barrio Logan Partnership
Community History*
The City of San Diego is located on the southern California coast, less than fifteen miles
from the northern border of Mexico. Home to a diverse population of approximately 1.2 million
people12, the City was named the most efficiently run city in California in February 2002.2 The
Mayor's Office is currently engaged in efforts to improve overall quality of life for San Diegans,
focused on such goals as reducing traffic congestion, cleaning the area's bays and beaches and
enhancing San Diego's neighborhoods.3 Through San Diego's "City of Villages" initiative the
City hopes to help its historically and culturally distinct communities thrive by working with them
to address and integrate commercial, employment, housing, transit, and civic use needs4
One San Diego community, where residents have been working for many years to
strengthen its neighborhoods and boost overall quality of life for residents, can be found near
the City's downtown area. Barrio Logan is a predominantly Latino community located on the
border of the industrialized portion of the San Diego Bay.5 Between 1910 and 1920, this area
saw a large influx of immigrants from Mexico wanting to escape Mexico's poor economy and
political turmoil.6 Following this migration, Barrio Logan transformed into one of the largest
Mexican-American communities in California7 and came to be known as "the historical and
symbolic center of the San Diego Chicano Community."8 As San Diego's downtown grew, and
both the state and the city began to modernize, however, Barrio Logan began experiencing a
series of fundamental changes.9 First, the revision of city zoning laws in the 1950s led to
industrial growth in the community and brought a series of junkyards sited near schools and
homes10 as well as other industries, including plating, furniture, woodworking, auto body, and
welding shops,11 tanneries and canneries.12 Second, U.S. Interstate 5 was built in the early
1960s, which "physically divided the community and resulted in forced relocation of residents."13
Finally, in 1969, the Coronado Bay Bridge was constructed, leading to more displacement of
1 Interviews for this case study were conducted primarily during the week of October 8, 2001. One additional
interview was conducted in late October. Twelve separate interviews were conducted and a total of fourteen persons
participated. Interviews were conducted with representatives of community organizations, federal, state, and local
government agencies, local business, and industry.
The current population total of the City of San Diego equals 1,223,400.
-------
residents and further community resentment.14 By 1979, Barrio Logan's population had fallen
from 20,000 to only 5,000.
Today, roughly 6,000 people reside in Barrio Logan, of which approximately 85 percent
are Hispanic.15 The community consists of a tightly concentrated mixture of homes, commercial
buildings, and industrial facilities, including a waterfront industrial and naval complex.16 Despite
a heavy concentration of industry, unemployment is significantly greater than the city average,17
and 40 percent of households earn incomes below the state's poverty level.18 Moreover, Barrio
Logan residents struggle with antiquated, inadequate and poorly maintained housing,
overburdened schools, and insufficient health care and social services.19 In addition, Barrio
Logan residents are faced with a myriad of environmental health issues. Today, nearly
3,000,000 pounds of toxic pollutants are emitted from facilities in the community, children exhibit
an incidence of asthma at over twice the rate of the national average,20 and the region's
respiratory health hazard index is 100-200 times above acceptable standards.21 In addition,
residents are faced with pollutants from a high volume of commuter and truck traffic.
Despite its many obstacles, Barrio Logan residents have kept a strong sense of
community and continue to push for improvements. This is perhaps best symbolized by an
event in 1970 in which Barrio Logan residents resisted efforts by the California Highway Patrol
to build a parking lot on land underneath the Coronado Bay Bridge that had previously been
designated by the City to become a community park.22 Born out of many years of negative
relations between the community and the City,23 these actions eventually resulted in the
establishment of Chicano Park, which became famous for its collection of murals,24 and other
programs and initiatives including the Chicano Community Clinic and the Chicano Park Steering
Committee.25
By the mid-1970s, residents, along with businesses and the City had begun to work
together in an effort to boost the quality of life in the community.26 An example of such an effort
was the development of Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan, adopted by the City Council,
which called for a series of improvements in the community, including zoning and land use
changes.27 Despite activity within the community and the plan's call for new zoning in the
community, change has not come quickly. For instance, the new redevelopment zone
recommended in the Barrio Logan/Harbor 101 Community Plan was not established until 199128
and only included a portion of Barrio Logan.29 Moreover, neither the new zone nor subsequent
zoning amendments eliminated the mixed industrial-residential land use pattern in Barrio
Logan.30 Nevertheless, residents and different organizations continued to move forward on
numerous fronts to improve Barrio Logan's quality of life and reduce the threat from air pollution.
For instance, in another effort to stop incompatible land uses, community residents and a local
environmental justice organization active in the Barrio Logan area, the Environmental Health
Coalition, pressured the City of San Diego Land Use and Housing Committee to pass a
measure in 1994 calling for the relocation of the chrome plating shops and chemical distribution
facilities from Barrio Logan.31 Similarly, in 1996, the City of San Diego along with the Barrio
Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team developed the Barrio Logan Revitalization Action Plan,
which, among several other action items, suggested that the City relocate existing polluting
facilities to areas where they would not pose a risk to sizeable populations.32 Despite these
actions by the City, not one of the polluting facilities has yet been relocated from the area.33
Another initiative was an effort by the California Air Resources Board to do extensive
testing for air pollution and health effects in partnership with several stakeholders in the
community.34 Others include a major multi-year study being conducted in cooperation with the
University of Southern California, the Environmental Health Coalition, and a local health clinic to
-------
assess how air pollution in Barrio Logan may be linked to certain illnesses; and an effort
sponsored by the local American Lung Association chapter to reduce incidences of asthma
among asthmatic children in schools.35
Partnership Background
Although these and other initiatives were underway in the late 1990s to address different
concerns of the community, and Barrio Logan's sister community of Logan Heights, most
operated independently of each other. Project organizers did not regularly consult with one
another to complement efforts, share lessons learned, and avoid project duplication. Further,
despite the many efforts, community concerns were not being fully addressed. For example,
some residents wanted neighborhood truck traffic, which passes by a local elementary school,
rerouted, or speed limits lowered, to better ensure the safety of their children as they walked to
and from school. Others were concerned about Barrio Logan's many vacant and abandoned
properties. Based upon these observations, a senior advisor working out of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Border Office in San Diego, who has since retired, sought
an opportunity to help meld the many positive Barrio Logan initiatives into a more
comprehensive community development approach.
In early 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official applied to have Barrio
Logan designated as a national Environmental Justice Pilot Project, sponsored by the federal
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Environmental Justice, hoping that this effort would
provide a forum for all the efforts underway in Barrio Logan to come together and bring
additional resources and national attention to the community. In May 2000, the IWG selected
Barrio Logan to be one of the fifteen national pilot projects. Following this, the EPA official
asked the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), an organization with a strong tradition of
working with the Barrio Logan community, to serve with EPA as the project co-lead. EHC,
however, was not quick to accept, concerned that participation in such a collaborative approach
would curtail the organization's ability to participate in certain activities, such as community
demonstrations, and ultimately limit its authority to advocate for the Barrio Logan community.
Despite these reservations, EHC determined that the pilot project's potential to bring additional
resources to the community outweighed the organization's initial concerns.
After agreeing to share leadership roles, EPA and EHC began developing a strategy to
bring the organizations such as local industries, businesses, government agencies and
community groups together and build a collaborative partnership. The pre-planning team
realized that this would be a difficult endeavor since several potential members would find it
difficult to work in concert due to past or present disputes, some involving litigation. For
instance, several organizations, agencies, and industries have differing perspectives regarding
the validity of data collected from local air monitoring stations and whether those results suggest
that the local population suffers from disproportionately greater exposure to air emissions than
other comparable groups. Recognizing the difficulties, EPA and EHC made the decision to hire
a professional facilitator to help guide the collaborative process.3 One was selected with prior
experience working in the Barrio Logan community, and over the next several months, EPA,
EHC and the facilitator began framing the focus of the partnership and determining how best to
build an effective partnership.
In November 2000, EPA and EHC held the kick-off session for the Barrio Logan
Demonstration Project. Several organizations already working on projects in the area, whom
3 The facilitator, funded by EPA, represents the company of Katz and Associates.
-------
the pre-planning team had previously identified, attended the session. During the meeting, the
pre-planning team emphasized that the project would last two-years, be results-oriented, and
would "focus on addressing incompatible land use practices, unacceptable air quality, and
associate health impacts for the residents of Barrio Logan."36 Due to the interest expressed by
organizations in attendance, the pre-planning team chose to continue the partnership building
process and formally request that all interested organizations apply to join the Barrio Logan
Demonstration Project,37 even those previously identified. No organization would be
guaranteed acceptance into the partnership. In January 2001, EPA and EHC made this request
in a letter sent to potential partners. An excerpt is included in the box below:
Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to
Consider Joining the Barrio Logan Demonstration Project
This letter is to solicit your organization's interest in being a partner in this Demonstration
Project and to outline the criteria for being invited as a partner. We are looking for a diverse
group of partners, including federal, state, and local governments, business and industry,
academic institutions, social justice groups, health promotion and community-based
organizations. Based on the interest expressed at the first meeting and since then, we have
set forth a process for selection of partners that will ensure that the group is as inclusive as
possible and is committed to achieving common goals. We need to emphasize that the
Demonstration Project is not an advisory group nor a discussion group, it is a working
partnership with people committed to solving problems in Barrio Logan.
Figure 1. Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to Consider Joining the Barrio Logan
Demonstration Project
Included in the letter were four questions designed to enable the pre-planning team to
better determine whether interested recipients would be asked to participate in a partnering
session to be held at the end of January. The questions are listed below.38
Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to
Justify Why They Would Make an Effective Partner
1. Does your organization agree with the problem and goal statements on the attached
sheet? (All project partners must fundamentally agree with these statements in order to
participate in the project)
2. What is your organization's primary interest and/or priority for this project?
3. What value (resources or technical assistance) will your organization add to this effort?
4. Who will serve as your organization's representative? Please provide his/her name and
contact information.
Figure 2. Excerpt from EHC & EPA Letter Asking Potential Partners to Justify Why They Would Make an Effective
Partner
After receiving application letters and making decisions about who should be asked to
participate, the partnering session, hosted by the Mercado Tenants Association in Barrio Logan,
was held. The Association provided meeting space, language translation, and information to
Barrio Logan residents affected by the demonstration project. The "One-Day Partnering
Workshop" focused on outlining roles, responsibilities, partnership obligations and planned and
-------
potential partnership activities.39 Furthermore, the workshop gave potential partners an
opportunity to shape the Partnering Agreement, a draft document crafted by the pre-planning
team that was designed to create an arena of respect where partners could communicate and
work together as equals.
Specifically, the Partnering Agreement provided background on the project and outlined
key problem and goal statements for the project, and roles for both the project leads and project
partners necessary to achieve project goals. The key problem and goal statements are included
in the table below.40
Key Problem and Goal Statements
Outlined in the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement
Emissions of air pollution and toxins from local
industries, small businesses, automobiles, and diesel
vehicles in Barrio Logan and Logan Heights pose
unacceptable health risks to local residents.
Reduce exposure of residents to air
pollution.
Incompatible land use in zoning in Barrio Logan and
Logan Heights exposes residents to increased risks
of hazardous materials accidents and health impacts
from air toxic emissions.
Reduce incompatible land uses
Barrio Logan and Logan Heights.
in
Children's health is a concern for local residents due
to ambient environmental factors as well as risks
within the home and schools such as lead-based
paint and other sources of indoor air pollutants.
Improve children's health by
improving the ambient environment,
as well as reducing exposure of
children to health risks within the
home, schools, and the community.
Figure 3. Key Problem and Goal Statements Outlined in the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement
Roles of the project leads, as outlined in the Partnering Agreement, included (1)
providing meeting notes; (2) maintaining the project web site; (3) complying with evaluation and
reporting requirements of the demonstration project; (4) coordinating funding requests; and (5)
preparing meeting summaries. Some of the roles of the partners included (1) staying committed
to project success; (2) sharing data and information to assist partners and help the overall
project meet its goals; (3) coordinating activities that could potentially complement or conflict
with each other; (4) identifying obstacles to achieving project goals and developing solutions to
overcome them; and (5) thinking creatively about how partners can collaboratively make a
difference in the health and wellbeing of the Barrio Logan community.41 In addition to describing
the goals and roles, the Partnering Agreement also outlined several steps that would be taken in
the event of disagreements between partners. The section describing these steps is included in
the box below.42
-------
Excerpt from the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement describing the
Partnership's Conflict Resolution Process
In the course of partnership activities, disagreements will inevitably arise regarding whether a
course of action should or should not be taken. The Partners agree to work in a collaborative
fashion and to facilitate consensus on these issues whenever possible. If consensus cannot be
reached, the Partners agree to use mediation to attempt to reach a resolution. Further, the
Partners agree they will attempt to resolve the disagreement expeditiously and constructively to
benefit Project goals. In the event of an impasse, the co-leads shall be the final decision
makers, carefully weighing the consequences of any decision to take action where there is a
lack of consensus. If the co-leads cannot agree, then the action in question would not be taken.
