Laserfiche WebLink
Santa Ana Renaissance Specific Plan <br />Proposal Clarifications by Moule &. Polyzoides <br />groups to make them aware of the upcoming process (e.g., talk to several churches <br />over one weekend). In addition to combining groups to be targeted in the outreach <br />(e.g., Logan, French Park, etc.) we propose to use some of the outreach meetings <br />identified in the RFP for meeting directly with such social and service organizations. <br />Study Sessions <br />The RFP identifies 5 such meetings (z:Planning Commission, i:Redevelopment <br />Commission, 1:Historic Resources, t:City Council). Consistent with the above, we <br />propose to combine these boards as is practical for the same purpose as with the <br />community participants. This could be as simple as two joint study sessions: the first <br />with all boards and the City Council, and the second with the Planning Commission <br />and City Council only), If scheduling joint sessions is not possible, the consultant will <br />conduct the 5 required sessions as individual sessions. <br />After we have met with each of the geographic areas, we propose the first of two <br />combined joint study sessions to share all of the individual results with everyone, <br />including the City Council and Planning Commission. In this way, we expect to bring <br />everyone up to date on both the specific and macro issues that the project must <br />address. <br />At the end of this study session, we expect to have a general consensus and <br />understanding of the direction with which we will enter the charrette process. The <br />second study session is proposed after the charrette to summarize and present the <br />results of the charrette for review, comment and direction with which to prepare the <br />administrative draft specific plan. <br />Bilingual Staff <br />The following Moule & Polyzoides staff are bilingual in Spanish: <br />Stefanos Polyzoides, Orlando Gonzalez, Roberto Moreno, Jean -Maurice Moulene, <br />Anthony Perez, Monica Plata, David Thurman <br />Our approach to the issue of communicating in Spanish is to have the very people that <br />are involved in the project be the persons that communicate the information. This is <br />in contrast to the prevalent practice of using interpreters which can cause for <br />unintentional interpretations of the information being translated. This practice also, <br />unfortunately, dilutes the emphasis and power of the information being presented and <br />discussed. This is particularly true when the presenter and the interpreter lack the <br />rhythm necessary to keep the information and discussion flowing: the lag between <br />something being said in English and then waiting to hear it in Spanish can be <br />frustrating for participants. <br />We are the same people that are working on the project and can communicate <br />seamlessly with the participants as well as react quickly to comments mid -sentence or <br />mid -thought. It is critical that we be allowed to communicate directly with the <br />participants to maximize the effect of the outreach, as it relates to bilingual needs. <br />Most recently, we conducted workshops in East Newhall (Santa Clarita-Downtown <br />Newhall Plan) entirely in Spanish with great attendance and participation. <br />30 January 2oo6 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />