Working	  Paper	  	                              The	  Sustainable	  Community	  Development	  Code:	  	           Regulat...
Working	  Paper	  	  the	  rapidly	  growing	  financial	  burden	  of	  maintaining	  an	  automobile-­‐centered	  infras...
Working	  Paper	  	  sequestration,	  remains	  uneconomical	  and	  faces	  enormous	  technological	  challenges.xvi	  A...
Working	  Paper	  	  In	  1926	  the	  U.S.	  Supreme	  Court	  in	  “Village	  of	  Euclid	  vs.	  Ambler	  Realty	  Comp...
Working	  Paper	  	  3.	  Performance	  Systems	  	  Developed	  in	  the	  1970s	  in	  response	  to	  the	  overly	  ri...
Working	  Paper	  	  The	  Sustainable	  Community	  Development	  Code	              The	  Sustainable	  Community	  Deve...
Working	  Paper	  	         2. The	  integration	  of	  natural	  and	  man-­‐made	  systems;	         3. A	  progressive	...
Working	  Paper	  	         2.4.       Steep	  slopes	  3. LAND	  USE	  AND	  COMMUNITY	  CHARACTER	         3.1.       Ch...
Working	  Paper	  	  7. ENERGY	  	         7.1.       Renewable	  energy:	  	  wind,	  small	  and	  large	  scale	       ...
Working	  Paper	  	  Commentary,	  Key	  statistics,	  Goals,	              The	  chapter,	  “Food	  production	  and	  se...
Working	  Paper	  	  Measurement	  index	  Suggested	  specific	  sustainable	  measurement	  metrics	  include:	         ...
Working	  Paper	  	  Table	  1.	  Sustainable	  Community	  Development	  Code:	  Food	  Production	  and	  Security	  	  ...
Working	  Paper	  	                                               districts	                                   Regional	  ...
Working	  Paper	  	  development	  codes	  along	  a	  more	  sustainable	  path.	  Dissemination,	  training	  and	  demo...
Working	  Paper	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 ...
Working	  Paper	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	 ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

The Sustainable Development Code


Published on

Following the 2008 "Re-imaging Cities: Urban Design After the Age of Oil symposium, Penn IUR solicited manuscripts on environmental and energy challenges and their effect on the redesign of urban environments.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Sustainable Development Code

  1. 1. Working  Paper     The  Sustainable  Community  Development  Code:     Regulating  a  Sustainable  Urban  Land-­use  Patterns  for  a  Post-­Carbon  World   James  van  Hemert    Introduction   Local  government  land-­‐use  codes  must  be  reformed  if  they  are  to  play  an  important  societal  role  in  achieving  a  sustainable  and  livable  post  carbon  future.  The  United  States  of  America’s  100  largest  metropolitan  regions  include  9,000  cities,  towns,  and  counties.i  They  are  failing  to  sufficiently  change  their  codes  to  advance  the  emerging  paradigm  of  sustainability.ii  Worse,  their  codes  represent  a  significant  barrier  to  achieving  sustainability   Tgoals.  This  chapter  describes  a  comprehensive  framework  for  land-­‐use  code  reform,  an  initiative  of  the  Rocky  Mountain  Land  Use  Institute  of  the  University  of  Denver.  The   AFSustainable  Commuity  Development  Code  is  discussed,  featuring  the  code’s  rationale,  approach,  and  structure,  as  well  as  an  explanation  of  one  of  the  code’s  chapters.   Our  land-­‐use  patterns  and  transportation  networks  have  substantially  contributed   Rto  the  bloated  size  of  our  ecological  footprint,iii  which  weighs  in  at  over  four  times  the  global  average,  which  is  itself  already  1.3  times  the  planet’s  carrying  capacity.iv  The  low   Ddensity  and  limited-­‐use  character  of  our  settlements  is  coupled  with  an  almost  exclusively  automobile-­‐focused  transportation  system,  and,  together,  they  conspire  to  trap  us  in  a  wasteful  mobility  patterns  in  which  each  household  depends  almost  exclusively  on  a  privately  owned  vehicle.  Our  built  environment  represents  68  percent  of  our  total  energy  use,  of  which  buildings  represent  39  percent  and  transportation  represents  29  percent.v  We  use  fossil  fuels  to  generate  85  percent  of  our  energy.     In  the  United  States,  the  rate  of  urban  land  consumption  over  the  past  several  generations  has  exceeded  the  rate  of  population  growth  by  several  This  increases    
  2. 2. Working  Paper    the  rapidly  growing  financial  burden  of  maintaining  an  automobile-­‐centered  infrastructurevii  and  increases  our  dependency  on  fossil  fuels  with  all  the  attendant  environmental  costs,  including  carbon  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  The  Association  for  the  Study  of  Peak  Oil  and  Gas  (ASPO)  projects  global  “peak  oil”viii  to  occur  in  2010.ix  If  true,  our  entire  human  settlement  infrastructure  and  its  economic  basis  are  in  grave  danger  of  imminent  collapse.x       Global  warming  induced  climate  change  is  already  threatening  the  viability  of  coastline  settlements,  increasing  drought  in  the  Rocky  Mountain  West,  increasing  the  potential  for  disease,  increasing  flooding,  and  threatening  the  viability  of  agricultural   Tproduction.xi  Biologists  predict  that  the  current  alarming  rate  of  species  extinction  will   AFaccelerate  further  under  the  combined  effects  of  climate  change,  declining  habitat  due  to  deforestation,  agriculture,  and  urbanization.xii     Our  current  and  future  land-­‐use  patterns  are  substantially  locked  in  place  by  local   Rgrowth-­‐management  policies  and  development  codes  which,  despite  using  “smart  growth”  labels,  severely  limit  land-­‐use  choices  and  density,  creating  in  effect,  legally  mandated  low-­‐ Ddensity  sprawl.  xiii     Breaking  free  from  this  balkanized  local  land-­‐use  code  regulatory  trap  will  be  excruciatingly  difficult  for  psychological,  social,  political,  and  financial  reasons.  Exacerbating  the  challenge  is  the  fact  that  our  attention  is  distracted  by  narrowly  conceived  technical  fixes  for  addressing  climate  change  and  “peak  oil.”  These  fixes  include,  for  example,  plug-­‐in-­‐hybrid  cars,  that  will  still  require  fossil-­‐fuel  based  electricity.xiv  Most  biofuels  have  yet  to  achieve  a  net  positive  return  on  energy  inputs  and  represent  direct  competition  with  global  food  supplies.xv  Deceptively  named  “clean  coal,”  requiring  carbon    
  3. 3. Working  Paper    sequestration,  remains  uneconomical  and  faces  enormous  technological  challenges.xvi  A  hydrogen  economy  may  be  a  very  long  ways  off.xvii  “Green”  buildings  are  not  necessarily  energy  and  carbon  efficient.xviii  These  fixes  fail  to  address  the  fundamental  problem  of  unsustainable  land-­‐use  patterns,  inflexible  land-­‐use  regulatory  regimes  and  an  exceedingly  burdensome  and  dysfunctional  automobile-­‐focused  roadway  network.  Additionally,  local  politics,  often  excessively  influenced  by  NIMBYs—“not  in  my  back  yard”  activists),  whose  ranks  include  “no  growth”  environmentalists—exacerbates  the  difficulties  already  inherent  in  meeting  the  challenge  of  a  more  sustainable  future.xix       The  critical  and  necessary  starting  point  to  break  free  of  this  regulatory  leg-­‐hold  is   Tcomprehensive  reform  of  land-­‐use  codes  focused  on  the  environmental,  the  economic  and   AFthe  social  equity  elements  of  sustainability  as  the  central  paradigm.      Land-­use  code  family  tree   R Understanding  the  nature  of  our  current  land-­‐use  code  types,  their  history,  and  their  strengths  and  shortcomings  is  a  necessary  first  step.  We  will  be  building  upon  and   Dreforming  these  edifices:  they  are  not  about  to  be  disassembled.  There  are  basically  four  typological  strains  of  land-­‐use  codes  in  operation:  Euclidian,  Planned  Development,  Performance,  and  Form  Based  (as  well  hybrid  codes  that  combine  some  aspects  of  each);  each  of  the  four  primary  types  are  explained  below  in  more  detail.  Most  communities  have  evolved  over  the  years  a  hybridized  form  of  zoning  that  incorporates  elements  to  varying  degrees  of  these  four  types.  An  emerging  fifth  type  of  code  is  the  sustainable  code.      1.  Euclidian    
  4. 4. Working  Paper    In  1926  the  U.S.  Supreme  Court  in  “Village  of  Euclid  vs.  Ambler  Realty  Companyxx”  upheld  the  validity  of  an  ordinance  to  separate  land  uses  into  zone  districts,  specifying  permitted  and  excluded  uses,  prescribing  minimum  lot,  area,  and  bulk  requirement  for  all  permitted  uses.  Land  uses  are  separated  and  sorted  into  groups  based  upon  their  perceived  compatibility  in  order  to  promote  public  “health,  safety,  and  welfare.”  Euclidian  zoning,  also  referred  to  as  “conventional  zoning,”  remains  the  default  base  code  in  most  cities,  towns,  and  counties.    Euclidian  codes  have  not  been  shown  to  be  particularly  effective,  however,  in  dealing  with  myriad  environmental  issues  such  as  floodplain  management  and  habitat  protection.  Their  focus  on  density  maximums  and  the  separation  of  uses  have  the   Tparticularly  pernicious  effect  of  enabling  NIMBY  groups  to  prevent  sustainable  compact   AFand  mixed-­‐use  urban  development.    2.  Planned  Unit  Development  (PUD)     RPlanned  Unit  Development  is  a  means  of  land  regulation  typically  associated  with  large-­‐-­‐scale,  unified  land  development.  Generally  it  promotes  a  mixture  of  land  uses  and  dwelling   Dtypes,  increased  administrative  discretion  of  local  professional  planning  staff,  and  the  enhancement  of  the  bargaining  process  between  the  developer  and  government  municipalities.  This  strengthens  the  municipality’s  site  plan  review  and  control  over  development.  PUDs  exhibit  a  much  greater  degree  of  flexibility  granted  relative  to  the  more  rigid  Euclidian  zoning  scheme.  Although  PUDs  can  address  sustainability  issues,  their  highly  negotiated  and  custom-­‐designed  character  means  that  critical  sustainability  matters  are  often  inadequate  or  left  unaddressed.        
  5. 5. Working  Paper    3.  Performance  Systems    Developed  in  the  1970s  in  response  to  the  overly  rigid  and  often  environmentally  damaging  Euclidian  zoning  system,  performance-­‐based  zoning  takes  as  its  starting  point  an  environmental  carrying  capacity  model  whereby  the  type  and  level  of  development  must  fit  the  unique  characteristics  of  the  individual  property.  Lane  Kendig’s  extensive  work  on  this  system  has  made  his  name  virtually  synonymous  with  it.xxi  Essentially,  the  code  allows  almost  anything  to  be  built  anywhere,  provided  appropriate  mitigation  measures  are  taken  into  consideration.  The  approach  placed  an  emphasis  on  environmental  protection  hitherto  not  present  in  any  Euclidian  scheme.     T   AF4.  Form-­Based  Form-­‐based  development  codes,  popularly  represented  by  the  SmartCode,xxii  focus  heavily  on  the  public  realm  and  the  type  of  urban  form  necessary  to  create  welcoming  public   Rspaces  and  walkable  neighborhoods.  It  is  based  on  an  urban-­‐to-­‐rural  transect  urban  planning  which  defines  a  series  of  zones  that  transition  from  sparse  rural  lands  to  the   Ddense  urban  core.  The  transect  is  an  important  part  of  the  New  Urbanist  and  Smart  Growth  movements.  The  code  is  highly  prescriptive  regarding  urban  form  and  has  limited  explicit  focus  on  environmental  and  natural  resources.  To  the  extent  that  many  New  Urbanist  developments  rely  heavily  on  automobile  transport  and  serve  the  detached  single-­‐family  housing  market,  they  often  fall  short  of  being  truly  sustainable.  Furthermore,  form-­‐based  codes  and  the  SmartCode  in  particular  are  incomplete  and  no  community  can  adopt  them  as  a  stand-­‐alone  regulatory  ordinance.      
  6. 6. Working  Paper    The  Sustainable  Community  Development  Code   The  Sustainable  Community  Development  Code  is  a  holistic  framework  for  local  government  regulation  of  land  use  and  the  environment.  Its  core  distinguishing  feature  is  the  promotion,  enhancement,  and  enforcement  of  environmental,  social,  and  economic  sustainability.  The  meta-­‐goal  of  the  code  is  to  reform  land-­‐use  codes  in  such  a  way  that  human  settlements  move  toward  smaller  ecological  footprints.  This  can  be  measured,  for  example,  in  movement  toward  zero  carbon  emissions,  zero  waste,  zero  fossil  fuel  consumption,  improved  prosperity,  and  greater  social  cohesion.       When  we  began  shaping  the  sustainable  community  development  code,  we  were   Tinfluenced  by  the  work  of  Peter  Brandon  (University  of  Salford,  UK)  and  Patrizia  Lombardi   AF(University  of  Turin,  Italy)  as  expressed  in  “Evaluating  Sustainable  Development  in  the  Built  Environment.”xxiii  Their  work  is  heavily  influenced  by  the  Dutch  philosopher  Herman  Dooyeweerd,  whose  once  obscure  writings  have  gained  currency  recently  in  legal  and   Rplanning  literature.    Dooyeweerd  developed  the  concept  of  modalities,  an  integrated  and  holistic  philosophy  that  can  be  used  to  explain  the  interdependence  between  aspects  of  the   Durban  environment.  This  concept  can  also  be  linked  to  the  wider  sustainable  development  agenda.  The  holism  of  modalities  allows  an  integrated  view  of  the  issue  and  assists  in  explaining  what  is  meant  by,  and  what  contributes  to,  sustainable  development.xxiv       This  overview  covers  the  code’s  distinct  characteristics,  describes  the  intellectual  genesis  of  its  topical  substance,  lists  the  topics  organized  by  major  themes  and  explains  one  of  the  code  chapters  to  describe  the  code’s  operational  features.       The  code’s  distinct  characteristics  include  the  following:   1. A  high  degree  of  comprehensiveness;    
  7. 7. Working  Paper     2. The  integration  of  natural  and  man-­‐made  systems;   3. A  progressive  nature,  drawing  upon  useful  features  of  other  code  frameworks   already  proven  and  in  use:   4. It  is  based  on  sustainable  comprehensive  policy  plans  and  long-­‐term  civic   engagement;  and     5. It  is  tailored  to  local  and  regional  climate,  ecology,  and  culture.  Innovative  operational  features  include  a  user-­‐friendly  web-­‐based  framework,  the  use  of  hyperlinks  to  references  and  government  web  sites,  commentary,  and  sustainability  measurements.  A  key  organizational  feature  is  the  division  of  topics  into  three  categories:   Tovercoming  obstacles,  applying  incentives  and  enacting  regulations.     AF  Major  topics  of  the  code  are  organized  according  to  the  following:  1. ENVIRONMENTAL  HEALTH  AND  NATURAL  RESOURCES   R 1.1. Climate  change   1.2. Low  impact  development  and  green  infrastructure     D 1.3. Natural   resource   conservation—including   wildlife   habitat   and   sensitive   lands   protection     1.4. Water  conservation   1.5. Solid  waste  and  recycling  2. NATURAL  HAZARDS     2.1. Floodplain  management     2.2. Wildfires  in  the  wildland-­‐urban  interface     2.3. Coastal  hazards    
  8. 8. Working  Paper     2.4. Steep  slopes  3. LAND  USE  AND  COMMUNITY  CHARACTER   3.1. Character  and  aesthetics   3.1.1. Visual  elements   3.2. Urban  form  and  density   3.3. Historic  preservation  4. MOBILITY  &  TRANSPORTATION   4.1. Mobility  systems     4.1.1.      Complete  streets   T 4.1.2.      Pedestrian  systems   AF 4.1.3.      Bicycle  systems   4.1.4.      Public  transit   4.2. Parking     R 4.3. Transit  oriented  development    5. COMMUNITY   D 5.1. Community  development   5.2. Public  participation  and  community  benefits  6. HEALTHY  NEIGHBORHOODS,  HOUSING,  FOOD  SECURITY   6.1. Community  health  and  safety   6.2. Affordable  housing     6.3. Housing  diversity  and  accessibility     6.4. Food  production  and  security    
  9. 9. Working  Paper    7. ENERGY     7.1. Renewable  energy:    wind,  small  and  large  scale   7.2. Renewable  energy:    solar,  including  solar  access   7.3. Energy  efficiency  and  conservation    8. LIVABILITY   8.1. Noise   8.2. Lighting    Illustration  of  a  code  chapter:  Food  production  and  security   T The  topic  of  food  production  and  security  is  a  salient  illustration  of  the  code  because   AFof  the  significant  impact  it  has  on  our  carbon  emissions.  Food  production  and  security  touch  upon  other  elements  of  sustainability  such  as  human  health,  social  equity,  and  a  healthy  local  economy.  With  the  average  morsel  of  food  on  our  dinner  plates  coming  from   R1500  miles  away,  the  food  system  is  as  sprawling  and  dependent  on  fossil  fuel  as  our  cities.xxv   D    
  10. 10. Working  Paper    Commentary,  Key  statistics,  Goals,   The  chapter,  “Food  production  and  security,”  succinctly  lays  out  the  key  issues  and  rationale  for  inclusion  of  the  topic  in  local  community  development  codes.    The  American  food  system,  which,  broadly  defined,  is  the  sequence  of  activities  linking  food  production,  processing,  distribution  and  access,  consumption,  and  waste  management,  as  well  as  all  the  associated  supporting  and  regulatory  institutions  and  activities.xxvi    In  2000,  approximately  10%  of  all  energy  used  in  the  U.S.  was  consumed  by  the  food  industry.xxvii  Agricultural  activities  were  responsible  for  7%  of  total  U.S.  greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  2005,  of  which  livestock  is  a  major  contributor.xxviii    Goals,  which  can  be  included  in  a  code’s  purpose   Tstatement,  are  suggested  and  include:     AF 1)  The  elimination  of  barriers  such  as  restrictions  on  farmers  markets,  animal   husbandry  and  overly  simplistic  rural  agricultural  zoning  provisions;   2)  Incentives  to  encourage  urban  agriculture  and  increase  access  to  healthy  food;   R and    3)  The  enactment  of  standards  for  sustainable  large  scale  food  production,  access  to   D healthy  foods,  and  limits  on  unhealthy  food  choices  such  as  fast  food  restaurants,   the  expansion  of  permissive  animal  unit  regulations,  and  the  broadening  of     permitted  uses  by  right  in  agricultural  zones.    Within  this  framework  of  goals  local  development  codes  can  play  a  significant  role  in  enhancing  more  energy  efficient  food  production,  increasing  access  to  healthy  foods,  and  supporting  a  local  agricultural  economy.      
  11. 11. Working  Paper    Measurement  index  Suggested  specific  sustainable  measurement  metrics  include:   1. Energy  consumption  to  food  production  ratio;     2. Average  distance  a  food  item  travels  (the  lower,  the  better);   3. Percentage  of  community  demand  met  from  agriculture  within  the  community;   4. Average  distance  to  healthy  food  (absence  of  food  deserts);  and   5. Energy  consumption  to  food  production  ratio.    The  matrix   T The  heart  of  the  code  is  the  matrix  of  regulations,  levels  of  achievement,  references   AFand  commentary,  and  existing  code  examples  from  communities  around  the  USA  and  the  world.  Along  the  x-­‐axis  are  categories  of  achievement  ranging  from  good  (bronze),  better  (silver)  to  best  (gold).    The  remaining  columns  on  this  axis  include  commentary  with   Rreferences  and  exemplary  codes  with  hyperlinks.  The  y-­‐axis  rows  are  organized  according  to  overcoming  barriers,  creating  incentives,  and  enacting  standards.   DFor  this  particular  chapter,  the  matrix  is  further  organized  in  accordance  with  three  broad  categories:  large  scale  commercial  agriculture,  small  scale  urban  agriculture,  and  access  to  healthy  foods.  Table  1  illustrates  the  matrix  in  a  condensed  form.  The  full  chapter  and  matrix  may  be  viewed  at  the  Rocky  Mountain  Land  Use’s  web  site.xxix  It  contains  hyperlinks  to  the  majority  of  references  and  local  development  code  examples          
  12. 12. Working  Paper    Table  1.  Sustainable  Community  Development  Code:  Food  Production  and  Security    A.  Large  scale  commercial  agriculture—primarily  rural  counties     Levels  of  achievement         Bronze  ( good)   Silver  ( better)   Gold  ( best)   Commentary  and   Code  examples   references  Remove   Permit  broad   Right  to  farm   Permit  small   Daniels,  Holding   Larimer  County,  obstacles   range  of     scale  farming  in   Our  Ground:     CO  (silver)   agricultural  uses   exurban  &   Protecting   by  right   suburban  areas   America’s     Farmland  (1997)  Create   Cluster   Density  bonuses   Transfer  of   Arendt,  Randall.   State  of  New  incentives   subdivisions   for  cluster   development   Rural  By  Design.   