While most Arizona planners were enjoying the nat-ural beauties of Page at the annual chapter confer-ence last September, I was fortunate enough to havebeen invited to the Designing for a Secure FutureSymposium in New York City. Sponsored by APAand ASLA, it provided me with an opportunity tointeract with other design professionals, and to dis-cuss what can be done to design our cities more effi-ciently to respond to the potential for future terroristattacks. The two-day symposium focused on how todesign new developments, and retrofit older devel-opments in an effort to minimize the potential impactsthat a terrorist attack could have on buildings and theexisting urban environment.

Much of the discussion focused on the necessary,but aesthetically disturbing, use of “Jersey” barriers todeal with terrorist attacks. A major topic of discussioncentered on Washington D.C., and the recent effortsthat were taken in order to make the city less sus-ceptible to terrorists. Washington D.C. has becomethe poster child for what a city “should not do” inorder to protect against terrorist attacks.

Fortunately, the National Capital PlanningCommission has recently completed a study thataddresses this issue. The plan sets forth designguidelines that will help secure the city againstwide-scale emergencies and terrorist attacks, withoutcreating a “fortress like” environment for residents,employees, and visitors.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIONOne of the key players in the effort to design secure buildings has been the General ServicesAdministration (GSA). Following the bombing of theFederal Building in Oklahoma City, GSA has takenthe lead in designing new buildings that are defensi-ble relative to potential terrorist attacks. Most newfederal buildings have been specifically designed toprevent or minimize the impacts from a potential carbomb.

Examples were cited from a number of new projectsthat have been designed and constructed since theOklahoma bombing, including the new federalcourthouse in Phoenix. I did have an opportunityduring my presentation to point out that the newcourthouse in Phoenix lacks context with the sur-

FEBRUARY 2003

PLANNERS AND HOMELAND SECURITYBy Dean Brennan, AICP

Continued on page 2

The first view of the World Trade Center site is the huge “hole” that remains after completion of removal of the debris. Thisshows construction activity as work continues on reconstructionof the rail line that connected/served the WTC from the westside of the Hudson River.

rounding downtown area, is not pedestrian friendly,and suffers from a lack of climate control in the atri-um during the hotter months of the year.

Participants in the Symposium are provided a description ofthe site, impacts on adjacent buildings, and the potential forredevelopment of the WTC site.

THE ROLE OF PLANNERS

I was asked to specifically focus on changes thatplanners and other design professionals had madesince the attacks on 9/11. I had anticipated that mostplanners have not focused on how they couldimpact design to make future development less sus-ceptible to terrorist attacks. In most cases, I believethat planners feel they have no role to play inresponding and/or planning for a terrorist attack.However, to get a feel for what other planners werethinking, I conducted an informal survey using theAZPA listserve as contacts for the survey. Here are afew of the responses.

GILBERT – LINDA EDWARDS

We have not changed our technical requirements fordesign issues addressing public safety, however, wehave become more sensitive to these needs. Wehave very little tolerance to “waive” any standards.We have also noticed that we have fire and policereps at all our pre-application meetings. I believethere is more awareness from their teams to beinvolved whenever they can.

SCOTTSDALE – CONNIE PADIAN

I haven’t seen much of a change in design sinceSeptember 11. I have seen changes in security, i.e.

we all have to wear badges now in Scottsdale. Onedesign change I have seen is in schools, particularlyelementary schools, but that is more related toColumbine and other local threats, and not specifi-cally against terrorists. I wonder if the idea of design-ing against an obscure threat is too hard to fathom,so we design to what we know, like the local robberor a Columbine situation.

PIMA COUNTY DOT – JONATHAN CROWE

I work in a government building in downtownTucson. Following 911 a series of bollards (concrete-filled steel tubes), was erected in front of my buildingin the sidewalk area, presumably to prevent someonefrom driving into the front of the building. Based onthis and other observations, I would assume thatdesign professionals are, in fact, considering ways tomake buildings more “terrorist-resistant.”

JIM COFFMAN

Definitely not something I have had to deal with inthe projects I am working on. Nothing more thanbasic safe design. Yes, design professionals can andshould play a role, because we’ve seen the anti-com-munity design that can result from a gut reaction.

RON PETERS

Not so for government agencies at least. And I guess Ineed to add federal to that. My firm is presentlydesigning several major federal government facilitiesand the added design requirements for both site andbuilding design are significant. We now have to hire ablast consultant to work with us for building setbacksand site orientation, as well as the design of the shellof the structure and material selection. We also nowhave to design the buildings against possible progres-sive collapse. I can’t say what the private sector is do-ing, or for that matter, municipal and county agencies.

ROBERT ELLIOT, ECM CONSULTANTS

I just returned from a review of military base optionsto security threats. In the planning for a site or build-ing the process of situating ingress and egress, com-pliance with codes and safety features are part of theprocess. As we unfortunately learned on 9/11 thereliability of safety features (stand pipes, stairways,even the entire structural building system) has beencalled into question.

2 FEBRUARY 2003

PLANNNERS AND HOME LAND SECURITY, Continued from page 1

Continued on page 8

FEBRUARY 2003 3

Well, here we are progressing into 2003. For manyof us, there are a lot of unknowns given the state ofthe economy. Local governments are watching thedirection the state takes, and of course, we are allkeeping our eyes on the national and global scene.Yet, despite the caution in the economy, new devel-opment is still continuing across this state. Privatesector planners are looking at creative ways to pro-vide quality developments at an economical price tothe client. Government planners are trying to keepthe zoning and permitting processes flowing in atimely manner despite personnel or budget cuts. Attimes like these, we can reflect on how all segmentsof the planning profession can make a difference inthe world (or at least in their sphere of influence).

Over the last few months, I have reflected back onthe previous two recessions I lived through. I wasjust graduating with my planning degree in 1983while a recession was in process. It was definitely atough act getting a job then (so I feel for all the cur-rent graduates). However, I did land a drafting jobwith a private architecture firm fairly quickly. I hadto temporarily push aside my dreams of changingthe world with my great planning skills. Finally aplanning job came up, but I learned a lot doingarchitectural drafting that I have been able to usethrough the years. And then the recession of the late1980’s hit —this one not so generous to the planningand architecture profession. Firms were laying offlike crazy, and that’s how I (with my two collegedegrees) ended up delivering pizza. I had spent a lotof time laying out subdivisions at the firms I workedfor. During my pizza delivery days, I gained some

new insights on problems with subdivisions andaddressing. I would like to think I am a better plan-ner today because of this experience.

There is a lot of you out there laughing as you readthis remembering your twists and turns during thesehard times—but we made it. I hope this messagegives some hope to those of you just entering thework force in planning. Take advantage of the learn-ing opportunities from the side trips. And, as plan-ners never seem to retire, no one needs to worryabout that 401K having little value right now. Let’sget out there and keep making a difference.

There are a lot of activities that your State PlanningBoard will be involved in for 2003. The Legislatureis in session now, and even though the state budgetwill be the key issue we need to keep alert for otherlegislative activity in process. As Carol Johnsonmentioned in her last president’s message, there are“guiding principles” to be developed to promoteSmart Growth. We need to raise the recognition ofarid region issues so they become more prominentat the national level. Educational opportunitiesthrough the professional development program willcontinue. Please take advantage of these great learn-ing opportunities. February 11th, 2003 is AzPA’s first“Planner’s Day at the State Capitol.” The annualconference is set for October.

Keep providing input to the board, so that we canprovide the right services at the right time for themembership. Also, feel free to submit articles orinformation to Dean Brennan for the newsletters.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGEBy Kelli A. Sertich, AICP, CFM

MEMBERS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS NEEDED

Wouldn’t you like to become a member of the board of directors for the Arizona Planning Association and helppromote the future of planning for the state? As population and development continue to expand in the state, it isof the utmost importance that we plan for this expansive growth. “YOU” are “THEY” and, in this capacity, we need“YOU” as a leader to step up and help.

The following offices will need to be filled for 2004: President Elect, VP for Legislative Affairs, VP for Conference2005, Secretary, North Central Section Director, Southern Section Director, Citizen Planner, Director at Large (2),Student Directors (3).

For additional information, please contact either: Bonnie Bariola at: Bonnie.Bariola@co.pinal.az.us or Patti Kingat: pking830@qwest.net

4 JFEBRUARY 2003

URBAN REALISMBy Richard H. Carson

A few trivialists among us understood that 2001 wasthe real first year of the 2nd millennium. The hypeover the predicted catastrophe of Y2K led many of usto believe otherwise, but we Americans like tobelieve in what is not real. Smoking cigarettes can’treally kill us. Violence on television can’t really killus. Terrorists can’t kill us.

However, an unpredicted cataclysmic event didoccur in the first year of the 2nd millennium. Andthat stark, painful truth has begun a new era of art,architecture and urban planning. I call it UrbanRealism and it will eclipse everything that wentbefore it.

The new Urban Realism will be characterized as thatwhich is rational, practical and functional. Webster’sdictionary says that realism is ‘in art or literature, astyle favoring the representation of life or objects asthey really exist rather than romanticizing or idealiz-ing them’. Urban Realism in terms of urban planningwill be marked by that which:

• Provides personal safety

• Provides personal space

• Is truly market-driven and about freedom ofchoice

• Is cost-effective

• Is rational, practical and functional (even factual)

• Embraces real citizen involvement and is populous.

• Is about the quality-of-life that people want and not a quality-of-life chosen for them by professional experts.

Urban Realism can also be characterized as Post-NewUrbanism. The demise of New Urbanism was has-tened by historical events, but in fact it was already onlife support. Leon Krier, its founder said, ‘What wehave to point out to modernists again and again is thatin democracies even architecture and urbanism are amatter of choice.’ He also noted that, ‘Modernism is atotalitarian ideology which, like all dogmatisms, isbased on unprovable assumptions.’ These were les-sons not learned by the New Urbanists.

One wag recently wrote that New Urbanism projects‘are feel-good faux-towns, cozy and nostalgic devel-opments which feign urbanity without making theeffort to actually be urban.’ This is because NewUrbansim was the creature of architects and not plan-ners. Such projects give one the sense of being on themovie set of The Truman Show. They are artificiallyarranged groups of buildings, not unlike the gaudyretail storefronts in any mega-mall in America.

The pious priesthood of New Urbanism decided thatthey knew what was best for the common man. Theybelieved the common good they would bestowupon us outweighed the need to facilitate the actualwants of our citizens.

New Urbanism moved us beyond being planners andarchitects, and we started becoming social engineers.We decided that the automobile was socially andenvironmentally bad, and we undertook a holy questto change our autocentric society and instil new auto-phobic cultural values. But the automobile of thefuture will use little fossil fuel, not damage our air qual-ity and proliferate because it will be so cheap. So wewill have planned for the wrong future.

New Urbanism never found a place in the Americanpsyche because it was essentially anti-American anddid not result in an organic human settlement form.Nor was it created by an earthshaking historicalevent. Instead, it has been overtaken by an event. Anevent which altered society and left New Urbanismas no more than a historical footnote.

Le Corbusier’s Modernist movement gave us the utili-tarian skyscraper that ruled the end of the 20th centu-ry. And it was the New Urbanist progeny that failed tostop its proliferation. The demise of the skyscraper willnot occur because of the New Urbanists, it will occurin spite of them. Both will end because of the adaptiveevolution of Urban Realism. We, as a society, mustsurvive; therefore we will adapt our settlement patternsto survive the new reality.

The era of Urban Realism will not be the end ofgood urban planning. The basic tenets of compre-

Continued on page 5

Editors Note: Richard Carson has written the following opinion piece that has stirred up the new urbanists community. If you have somethoughts regarding his comments, please email those to dean.brennan@phoenix.gov and we will include in a future newsletter. Alsoincluded are responses from two chapter members who submitted their comments regarding New Urbanism as a response to this articlebeing posted on the Chapter listserve question.

FEBRUARY 2003 5

hensive planning and growth management are totake a very rational and functional approach to cre-ating human settlements. For example:

• Urban growth boundaries will still be usedbecause they are a cost-effective way to deliverurban services and contain, if not prevent, sprawl.However, it will be imperative to maintain a 20-year land supply with such a boundary in order tomaintain a viable market for development.

• Providing high capacity mass transit, like lightrail, is a clean and efficient way to provide mobil-ity to those who can’t either afford or access theautomobile. Although light rail may cost morethan buses, it says a lot about both the humanityof our society and the liveability we want.

• Urban Realism will return us to embracing realcitizen involvement. We will stop social engi-neering our cities and neighborhoods. We willstop and listen to what citizens are really saying.

• We will once again embrace the serenity of ourbackyards and the quiet backwater of the cul-de-sac. We will quit pretending that we live in thetelevision hamlet where there never was a drive-by shooting.

• We will want more personal space than publicspace. This will force us to rethink densities. Thesedays even New Yorkers do not want to live in LowerManhattan. Instead of rent control, such housing isnow subsidized to attract New Yorkers back.

• We will let people have the houses they want andcan afford. Most people don’t want to live in cute lit-tle neo-traditional towns that look more likeDisneyland’s Main Street than America’s Main Street.

• Corporate America will move out of their inner-city corporate phallic symbols and back into themore academic-research suburban campuseswith 4-6 storey mid-rise buildings. This will hap-pen because corporate America needs to attractemployees who want to be psychologically safe.Corporate America also needs it because a jet air-liner cannot destroy an entire company—in acampus setting—in a single act of terrorism.

Skyscrapers are arguably more cost-efficient inplaces with a finite land supply like Manhattan orTokyo. But they do not provide the personal spaceemployees want. More importantly, they don’t pro-vide the perception of personal safety where theemployee feels they have control over their fate. Noteven the CEO in the big corner office on the 100th

floor really feels safe. In the 21st century such peo-ple will be viewed as corporate sadists because theyforced their employees into the visible manifestationof their corporate power.

Reality is often painful and in time denial becomespreferable to pain. So Urban Realism will fade as ourcollective memory of that moment in time fades. Suchmemories last at least a generation, so Urban Realismwill last at least that long. Then once again theprophets of aesthetics will start to dictate style oversubstance in our cities, as well as the psychology ofthe city over the city’s functionality. That is until anoth-er act of human carnage in America will up the ante ofthe exponential calculus of domestic terrorism.

Richard Carson is an urban planner, writer and teacher inNorthwest America and involved in several web sites devoted toplanning and urbanism.Reprinted by Permission from Archis #6 2002.

COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS CONCERNINGNEW URBANISM

“I have been a “follower” of new urbanism thoughtsince meeting Andres Duany in 1986. While notperfect, the principles associated with a new urban-ist approach have, in my opinion, demonstratedthemselves as having a positive, humane effect onthe built environment. I’m afraid that, without newurbanism coming onto the scene, the planning pro-fession would still be promulgating the policies ofthe 50’s, 60’s and 70’s that have given us sprawl,widespread demolition of historic resources andoverwhelming blandness throughout the built envi-ronment. I have to say that I think much of theresentment of new urbanism from within the plan-ning profession is due to the fact that the primarynew urbanism practitioners and promoters are archi-tects. However, their focus on achieving tangibleresults within the built environment has the potentialfor the most direct impact on our everyday lives, asopposed to the typical planning concentration on“process.” Personally, I would like to see us all worktogether for the best of both worlds!”

Mark C Vinson AIA/AICPCity Architect/Urban Design Manager, Tempe

URBAN REALISM, Continued from page 4

Continued on page 9

6 JFEBRUARY 2003

The 2003 Arizona Planning Association Conferencewill be held on October 15–17, 2003 at theGlendale Civic Center in downtown Glendale,Arizona. The Conference Coordinating Committee isbusy working on planning the conference. Thetheme of the conference is IMPLEMENTING ARIZONA’S FUTURE. The following are the fourtracks and track coordinators.

• RURAL . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jerry Owen, AICP

• REDEVELOPMENT . . . . .Steven Hohulin, AICP

• NUTS AND BOLTS . . . .Rick Counts

• TRANSPORTATION . . . .Jon Vlaming, AICP

Each track will have five sessions. The overall pro-gram is being developed to appeal to a variety ofmembership interest. The Rural Track will provide

excellent topics for rural planners and officials, butalso appeal to planners in urban areas. TheRedevelopment Track will showcase outstandingprojects communities are implementing. Nuts andBolts will be sessions for planning commissioners,new and proposed legislation and court cases andanswer questions about every day planning andzoning issues. The Transportation Track will discussthe wide variety of transportation topics in Arizonaas a critical implementation tool. There will be apre-conference workshop plus sessions on AICPExam Preparation and Ethics in Planning.

You are invited to suggest session and pre-conferenceworkshop topics you feel would be helpful to themembership. Please e-mail your recommended topicsto Ron Short, FAICP at rshort@ci.glendale.az.us orcall me at (623) 930-2592.

CALL FOR 2003 ARIZONA PLANNING CONFERENCE SESSION TOPICS

By Ronald N. Short, FAICPProgram Coordinator

CONFERENCE TRACKSFriday 8:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M., March 28th

• Transportation and Affordable Housing• Economic Development and Affordable

Housing • Native American Affordable Housing• Design and Affordable Housing• Financing Affordable Housing

REGISTER NOW: EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION $95Registration form available at:www.tucson_housing_conf.orgConference Info-line: 520-884-7100

Registration brochure available in February and posted on the conference website.

Sponsored by the Tucson Metropolitan Housing Commission,Metropolitan Housing Corporation, City of Tucson, PimaCounty, and The University of Arizona Community Planning &Design Workshop

ANNOUNCINGTHE SEVENTH ANNUAL ARIZONA

AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONFERENCE “Policy, Planning, and Production: Are We On the Right Track?”

Thursday and Friday • March 27 & 28, 2003Tucson Convention Center, Downtown Tucson, Arizona

OPENING GENERAL SESSIONThursday afternoon, March 27th

“National, State, and Local Policies: Impacts On Affordable Housing”

FEBRUARY 2003 7

What are the big issuesfor planners in SouthernArizona? The proposedelimination of theUniversity of ArizonaSchool of Planning topsthe list. This planningprogram focuses onissues that are central toplanning practice in theSouthwest and is reach-ing out to rural commu-nities and to diversepopulations, studyingborder issues, tribalplanning and economicdevelopment, looking at Smart Growth and ways toaddress sprawl and infill in land use planning. Nowis not the time, as Arizona continues to cope with“growing pains,” to think of eliminating or weaken-ing either of our planning degree programs. Thecourses and degree tracks offered by the ASU andUofA planning programs complement and supporteach other. Both need to grow and prosper ifArizona communities are to grow and prosper.

As I write this quick update, professional plannersfrom all over Arizona are taking positive action tocommunicate the importance of this graduate pro-gram. The Southern Section participated in a pressconference at the University of Arizona on January23rd, is forwarding a letter of concern from theSouthern Section board, and a core group of plan-ners are helping to organize other activities as partof an effective public information campaign. Thechapter president and members of the board aresending letters urging the university to reconsiderthis proposed termination. Our messages to univer-sity officials have stressed the mission of the ArizonaPlanning Association to advance the art and scienceof planning, to build public and political support forsound planning practices and policies, and toimprove the awareness of the value of planning.Terminating the University of Arizona planning pro-gram does not further any of these objectives.

If you would like to write individual letters to sup-port the program, or would like more information,please contact me at Barbara.Strelke@ tetratech.comor Colleen Stoetzel (Vice President of the SouthernSection) at Cstoetzel@rickengineering.com.

Dr. Barbara Becker explains theongoing efforts to save theUniversity of Arizona PlanningDepartment at the SouthernSection’s New Year Social.Approximately 50 Tucson-areaplanners attended the event, halfof whom were U of A alumni.

Other news and past andfuture events? If youweren’t at the January 23rd

Southern Section social,or even worse, if youdidn’t get a party noticefrom Robin Valenzuela,our secretary, you needto get on our e-mail list

NOW. With the high cost of postage, and the easeof using our e-mail database to inform members ofnews and events, we will continue to rely on e-mail.Please send your current e-mail address to Robin atRvalenzuela@marana.com.

Newly-elected Southern Section Director Barbara Strelkeaddresses the membership at the section’s New Year Social.

Future events include the Southern Section partici-pation in Planners’ Day at the State Capitol(February 11th), a planning field trip to Santa CruzCounty and los dos Nogales (Arizona and Sonora),and initial planning for the 2004 State Conference(contact Mark Schnaufer at mark.schnaufer@amec.com for conference formation). Details onthese and other events and late-breaking news willbe forthcoming via e-mail.

SOUTHERN SECTION UPDATEBy Barbara Strelke, AICP, Southern Section Director

8 JFEBRUARY 2003

The survivability of safety and ingress/egress featuresshould be handled in the same way as the problemof Legionnaires Disease when it was first discov-ered—design a way to combat a previouslyunknown problem without throwing away an entirepart of a buildings systems.

SCOTTSDALE – GARY MEYERI think that there has been a long-term trend towardmore security systems and surveillance technology.However, I don’t think 9/11 made a difference in theway we plan our environments. You would thinkthat federal buildings would require more thoughtafter the Oklahoma City bombing.

However, I see that a “glass box” was used for therecent federal courthouse here in Phoenix. Seemslike we rely on technology for our security, ratherthan seriously considering CPTED principles...Ithink that design professionals could do more toconsider crime prevention. However, there is littlewe can do to stop the brand of terrorism that you seein the Mideast (suicide bombs, etc).

DO PLANNERS HAVE A ROLE?In 2001, APA published a book I co-authored—SafeScape: Creating Safer, More LivableCommunities Through Planning and Design—thatfocused on the role that planners could play indesigning communities to reduce the opportunitiesfor crimes to be committed. The basic philosophy isthat if the potential for a crime to be committed wereanticipated during the design process, a safer physi-cal environment would be achieved. Can learninghow to make the physical environment safer to pre-vent crime be applied to dealing with terrorism?

Because there appears to be a basic belief amongthe public that “it can’t happen here” or “it can’thappen to me,” we have failed to totally grasp thepotential impacts on the American psyche if there isan attack in the typical suburban community.Suppose a suicide bomber drove a car through thefront of a retail store and exploded the bomb insidethe store? That would bring the potential for terror-ism into every community in America. That wouldquickly change the current attitude to “it can hap-pen here” and “it can happen to me.” I believe thatthe impact from that type of attack would have more

A terrorist attack is made easy by the predictable design forretail centers—driveways parallel with the building and drivesperpendicular with the front entrance.

of an impact on the American psyche than theimpacts resulting from the 911 attacks.

Unrealistic? Not any more unrealistic than someonepredicting that terrorists would fly two airplanes intothe World Trade Center. But what can planners do toplay a role in homeland security?

Consider the design of neighborhood retail centers.Isn’t there always a driveway that passes immediatelyin front of the entrances to the individual stores?What about the parking lot driveways that are perpendicular to the front of the store fronts, and basi-cally take aim at the main entrance? Do the design ofretail facilities make it easier for a terrorist to strike?

Note the picture of a Staples Store above and thedriveway that “targets” the front door. This is onlyone example of how the design of retail centersinvites a terrorist attack—are there other examplesthat you can identify? Do planners have a role to playin dealing with terrorism and homeland security?Should planners consider terrorism threats whendesigning and/or reviewing a site plan?

Give it some thought, and please provide me withsome feedback. Depending on the number ofresponses, we’ll continue the discussion in anupcoming newsletter.

Dean Brennan is a Principal Planner with the City of PhoenixPlanning Department and co-author of SafeScape: CreatingSafer, More Livable Communities Through Planning and Design.

PLANNNERS AND HOMELAND SECURITY, Continued from page 2

“I think some aspects of new urbanism such asalley loaded garages make a lot of sense in dealingwith higher land prices and the need for smallerlots for owner-occupied housing. Without alleys,narrow lots become garagescape. I also think thatdetached sidewalks and common open space sur-rounded by streets creates a safer and more, friend-ly pedestrian environment. Some homebuilders arebeginning to include these features willingly. Morecontinuous street systems encourages use of transitand pedestrian connections which reduce conges-tion. They do allow cut through traffic which is ofconcern to residents. The most problematic part ofnew urbanism is trying to make small scale towncenter retail work without having high densities.”

Joy Mee, FAICPAssistant Planning Director, Phoenix

FEBRUARY 2003 9

URBAN REALISM, Continued from page 5

APA NATIONAL AWARDS JURY

Members of the Arizona Chapter of APA comprised the majority of members of the awards jury for the APANational Awards. Review of the awards was held in Scottsdale on Friday, October 18 and Saturday, October 19.Pictured above are (Back Row) Kelli Sertich, President Elect, Bruce Knight, Jury Chair and APA Board of Directors,Grover Mouton, Louisiana Chapter, Suzanne Botts. (Front Row) Dean Brennan, Past-President, Kroy Eckblow,Sarah More, Past Director - APA Board, Sue Pratt, Past Director-AICP Commission.

2003 CLASS OF FELLOWS Recently, the AICP College of Fellows announced the 2003Class of Fellows of AICP. Election to Fellow in AICP is one ofthe highest honors that the American Institute of CertifiedPlanners (AICP) confers upon a member. Fellowship is grantedto planners who have been members of AICP and haveachieved excellence in professional practice, teaching andmentoring, research, public/community service and leadershipand have made significant contributions to planning and society.

This year there were thirty-seven planners elected to be mem-bers of the College of Fellows. The following Arizona PlanningAssociation members are part of the 2003 Class of AICP fellows:

Mary R. Kihl, AICPRichard T. Lai, AICP

Vernon Dale Swaback, AICP

Mary, Richard and Vern will be inducted into the College ofFellows on March 29, 2003 at the APA National PlanningConference in Denver. Arizona Planning Association memberswho attend the conference are urged to attend the inductionceremony and reception. It is a wonderful honor for these individuals and the Chapter.

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!

CHAPTER EXAM PREP WORKSHOPFriday, February 21, 2003: Call the chapter office at602-866-7188 for registration information for this out-standing program, which enjoys a proven success recordyear after year.

SITE REGISTRATION DEADLINES

Monday, March 3, 2003 (firm): Test site registration submission deadline. This is for applicants who have received approval notice to take the AICP exam. Fee Required: $325

Saturday, May 10, 2003: Actual Test Date

Go Online! Apply and/or test site register for theAICP exam online: www.planning.org

NEW AICP CD-ROM EXAM PREPARATIONCOURSE COMING SOON

January 2003: AICP will offer the National ExamPreparation Course on CD-ROM for purchase,beginning January 2003, through the APA PlannersBook Service: www.planning.org/bookstore. For more information, contact Planners BookService: 312.786.6344 or Carolyn Torma:312.431.9100. Price: $195 (APA members) $230 (non-members) $10 shipping/handling extra

AICP REDUCED EXAM FEE SCHOLARSHIPS

AICP has mailed its annual call for reduced examfee scholarship (selected candidates pay $55instead of the usual $325 exam fee) nominations tochapter PDOs. Each year, AICP sets aside a numberof scholarships for each chapter PDO to selectrecipients based on financial need and/or minoritypreference. The selections are made and forwardedto AICP national under the strictest of confidence.

AICP strongly encourages chapter PDOs to respondto staff’s scholarship request. AICP wants to makesure that deserving planners take advantage of thisvery important program.

For more information, please contact your localchapter PDO or Michael DeVone Jones, AICPMembership and Database Manager, 202.872.0611x1024 (mjones@planning.org).

10 JFEBRUARY 2003

2003 AICP EXAM

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

SENIOR PLANNERPinal County Planning & Development Services

Salary: $41,184.00–$56,908.00. In this newly created position the candidate selected for the job will performchallenging work as a professional responsible for the preparation of programs, ordinances and support policieswithin the division as detailed. Min Qual: Bachelor’s Degree in Planning, or a planning related field, which mayinclude municipal and urban regional planning (Master’s Degree and/or AICP preferred) and 4 yrs of planningrelated experience with a min of 2 yrs as a professional level planner; or an equivalent combination of education,training and experience. Licenses: Must possess and maintain a valid AZ driver’s license.

Call the Pinal County Job Line at (520) 866-6599 or 1-800-842-5559 to request a complete description of this position. Ask for announcement no. 0638 an application or visit our website at www.co.pinal.az.us/hr.

EOE

FEBRUARY 2003 11

ARIZONA CHAPTER MISSION STATEMENT

The Arizona Planning Association is committed to improving the quality of the built environment and

the preservation of the natural environment in the State of Arizona by supporting and advancing the

virtues of responsible planning throughout the state; to function as the nucleus for the exchange

of ideas and information and to provide the general membership and the public with information

necessary to make informed responsible decisions on planning issues.

THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN LAND USE INSTITUTEThe University of Denver College of Law

7150 Montview Blvd., Suite 324Denver, CO 80220

Land Use From A To ZA six-volume educational video program for planning

commissioners, city council members, local legislators, and other public officials

◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆$350 for entire six-video set

(plus $10 shipping & handling)

Video I: Local Planning & Zoning: The Role of thePlanning Commission and Local Legislative Body

Video II: The Planning ProcessVideo III: Property Rights Claims in Zoning and PlanningVideo IV: Public MeetingsVideo V: Special Zoning and Growth Management

TechniquesVideo VI: The Laws and Rules of ARIZONA presented by

Douglas A. Jorden, esq., founding member of the JordenBischoff McGuire & Rose, P.L.C. law firm emphasizing land use and zoning, municipal law, and environmental regulation;co-author of Arizona Land Use Law; and Zoning HearingOfficer for the City of Phoenix.

VISIT OUR WEBSITE WWW.LAW.DU.EDU/RMLUIFOR ORDER FORM AND A COMPLETE LIST

OF RMLUI OFFERINGS

DESIGN WITH THE DESERT C O N F E R E N C E

The Day The Desert Stood Still: Lessons for People and Communities in

Desert Regions

Date : March 22, 20003

Location: ASU Downtown Center 503 E. Monroe St Phoenix, AZ

Time: 8:00 – 5:30 PM

Admission: Open to the Public, no admission,first come first serve basis until full. Expectedattendance about 300–350 guests.

Presenters: 24 presentations on desert ecology,conservation, planning, design and architecture

Sponsor: School of Planning and LandscapeArchitecture, ASU

Target Audience: Planners, landscape architects,architects, ecologists and research scientists ofthe Sonoran region.

12 JFEBRUARY 2003

FEBRUARY 2003 13

Arizona Planning is a statewide publication of the ArizonaPlanning Association, a Chapter of the American PlanningAssociation. As the primary communications tool of the StateChapter, this newsletter serves a vital role in the planning com-munity. All APA members and other persons interested in plan-ning are invited to participate by writing articles or submittinggraphics. In addition to "Point of View" and stories about plan-ning, we solicit "Network" pieces, job ads, letters to the editor,photos, maps or drawings that relate to planning.