In any event, individual Partners cannot be compelled to participate in an action to which they
do not agree. Individual Partners may also abstain from participation in a decision when they
believe it would be inappropriate for them to do so.
Figure 4. Excerpt from the Barrio Logan Partnering Agreement describing the Partnership's Conflict Resolution
Process
Following the partnering
workshop, each potential partner was
required, as a condition of participation
in the partnership, to agree to
statements put forth in the Partnering
Agreement. By signing the document,
partners were expected to show that
they could look beyond the past, and
"work together to demonstrate how
agencies and communities working in
concert can achieve meaningful
improvements in public health for
communities such as Barrio Logan."43 A
diverse collection of partners ultimately
signed the agreement. These included
eighteen representatives from the city,
county state, and federal government,
community-based organizations,
industry, a business association,
environmental and public health groups,
and the San Diego Port District. Several
organizations decided they could not
agree with or sign the Partnering
Agreement. Representatives of these
groups, however, were allowed to attend
subsequent meetings and participate as
observers. These included
representatives from a local college, the
San Diego School District, and offices of
local and U.S. politicians. The list of
organizations is included in Figure 10.
Active
American Lung Association
California Air Resources Board
California Department of Transportation
California Environmental Protection Agency
City of San Diego-Traffic Division
Environmental Health Coalition
Inner City Business Association
Katz and Associates
MAAC Project
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Mercado Tenant's Association
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
San Diego City Attorney's Office
San Diego Housing Commission
San Diego Unified Port District
South West Marine, Inc.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Observers
Barrio Logan College Institute
City of San Diego Redevelopment Agency
Congressman's Bob Filner's Office
County of San Diego
County of San Diego Health and Human Services
Mayor Dick Murphy's Office
Private Citizen
San Diego City Councilmember Inzunza's Office
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
San Diego Unified School District
f^rpn P.nY'Q Offirp
Figure 5. Barrio Logan Partnership's Partners and Observers
-------
Regular partnership working sessions began in March 2001. Sessions were held
approximately once per month on a weekday and typically lasted around three hours. Sessions
included (1) presentations by non-partners on various local initiatives that could impact Barrio
Logan and partnership activities, (2) facilitated discussions between partners about different
activities already underway in Barrio Logan and existing resources partners could provide that
could benefit Barrio Logan, and (3) opportunities for partnership work groups to strategize and
report out to the larger group their progress. As described in the Partnering Agreement, the
Partnership decision making process was based upon consensus. In addition, to ensure that all
would be heard, the facilitator typically tried to bring both majority and minority opinions into the
discussion. Very few topics discussed provoked strong disagreement across parties.
At the close of the March 2001 meeting, partners agreed to develop three work groups
that would each focus on one of the goals identified in the Partnership Agreement44. During the
next meeting, partners organized themselves into three work groups: Land Use, Children's
Health, and Air Quality. The organizations participating in each work group are listed in the
figure below.45
Initial Barrio Logan Partnership Work Groups
and Participating Organizations
Air Quality Work Group
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
San Diego City Attorney's Office
California Air Resources Board
California Department of Transportation
San Diego Unified Port District
California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment
Environmental Health Coalition
Children's Health Work Group
American Lung Association
San Diego Housing Commission
San Diego Vacant Properties Coordinator
Mercado Apartments
San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health
California Air Resources Board
Land Use Work Group
Cal/EPA Dept of Toxic Substances Control
Cal/EPA Environmental Justice Program
Inner City Business Association
Environmental Health Coalition
Figure 6. Initial Barrio Logan Partnering Work Groups and Participating Organizations
Each work group was then asked to discuss among participants three main questions
that would help organize them. The questions are listed in the box below:46
8
-------
Organizing Questions for the Barrio Logan Partnership Work Groups
1. Given the goal statement of your work group, brainstorm what an ideal wellness state
would be for the community of Barrio Logan. What will success look like after achieving
improvements in air quality/children's health/or land use planning?
2. Looking at current and future resources/programs identified for Barrio Logan, where do
you see gaps?
3. What kind of initiatives or programs that currently do not exist, might begin to address
the gaps identified above?
Figure 7. Organizing Questions for the Barrio Logan Partnership Work Groups
Each work group developed a series of responses for each question that was recorded
on flip sheets. The facilitator then used these responses as a discussion point to help direct the
work groups towards specific tasks they could work on. A representative from EHC then agreed
to help combine the discussions of each work group into one matrix that would enable them to
further identify priority action items and collaborative opportunities. This matrix was then
discussed at the following May 2001 meeting. A sample of this matrix is presented below.47
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project
Goals, Objectives and Solutions Matrix (Sample)
GOALS
OBJECTIVES
SOLUTIONS
Political Will
Community Power
Stronger Regs &
Enforcement
Revise community
plan & zoning
Pollution
Prevention
Public Awareness
Transportation
System
Low interest loans
& tax incentives
Healthy Homes
Program
Research & Data
Collection
REDUCE AIR
POLLUTION
Fuller compliance
with air reqs
IMPROVE
CHILDREN'S HEALTH
No exposure to indoor
pollutants and lead
REDUCE INCOMPATIBLE
LAND USES
No polluters near resident
Figure 8. Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project Goals, Objectives and Solutions Matrix (Sample)
Although the process was straightforward, partners experienced difficulties in prioritizing
actions. Several factors may have slowed this process, including lack of partnership funding,
-------
lack of an effective partnership model about the most appropriate actions to take, lack of
commitment from individual partners, and the inability of some participants to speak on behalf of
their respective organizations. In addition, the partnership co-lead representing EPA retired in
the summer of 2001, creating temporary uncertainty for the other partners about EPA's
leadership commitment while the agency secured a replacement. Nevertheless, the facilitator
and partnership leaders worked to keep everyone on track. By May 2001, a sprit of
collaboration had developed between the different parties and a foundation for partnering had
been built, evidenced by the sharing of meals during regular meetings.4 48 The partners have
since continued to meet. An initiative that grew out of cooperation between two very distinct
organizations starting in the late spring of 2000 had transformed into a genuine partnership
representing several organizations by the spring of 2001. Some factors that may have
contributed to this initial success may have included use of an effective partnership design, use
of a skilled facilitator, leadership displayed by several organizations, a continued belief that the
issues identified needed to be addressed, mutual recognition of the benefits of regular
information sharing, and a shared belief that the partnership was moving in the right direction.
The evolution of the Barrio Logan partnership is depicted in the graphic below.
Evolution of the Barrio Logan Partnership
May 2000
May 2001
Figure 9. EPA Representation of the Evolution of the Barrio Logan Partnership
Partnership Activities
By October 2001, the partnership was still undergoing a process of determining which
actions should be taken to help the partnership reach the three main goals. Nonetheless, even
to this point, the partnership had engaged in activities that would help the partnership members
realize their goals. For example, the partnership had identified partners that many in the
partnership had not previously known, including the Inner City Business Association and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).49 Second, several partners had
been actively involved in the solicitation of resources to benefit Barrio Logan residents. For
instance, as of May 2001, four partners (EHC, the City of San Diego, MAAC Project, and HUD),
were working together to obtain a Lead Hazard Control Grant that would provide Barrio Logan
with $1 million to remedy lead-contaminated soil and dust in homes50 In addition to securing
funding through grants, several persons were contributing varying portions of their staff or
volunteering to support the project.
Meetings are held at The Mercado or at the Logan Heights Police Department. Meetings are generally held during
the day; however, as of October 2001, the partnership was considering changing the meeting time to boost
participation from community residents.
10
-------
The following sections primarily describe interviewees' responses to questions gathered
from interviews conducted by EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation during the
week of October 8-12, 2001. The sections focus on interviewees' impressions regarding
measuring partnership success, identifying successes and challenges, recommendations for
improving the partnership, overall value of the partnership, and the value of federal involvement
in the partnership.
Measuring Partnership Success
As of October 2001, the partnership had not developed a framework for measuring the
overall success of the partnership in meeting the three goals. However, the three goals agreed
upon by the partners should serve as a critical basis from which the partnership can begin
assessing partnership progress and success once activities are decided upon and implemented.
Further, when asked how the partners might determine success, the fourteen interviewees
addressing this topic had several suggestions—some focusing on general measurement
considerations, and others focusing on specific indicators to measure. Regarding general
considerations, three interviewees urged the need to be specific about what gets measured.
For instance, one remarked that any measurement must focus on what the partnership can
accomplish. Regarding the type of data that should be collected-quantitative or qualitative—
one interviewee recommended that quantitative data be collected - through pre- and post-tests.
Another, however, cautioned the use of quantitative data, suggesting that it may result in
harmful disputes between partners.
Specific indicators recommended for measurement focused on such topics as public
health improvement, community improvement (e.g., quality of life), and community
empowerment. Suggestions for public health indicators included the extent to which schools in
the area participate in the Open Airways and Tools for Schools programs and the extent to
which trucks are re-routed or some people are relocated away from truck routes. However,
another interviewee recommended that the rerouting of trucks not be considered an indicator of
project success. Suggestions for community improvement indicators centered mainly on the
extent to which the partnership results in a better quality of life for the community. Suggestions
for community empowerment indicators included the extent to which the community becomes
part of partnership solutions, the number of community plans adopted by the city government,
and the extent to which community residents take ownership over the partnership.
Partnership Successes
When asked if partners were satisfied with their ability to participate in the project
decision-making process, twelve of the twelve interviewees who addressed the question
responded positively. One noted that the process has given everyone a voice, and another
remarked that she/he actually looks forward to the meetings. Three interviewees, however,
qualified their remarks. Two noted that no major decisions had been made yet, and another
remarked that while the process has been fine so far, it was still too early on in the process to
genuinely judge.
Regarding whether interviewees were satisfied to the extent issues most important to
them and their organizations were being addressed by the partnership, most indicated they
were satisfied; however several qualified their remarks. Five out the eleven who addressed the
question said yes, without providing any qualifying remarks. For instance, one mentioned that
the partners "are talking about safety, housing, trucks, and all the things that are important to
11
-------
the community." Two additional interviewees indicated that their issues were being addressed,
but only to a limited extent. For example, one remarked that the zoning issues were not being
addressed to the extent they should be. Two interviewees were less satisfied—one noting it
was too early to tell, and another stating that his/her issues had not yet been addressed.
Another flatly stated that his/her issues were not being addressed. Finally, one interviewee
remarked that his/her organization did not join the process to address a particular issue, rather,
they joined to "participate in the process... [and] do [their] share."
When asked about the outcomes, or results, of the partner activities for addressing the
main issues of the affected community, not surprisingly seven of the ten addressing this
question remarked that it was too early to tell.5 For instance, one interviewee remarked that the
partnership was still identifying problems. However, four interviewees indicated that the
partnership is already having a positive impact for the affected community. These include:
agencies becoming more familiar with each other; enhancement of community pride; community
empowerment; the highlighting of important health issues in the affected community; and a
more coordinated community development. Even some who indicated it was too early to judge
the outcomes of the partnership activities, later noted some positive outcomes. For example,
one noted that bringing these organizations together has resulted in a greater rate of
accomplishment.
When asked whether interviewees were satisfied with the outcomes of partner activities,
nine of the eleven addressing this question indicated that they were satisfied. One indicated
that she/he was very, very satisfied. Another indicated that the partnership had produced
positive dialogue and relationship building. Two indicated they were satisfied but would like to
see more tangible efforts being made to assist the community. Two others who were satisfied
also explained that the process was slow, with one noting that this was to be expected. The
one interviewee who was unsatisfied remarked that the process was moving too slowly. A final
interviewee provided an ambiguous response.
When asked what has been their greatest success thus far, nine of the fourteen
interviewees addressing this question referenced the partnership itself. For instance, one
interviewee stressed that the partnership had brought diverse groups of people together,
including some who were previously adversaries. When asked what had been the key factors
contributing to the partnership's development, interviewees cited the Partnering Agreement, the
facilitator, and EHC's and EPAs leadership roles. Specifically, one noted that both
organizations were able to get involved without being accusatory. Another also remarked that
the two organizations' outreach to potential partners had been important for the partnership's
development. This same interviewee also suggested that another key factor was the
willingness of different groups to participate in the process.
Another interviewee explained "the fact that people have been able to set aside what
goes on outside the partnership and still participate in good faith to bring results to Barrio
Logan" was a critical success. Reasons for this success include obtaining partnership
agreement on the goals, the partnering session, the Partnering Agreement, and the absence of
participants that could harm the process. Finally, one interviewee cited the partnership's ability
to keep the partnership's diverse members interested and talking with one another as the
5 During the interview process, interviewees were asked questions about both the outcomes of partner activities, and
the impact of activities for the affected communities. From the responses, it was clear that most interviewees viewed
the partnership activities in terms of outcomes, not impact. Therefore, the term outcome is used throughout this
discussion.
12
-------
partnership's greatest success. In addition, three remarked that it was still too early to tell what
the partnership's greatest success was.
Interviewees were also asked whether the organizational styles and procedures of the
different partner organizations limited effective collaboration between partners. Participants
rarely pointed to specific problematic organizational styles. Instead interviewees commented
primarily on inter-group dynamics. Three interviewees explained that there seemed to be a
strong willingness to work together within the partnership. For instance one stated that
"everybody adopted the can-do attitude and they knew that they had different opinions and tried
not to let this interfere with how these groups approached [the partnership]." Two additional
interviewees indicated, however, that, despite a willingness to work together, some barriers still
existed. For example, one explained that industry participants have a different decision-making
style than EHC, whose style is more "community inclusive."6 Two others mentioned that
potential partners that would have found it difficult to participate chose not to sign the Partnering
Agreement. However, one of these same interviewees indicated that it was too early to truly tell
if barriers between partners would arise. Similarly, another remarked that conflict might
certainly occur in the future, as does with all large groups; however, she/he further indicated that
this could be constructive. In addition, two interviewees were concerned about the motives
behind some groups' participation, and one was concerned about not being able to enroll the Air
Pollution Control District as a partner.
Nine of the fourteen interviewees who addressed existing organizational barriers
between partners referenced the facilitator as a main reason for enabling partnership members
to work together. One interviewee noted that the facilitator fostered a "let's work together" spirit
amongst the partners. Another noted that "without [the facilitator] this group would not be able
to exist." Of the four not referencing the facilitator, three specifically referenced the Partnering
Agreement as an important tool for enabling the different organizations to work together. One
interviewee did remark, however, that to improve collaboration, a more active facilitator was
needed.
Partnership Challenges
When asked about the greatest challenges facing the partnership, interviewees
produced a variety of responses. Four of the fourteen who addressed the question indicated
that agreeing to and then implementing actions to address the goals is the partnership's most
significant challenge. Similarly, one interviewee noted that the biggest obstacle is simply
accomplishing a tangible activity. She/he went on to say that the partnership "was trying to
jump too far", instead of taking calculated steps. Further, the interviewee expressed frustration
at the partnership's desire to address issues that she/he felt could not be accomplished in a
short term such as the re-routing of trucks. A set of interviewees cited the partnership's slow
nature as a major obstacle. For instance, one noted this presented a problem since partners
must answer to their organizations, which represent different goals and interests, and justify
their time committed to the partnership. Another cited the partnership's lack of a mandate or
enforcement authority as an obstacle. To overcome this, she/he suggested getting the Mayor
and city government more involved in the process. Other difficulties cited included:
"synchronizing" participants so that they share a common base of understanding about the
issues of concern; deciding how to relocate businesses away from residences and businesses;
keeping key decision makers involved in the partnership; ensuring greater community
This interviewee did note, however, that the facilitator developed a decision-making process that addressed these
concerns.
13
-------
engagement in partnership planning and implementation; a need for funding, especially for
mailing, coordination, and translation activities; trust issues; and developing and implementing
initiatives through a group consisting of volunteers.
Interviewee's Recommendations for Improving the Partnership
When interviewees were asked how the partnership could be improved, six of the twelve
addressing the question recommended that the community be more involved in partnership
activities. Some interviewees were not convinced that the residents have enough information
about the partnership and what the partnership is trying to accomplish. Further, although these
interviewees believed they were working to improve the quality of life for the residents of Barrio
Logan, they felt that residents should be more involved in how that happens. One interviewee
remarked that "the community is not involved as much because they have not been asked.
However, if asked, they will help." To obtain greater participation, one interviewee suggested
hosting partnership meetings at churches and the Barrio College, and at times when residents
can more easily attend. Another interviewee recommended that partnership members go out
into the community, visiting residents and companies in order to better understand what their
concerns are. She/he concluded by stating that "sometimes [the partnership's] views are
different from the people that live here." Directly related to community involvement, another
interviewee recommended that the partnership make greater use of simultaneous translation in
partnership meetings, because without it, some residents are excluded.
Four interviewees stressed the need to engage in activities that will produce real results.
For instance, one urged the partnership to "pick a goal that will lead to tangible change."
Closely associated with this recommendation, one interviewee recommended that the
partnership develop a workplan. Closely related to this recommendation, another urged that the
partnership meet more frequently to ensure that partnership initiatives are planned.
A group of comments related to organizational structure and representation. Three
interviewees recommended that the partnership be divided into sub-groups to improve
partnership efficiency. Another recommended that partners be re-evaluated, particularly to
better understand those that are active. Further, she/he added that the partnership should
identify a clear leader, noting that "you can play a football game without a lineman, but you can't
play football without a quarterback." In addition, two argued that the partnership needed the
support of the City, and another added that the partnership needed members "with the authority
to participate." Additional recommendations included: using a more aggressive facilitator;
obtaining a letter from U.S. EPA's Administrator recognizing the Barrio Logan partners for their
work in the area; encouraging partners to make more resources and educational opportunities
available to the community; hosting a community health fair; and securing more funding for the
partnership.
Interviewee's Recommendations for Other Communities
Twelve interviewees offered suggestions for other communities interested in using
collaborative partnerships to address environmental justice issues. One set of comments
focused on building the partnership. Four comments encouraged partnership builders to focus
on community involvement in the partnership's formative stages. Specifically, two
recommended that the community should be brought into join the partnership first. One of these
recommended that the community be allowed to define the problems and be involved in
decision making. Four additional comments recommended locating potential partners who are
14
-------
leaders and/or action oriented, with one directly urging partnerships to screen out those
potential partners who are not inclined to participate. As stated by one interviewee:
Get as many people to the table as possible - the key players. Do
whatever it takes to get the key players. Have some public notices. Let
them know there's a group out there and they are looking for input. Get the
elected representatives at the table-the council, the city planning
[department], the state and city representatives. Getting these folks in and
partnering. You need the political will. Need power to make changes. Get
as many interested partners as possible—people that can actually do
something.
Other recommendations regarding this topic included identifying partners that would be affected;
ensuring that a full spectrum of stakeholders are involved; and encouraging as many
organizations as possible to participate.
A second set of comments focused on how to create a genuine collaborative process.
Two interviewees recommended using a partnering agreement. According to one, a partnering
agreement helps to remove conflict. Similarly, one recommended making sure that all partners
start from the "same page" and another recommended obtaining "buy-in" from all partners.
