City Council Approves Part of Arts Plan

In a move that left some artists less than happy, the San Diego City Council on Monday approved the first part of the city’s two-part arts plan.

The first part, which received a unanimous vote, provides a statement of 12 needs in the arts. Part 2, which is expected to be presented in August, will provide a detailed description of a three-year course of action to fulfill those needs.

The needs identified range from arts funding and facilities to activities for youth, arts promotion and an international cultural exchange.

“It’s a victory for the artists in San Diego,” said artist Ed Pieters, chairman of the City Council Public Arts Advisory Board, which had presented earlier, unsuccessful arts plans.

“It’s not bad. It’s not what I’d have liked to have seen personally,” said businessman George Driver, another member of the advisory board.

However, several artists who attended the meeting said that the latest version of plan had lost some of its teeth as it went through the legislative process. The objections by artists and some members of the arts board had to do with changes in fund-raising provisions and with proposals for an annual review of the arts plan. Jennifer Spencer, president of the Combined Organization for the Visual Arts, described the approved plan as “watered down.”

The plan received major revisions March 24, after it had failed twice to gain City Council approval. Previous versions were rushed through hearings earlier this year to meet a California Arts Council grant deadline.

“Our concern was that the plan,” as previously drafted, “was not what the council members wanted,” said Scott Harvey, head of the city’s Intergovernmental Relations Department, which provides staffing for the arts board. Council objections were addressed in the March 24 meeting, which was attended by representative council members Abbe Wolfsheimer, Mike Gotch, Ed Struiksma and Uvaldo Martinez.

A section of the proposed plan regarding the function and composition of a city arts review board was changed, Harvey said, because the city attorney’s office indicated that previous proposals did not comply with legal requirements.