Arizona Planning Association ADVERTISING RATES:10410 N 31st Ave., Suite 405 $150 Annually, Phoenix, AZ 85051 Six Issues(602) 866-7188fax (602) 789-9126

PresidentKelli Sertich, AICPFlood Control District of Maricopa County (602) 506-0867

Vice President for Professional DevelopmentJoy M. Rich, AICP, Maricopa County (602) 506-6150

Vice President for Legislative AffairsDebra Stark, City of Peoria (623) 773-7277

Vice President for Conference (2003)Jon M. Froke, AICP, City of Glendale (623) 930-2585

Vice President for Conference (2004)Mark Schnaufer, AICP, AMEC Infrastructure (520) 219-4998

SecretaryRussell Lambert, AICP, City of Yuma (928) 373-5178

TreasurerWahid Alam, AICP, City of Mesa (480) 644-4933

North Central Section DirectorMark Wheaton, AICP, ADOT (602) 712-7166

South Section DirectorBarbara Strelke, AICP, Tetra Tech (520) 623-7980

Citizen PlannerJohn Jordan (602) 996-3800

Directors at Large

Jerry Swanson, Town of Gilbert (480) 503-6810

Jeff Connell, AICP, Jones & Stokes (602) 256-6662

Bonnie D. Bariola, Pinal County (520) 868-6454

Rodney Cobb, City of El Mirage (623) 933-8318

Newsletter EditorDean P. Brennan, AICP, City of Phoenix (602) 262-4499

Newsletter Co-EditorKen Hall, AICP (602) 254-6300Maricopa Association of Governments

Executive DirectorPatti King (602) 866-7188Fax: (602) 789-9126E-mail: pking830@qwest.netWeb-site address: www.azplanning.org

OFFICERS AND

DIRECTORS

14 JFEBRUARY 2003

FEBRUARY 2003 15

Todd Neill, ASLA

3295 N. Drinkwater Blvd. #11 • Scottsdale, AZ 85251Phone (480) 949-7127 • Fax (480) 949-2655

tneill@nvassociates.com

Growth is inevitable…It’s planning that makes the difference.

SEDONA, AZ (928)282-7787(800)264-778720 Stutz Bearcat Dt.#6

SERVING CLIENTS SINCE 1974TAOS, NM(505)758-2573COUNCIL, ID(800)264-7787

COTTONWOOD,AZ(928)634-5889Clemenceau Plaza, Ste 111515 E. Hwy 89A

◆ Land Use Planning ◆ CADD Mapping◆ Engineering ◆ Surveying ◆ Natural Resource Consulting

Visit us at www.sec-landmgt.com ◆ Email: info@sec-landmgt.com

NON PROFITU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPHOENIX, ARIZONA

PERMIT NO. 650

AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION/ARIZONA10410 N. 31st Avenue, Suite 405Phoenix, AZ 85051

2003 Arizona Planning Association � Important Dates to Remember

TO PUBLISH

FEATURED IN THIS ISSUEPlanners and Homeland Security 1President’s Message 3Members for Board of Directors Needed 3Urban Realism 4Call for 2003 Arizona Planning Conference

Session Topics 6Southern Section Update 7APA National Awards Jury 92003 AICP Exam 10RMLUI Land Use From A to Z 11Design with the Desert Conference 11

FEBRUARY

21 AICP Exam Prep Course, Phoenix

MARCH

3 AICP Exam Site RegistrationDeadline

28 Prof. Dev. Workshop — Planningfor Regional Trails

29 – National Planning ConferenceApr. 2 Denver, Colorado

APRIL

12 AICP Exam Prep Course, Tucson

TBD AICP Exam Prep Course, Flagstaff

25 Prof. Dev. Workshop — AirportPlanning

MAY

10 AICP Exam

30 Land Use Law Workshop,Phoenix

OCTOBER

15–17 State Planning Conference,

Glendale

Articles should not exceed four pages,

single spaced, 12 point font, formatted

in Word Perfect or MS Word. Be sure

to spell check your article. Graphics

are encouraged: tables and charts

saved as either Excel or Lotus (*.xls or

*.wk4); pictures and maps saved in

bitmap, tiff or eps format (*.bmp, *tif,

or *.eps). Submissions should be

e-mailed or sent on 3.5" disk to the

newsletter editor, co-editor, or staff

administrator. Please include your

name, title, organization, phone

number, and e-mail address.