Related, another interviewee recommended that a facilitator skilled in conflict resolution be
brought in to guide the process after a thorough community assessment has been performed to
help define the problems the partnership will address. Further, one interviewee stressed the
need to "get people involved in a positive way from the beginning" and avoid bringing up history.
Once a partnership has been brought together, one interviewee stressed that it is
important to obtain specific commitments from partners. Another recommended that partners
develop realistic expectations about what each of the participating organizations can do, noting
explicitly that "resources these groups may bring may not be funding." Other recommendations
included having patience, focusing on achievable goals since it is very important to see
identifiable change in community, and providing resources for translation.
A final set of comments stressed the need for partnerships to incorporate a mechanism
that will truly empower them. One interviewee remarked that partnerships such as Barrio
Logan's lack power. To boost the power of a partnership, one recommended building alliances
with local planning bodies, noting that local officials don't often go against the wishes of local
planning bodies. A second suggested that for partnerships to have genuine power, they may
need to be built using a top-down approach.
Value of the Collaborative Partnership
When asked about the value of the collaborative process used by the partnership, of the
fourteen addressing the question, nine remarked that the collaborative process had added
value, three indicated that it was too early to tell, and one remarked that she/he could not speak
on behalf of the community. Five interviewees explicitly referenced information sharing. The
information shared by the partners is not only seen as a resource, as in the sharing of expertise,
it also enables more effective partnership planning. For instance, one remarked that
involvement in the partnership has required agencies to reveal where they stand publicly on
different issues. Further, another interviewee suggested that the partnership allows the partners
and the community to understand what each agency can and cannot do, to see their areas of
expertise and their limitations. Additionally, she/he added that many of the agencies, such as
15
-------
the planning department, the air district, and CALTRAN, seem to be natural partners, and sitting
at the same table allows them to see how they can work together. The process of seeing how
different groups can work together, "leaves the participants empowered."
Two interviewees noted that having the representatives from the different organizations
leave their offices to physically view this community and understand the needs of the residents
has been very valuable. According to one, this would not have happened without the
partnership. Further, this same interviewee added that this process of interacting with different
groups in the community would result in the breakdown of negative stereotypes surrounding
small businesses.
Two other interviewees cited the ability of the partnership to create change as its main
value. One stated that the value has come from the partnership's ability to engage those that
have the ability and authority to make changes to benefit the Barrio Logan community. Another
indicated that although she/he can't prove it yet,
the value [of the partnership] is we've set the stage and foundation of
synergizing for addressing the community issues. [The partnership] in a
position to affect some changes with the city or city council that will have
some long-range impacts in the community. Some resources have come
the communities' way and if they can focus their energies they could get
more. They can leverage this partnership to get more.
Additional value of the partnership cited by some interviewees includes: the securing of some
additional resources for the community; the potential to leverage more resources; and a
reduction in duplication of resources.
When asked if they thought the Barrio Logan community could use this same
collaborative process to address similar problems in the future, seven of the thirteen addressing
the question said yes, two said no, and four said they didn't know. For those responding yes,
four remarked that strong leadership would be needed to make the process work, particularly
local leadership. For those responding that they did not know, one interviewee remarked that
the partnership might leave a core group in place. Another remarked that this type of process
would only be used in the future if the Barrio Logan partnership produces tangible results. For
those responding no, one interviewee voiced a concern that the current partnership would end if
EPA and EHC were to leave the process. Further, she/he indicated that it would be very hard to
pull a community coalition together. The other interviewee indicated that this process would not
be used again because the community has not been effectively involved. However, she/he
qualified her remark noting that if the community was brought into this process, the partnership
could become an important conduit for change.
When asked whether the main issues affecting Barrio Logan would have been
addressed without the use of a collaborative approach, responses were very mixed. Of the ten
who addressed the question, two indicated yes, two indicated somewhat, two indicated probably
not, three indicated unclear, and one indicated no. Of those indicating yes, one remarked that
different agencies would address the issues; the other mentioned, similarly, that the issues
would be dealt with through a piecemeal approach. The interviewee noting that the issues
probably would not have been dealt with mentioned that the issues would have either been
addressed contentiously or not at all. The interviewee indicating that issues would not have
been dealt with remarked that any attempt to address them would have been too fragmented
and resulted in too many disputes.
16
-------
Value of Federal Involvement In the Partnership
When asked what was the effect of having federal partners participate in the partnership,
eleven of the fourteen interviewees addressing the question indicated that federal involvement
did, indeed, add value; two were unclear; and one indicated that federal partners did not provide
value, except for name recognition. Of the eleven indicating value, five interviewees stated that
federal partners brought credibility/legitimacy to the project. For instance, one remarked that
federal partners make "local entities feel more accountable, like someone outside San Diego is
looking at what they are doing." Four indicated that the federal partners have brought much
needed resources to the project, including the sharing of information. One non-federal
interviewee remarked that "the [federal government] brings a lot of resources. The federal
government is a very large resource. It's up to us to utilize those resources." Two mentioned
that federal involvement has brought a sharp focus to the environmental justice issues in the
area, with one noting that federal involvement encouraged state and local governments to
acknowledge the environmental justice issues in the area. Two additional interviewees
remarked that the personal skills EPA's former senior advisor brought to the project were critical
for project success. In addition, one remarked that the fact that the partnership had federal
partners was essential to one company's participation. Interviewees also indicated that
involvement of federal partners would result in the partnership having a larger impact and higher
status. Finally, one interviewee stated that having federal partners involved was very important.
Concerns regarding federal involvement were also raised. Two interviewees remarked
that federal agency involvement in the partnership discouraged some potential partners from
joining. Another remarked that along with federal involvement might come expectations that
cannot be met. A non-federal interviewee noted that EPA's reputation could be damaged if the
project fails. Another interviewee remarked that federal partners have not interacted with the
community, and the community feels that it has little say regarding federal agency activities. In
addition, one noted that, although, she/he is excited by federal participation, the federal partners
may be difficult to work with because of their bureaucracies. Finally, another interviewee noted
that the community might not regularly distinguish between federal and state partners.
When interviewees were asked what they thought the federal agencies gained from the
partnership, seven of the fourteen addressing the question stated that it gave them a better
sense of how, when, and where agencies are able to participate in communities. For instance,
one interviewee noted that "[b]eing there, seeing the problems these communities face, the
struggles they endure—they can see firsthand how they can be a resource to solving local
problems." Further, another noted that by working in the community, federal partners could be
more effective in how they perform their work. Two interviewees stated that partnership has
provided an opportunity to build relationships and be more strategic. For instance, one noted
that
Most federal agencies are looking to say 'we are partnering.'
They want to be part of coalitions, joint efforts, leveraging
resources, making communities aware of how to apply for
resources. Clearly they want to be a part of things like this if they
have staff time to do it.
Another noted that the partnership has enabled relationships to develop between EPA, HUD,
and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). She/he stated that HUD
may not have become involved in Barrio Logan without the demonstration project, and further, it
17
-------
is unlikely that HUD would have encouraged the City to apply for the lead grant. Additional
benefits of participating in the Barrio Logan partnership cited by interviewees included
opportunities to: better understand environmental justice issues; show that federal partners are
doing work to address these issues; share lessons learned with other communities; learn a
combination of skills—both technical and social; and influence action. For the last comment, the
non-federal interviewee remarked that "EPA can influence action because people listen to
them."
When asked whether federal agencies have been able to better coordinate their
activities as a result of their involvement in the Barrio Logan partnership, of the thirteen
addressing the question, nine didn't know, two said yes, and two said no. Of those that didn't
know, one interviewee remarked that the federal partners were probably sharing information.
One didn't see any coordination. One indicated that the federal partners had kept the
partnership informed. And finally, one suggested that HUD, EPA, and NIEHS needed to
coordinate better. For those responding yes, that federal partners were coordinating more
effectively, one federal interviewee remarked that coordination is especially improving in the
Barrio Logan project. For those responding no, one interviewee remarked that she/he has not
seen the federal partners contribute substantively to the partnership.
Interviewees were also asked if participating federal partners had identified conflicting
requirements in their statutes or regulations that have been barriers to the success of the Barrio
Logan partnership. Nine of the thirteen interviewees addressing this question indicated that
none had been identified. One interviewee remarked that in the partnership's case, having
federal agencies participate actually led to a larger collaboration since federal policies typically
require a broad range of public involvement. Another remarked that although conflicting
requirements had not been identified, working with federal bureaucracies could be burdensome.
Two indicated that some policies or approaches could limit effective collaboration. One noted,
for instance, that one federal partner's ability to participate is limited by its mission. Another
remarked that one federal agency had an important philosophical difference with another federal
agency about participating in the partnership. She/he added that originally, this agency did not
want to participate, but the agency's regulations did not prevent the agency from participating.
The agency ultimately chose to participate and now benefits from information sharing.
Finally interviewees were asked what they would recommend federal agencies do to
best tailor their roles to participate in collaborative processes. Eight of the fourteen addressing
this question stated that federal partners should provide funding. Directly related to funding,
four suggested that federal partners should require that an evaluation component be built in to
collaborative efforts. Three interviewees recommended that federal partners should provide
collaborative efforts with facilitation services. However, one did suggest that requirements
should be built into to allow for facilitators to be removed. Still related to funding, one
interviewee suggested that federal agencies provide administrative support for such items as
issue follow-up, the production of overheads, and organization of tours. Another added that
translation services should be federally supported. Also on the topic of funding, one federal
interviewee stated that most agencies have little or very few resources and limited funding; but
added that they can provide resources by way of staff time and staff expertise.
Five interviewees urged federal agencies to enable communities to play key roles in the
development and/or implementation of community-based partnerships. For instance, one
recommended that partnerships/IWG demonstration projects be developed simultaneously with
the community—defining goals and identifying problems. Three interviewees recommended
that federal agencies allow certain partners-either a single partner, a single federal partner, or a
18
-------
group of partners—to take a stronger leadership role in these efforts. Two interviewees
suggested that federal partners better focus their resources to support collaborative efforts. For
example, one suggested that federal partners should better coordinate and plan with each other
before going into potential partnership communities.
Interviewees also recommended that, in order to best participate in collaborative efforts,
federal agencies should: develop a mix of both social and technical skills; maintain a federal
representative in the partnership location; keep federal partnership staff consistent; use
influence to encourage support for these efforts at the local level; initiate a partnership through
local government channels; be patient; be active; and send high-ranking, personable staff to
participate.
Key Findings (as of October 2001)
• Overall the participants were satisfied with the partnership and their ability to participate in it.
However, several were concerned that the partnership may lose momentum if it cannot
produce tangible outputs in the very near future.
• Many of the participants would like to see greater attention placed on involving Barrio Logan
residents in the partnership to a level the residents feel comfortable with. Several are
concerned that the issues of powerful organizations will override residents' issues and
concerns.
• Most participants agree with the decision to use a facilitator and a Partnering Agreement.
They feel that these have been critical resources, and without them, it would be difficult to
engage in genuine, productive partnering.
• Several participants agree that use of the collaborative process has, or will, greatly assist
the Barrio Logan community. Without this process, it is doubtful that critical issues would be
addressed to the extent they would without the partnership.
• It is clear that the Barrio Logan partnership is quite passionate about its mission. The many
and diverse partners have been able to overcome several obstacles just to be able to sit in
the same room and discuss issues. If the partnership can maintain resources and
momentum, the partners should achieve their goals and leave Barrio Logan with better air,
housing, and overall quality of life.
Afterword
After interviewees had the opportunity to review the first draft of this case study, the
Barrio Logan Partnership submitted an update regarding partnership activities occurring
between October 2001 and June 2002. Since October 2001, partnership members have formed
three task forces, or subcommittees of the larger group, to work on specified projects in
furtherance of the partnership goals. The Truck Traffic and Diesel Reduction Task Force is
identifying both short- and long-term strategies for truck traffic and diesel emissions reduction in
the community. The Regulatory Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Task Force is targeting
the automobile repair and auto body industry for pollution prevention education and regulatory
enforcement. Finally, the Community Planning Task Force plans to produce a "how to" manual
to assist residents in organizing a community planning group or similar body that can address
land use and zoning issues51
19
-------
The Barrio Logan Partnership also provided comments that were developed at the
Partnership's April 3, 2002 meeting, at which partners were asked about the value of the
Demonstration Project so far. The comments are listed below:
• The partnership has served as a catalyst for getting elected officials more involved in
both contamination and land use planning issues.
• The regular opportunity for communication among the Partners has deepened each
other's understanding of the issues and problems.
• The California Air Resources Board agreed that it stayed in the community longer than
would have been the case if the partnership had not heightened their concern. The San
Diego Air Pollution Control District also agreed that participation in the partnership had
focused their attention on Barrio Logan and led them to do more outreach, such as the
newsletter.
• The National Steel and Shipbuilding Company indicated that participation in the
partnership had led to its engagement in several projects in Barrio Logan that it likely
would have not gotten involved in otherwise.
• Overall, the group agreed that the Demonstration Project was very valuable, that
positive things were occurring that would not have otherwise, and that in terms of the
three work plans, they wanted to stay the course.52
Finally, the Barrio Logan Partnership explained that the City of San Diego has started
the process of revising the zoning and community plan for Barrio Logan. On June 12, 2002, the
Land Use and Housing Committee of the City Council considered whether to develop a
workplan for revision of the zoning, community and redevelopment plans for the area. The
partnership sent a letter to Councilmember Ralph Inzunza, the Councilmember for the area, in
support of the elimination of incompatible land uses in Barrio Logan. Four partners provided
testimony at the hearing. The matter passed unanimously.53
20
-------
List of Interviewees
Don Ames-
Norma Chavez
Susana Concha-Garcia-
Paula Forbis
Clarice Gaylord
Steven Gold
James Justus
Jerry Martin-
Lane McVey
David Merk
Lewis Michaelson
Frank Riley
Sonia Rodriquez-
Charles "Muggs" Stoll
California Air Resources Board
Metropolitan Area Advisory Council on Anti-Poverty Project
American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties
Environmental Health Coalition
formerly with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
San Diego Attorney's Office
Inner City Business Association
California Air Resources Board
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company
Unified Port District
Katz and Associates
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Mercado Tenants Association
California Department of Transportation
-Denotes that individual participated in a group interview.
21
-------
22
-------
Works Cited
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. Electronic Communication. 17 July
2002.
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. "Partnering Session Summary, April
4,2001."
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. "Partnering Session Summary,
March 6, 2001."
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. "Partnering Session Summary, May
15,2001."
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Presentation by Barrio Logan
Partnership," Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice
hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda, Maryland.
17-18 May 2001.
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Revised Draft Partnering
Agreement for the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project,"
Distributed at the Forum on Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental
Justice hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda,
Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
City of San Diego, "A Strategy for Updating the City's General Plan," General Plan, City of
Villages. 2002.
.
City of San Diego, Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team, "Barrio Logan revitalization
action plan." September 1996.
City of San Diego; City Manager's Office, "San Diego Recognized as Most Efficiently Run City in
California." 4 March 2002. .
Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, "Executive
Summary," Barrio Educational Cultural Activities Complex Feasibility Study - Phase 1.
February 1984.
City of San Diego; Mayor's Office, "Dick Murphy's 10 Goals," 2002.
.
Concha-Garcia, Susanna, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San
Diego & Imperial Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
Delgado, Kevin, "A Turning Point: The Conception and Realization of Chicano Park," The
Journal of San Diego History. Winter 1998, Volume 44, Number 1.
.
Forbis, Paula, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 17 July 2002.
23
-------
Forbis, Paula, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.
Pacific Institute, Lisa Owens-Viani and Arlene K. Wong, "Brownfields in Barrio Logan: New
Word for an Old Idea," in Brownfields Redevelopment: Meeting the Challenge of
Community Participation. May 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau, "Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino-San Diego city, California,
Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 17 April 2002.
.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Coalition, Letter to
potential partners for the Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project.
San Diego, California. 9 January 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration
Projects: An Interim Report. December 2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Fact Sheet: Integrated Federal Interagency
Environmental Justice Action Agenda." November 2000. .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9, "Fact Sheet: Barrio Logan Environmental
Justice Project." 13 November 2000.
24
-------
Endnotes
Barrio Logan Partnership
U.S. Census Bureau, "Table QT-P3: Race and Hispanic or Latino-San Diego city, California," Census 2000
Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data. 17 April 2002. .
2 City of San Diego; City Manager's Office, "San Diego Recognized as Most Efficiently Run City in California." 4
March 2002. .
3City of San Diego; Mayor's Office, "Dick Murphy's 10 Goals," 2002.
.
4 City of San Diego, "A Strategy for Updating the City's General Plan," General Plan, City of Villages. 2002.
.
5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9, "Fact Sheet: Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Project." 13
November 2000.
.
6 Kevin Delgado, "A Turning Point: The Conception and Realization of Chicano Park," The Journal of San Diego
History. Winter 1998, Volume 44, Number 1. .
7 Ibid.
8 Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, "Executive Summary," Barrio
Educational Cultural Activities Complex Feasibility Study-Phase 1. February 1984. p. 2.
9 Delgado.
10 Ibid.
11 Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 17 July 2002.
12 Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial Counties,
Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
13 Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, p. 1.
14 Delgado.
15 City of San Diego; Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team, "Barrio Logan revitalization action plan." September
1996. p. ill.
16 Ibid. pp. ill, 27.
17 Ibid. p. ill.
18
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Region 9.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice, Integrated Federal Interagency Environmental Justice
Action Agenda. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Environmental Justice. EPA/300-R-00-008.
November 2000. p. 35. .
22 Delgado.
23 Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial
Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
24 Ibid.
25 Susanna Concha-Garcia, Tobacco & Environmental Health; American Lung Association of San Diego & Imperial
Counties, Electronic Communication. 23 April 2002.
26 Chicano Federation of San Diego County Inc. and Martinez/Wong & Associates, p. 1.
27 Ibid.
28 Pacific Institute, p. 66.
29 Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 City of San Diego; Barrio Logan Livable Neighborhoods Team. p. 28.
33 Paula Forbis, Environmental Health Coalition, Electronic Communication. 30 August 2002.
34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Interagency Environmental Justice Demonstration Projects: An Interim
Report. December 2000, pp. 68-69.
35 Ibid.
36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Environmental Health Coalition, Letter to potential partners for the
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project. San Diego, California. 9 January 2001.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Revised Draft Partnering Agreement for the Barrio
Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project," Distributed at the Forum on Building Collaborative Models to
25
-------
Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International City/County Management Association. Bethesda,
Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Partnering Session Summary, March 6, 2001."
45 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Partnering Session Summary, April 4, 2001."
46 Ibid.
47 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Partnering Session Agenda, May 15, 2001."
48 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Presentation by Barrio Logan Partnership," Forum on
Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International City/County Management
Association. Bethesda, Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
49 Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, "Fact Sheet: Protecting Community Health and
Reducing Toxic Air Exposure through Collaborative Partnerships in Barrio Logan," Distributed at the Forum on
Building Collaborative Models to Achieve Environmental Justice hosted by the International City/County Management
Association. Bethesda, Maryland. 17-18 May 2001.
50
Ibid.
Barrio Logan Environmental Justice Demonstration Project, Electronic Communication. 17 July 17 2002.
Ibid.
Ibid.
26
------- |