Jersey  (gold)   subdivisions   rights  or  credits     that  preserve  a       high  percentage   of  productive   agricultural   lands  Enact   Permit  farming   True   Agricultural  land   American   Silver:  Marin   Tstandards   in  open  space   agricultural   loss  offsets   Planning   County,  CA   zones   minimum  parcel     Association.  P AS     size   Report  No.  482,   AF Planning  and   Zoning  for   Concentrated   Animal  Feeding   Operations  B.  Small  scale  urban  agriculture—primarily  cities  and  towns  Remove   Permit  front   Remove   Permit  urban   City  o f  Detroit.     Silver:  Madison,  obstacles   yard  vegetable   restrictive   gardens  to  meet   Supporting  Urban   WI   R gardens  in   standards  for   open  space   Agriculture.   residential   urban  animal   requirements   districts   husbandry—e.g.       chickens   DCreate   Density  or   Allow  limited   Stormwater     Portland,  OR  incentives   height  bonus  for   commercial  or   management   (bronze)   agricultural   home  sales  o f   credit  for   space  o r  rooftop   food  produced   agricultural  land   garden   on  site   on  site  Enact   Require  fruit   Adopt  urban   Require   Portland,  O R.   U.S.  Green  standards   trees  for   agricultural   purchase  of   Study  on  urban   Building  Council.   landscaping   compatibility   community   agriculture.   LEED-­ND,  NPD     standards   supported   Diggable  City   Credit  16  Local   agriculture   Food  Production.   (CSA)  shares  for   (gold)   new   development  C.  Access  to  healthy  foods  Remove   Limit  restrictive   Permit  farmers   Permit  farmers   American   Chicago,  IL  obstacles   covenants  by   markets  in  a   markets  in  all   Planning   (bronze)   grocery  stores  -­‐-­‐   wide  range  o f   commercial  and   Association.  Policy   commercial  and   mixed-­‐use  zone   Guide  on   mixed  use   districts   Community  and    
  13. 13. Working  Paper     districts   Regional  Food   Planning  Create   Streamline   Establish  a     The  Food  Trust’s   San  Francisco,  incentives   development   special  use   Healthy  Corner   CA  (silver)   review  for   district  for   Store  Initiative   supermarkets   grocery  stores  Enact   Permit  display  of   Permit  grocery   Limit  the     Arcata,  CA  (gold)  standards   fruit  and   stores  in  all   number  of   vegetables  o n   business  and   formula   public  s idewalks   residential   restaurants   zones           TStrategic  success  factors   Finally,  it  is  essential  to  understand  that  successful  outcomes  require  that   AFregulatory  tools  be  grounded  in  solid  comprehensive  policy  planning  and  accompanied  by  competent  administration  and  supportive  programs.  In  the  instance  of  food  production  and  security  a  regional  food  policy  council  and  a  food  policy  element  within  a  community’s   RComprehensive  Plan  is  recommended  as  strategic  support.  Within  the  realm  of  programs  and  administration,  examples  of  successful  support  include  conservation  easements  to   Dprotect  agricultural  lands,  the  use  of  tax  increment  financing  and  facilitation  of  land  assembly  to  attract  grocery  stores,  and  the  provision  of  financial  and  technical  assistance  for  small  retailers  to  offer  healthy  foods.      Conclusion   The  code  provides  a  dynamic,  readily  accessible  framework  for  communities,  regardless  of  size,  resources  and  culture,  to  immediately  begin  work  in  reforming  their    
  14. 14. Working  Paper    development  codes  along  a  more  sustainable  path.  Dissemination,  training  and  demonstration  pilot  projects  represent  the  next  important  challenge  to  reforming  the  nation’s  development  codes. T AF R D  
  15. 15. Working  Paper                                                                                                                        End  Notes  i  Muro,   Mark  et   al  (2008).  Shaping  a  New  Partnership  for  a  Metropolitan  Nation.     Retrieved  A pril  20,  2009,  from  Brookings  Institution  Web  s ite:  See  Z iegler,  Edward   H.,  (2009).   The   Case   for   Megapolitan  Growth   Management  in  the  2 1st  Century:   Regional  Urban  Planning  and  Sustainable  Development  in  the  United  States.  The  Urban  Lawyer  4(1).iii  Ecological   footprint  is   a   measure  o f  human  d emand  o n  the  Earths  e cosystems  that  represents   the  a mount  of  biologically  productive  land  and  sea  area  needed  to  regenerate  the  resources  a  human  population  consumes.    See  Wackernagel,  Mathis  &  Rees,  W illiam  (1996).  Our  Ecological  Footprint.  Gabriola  Island,  BC:  New  Society  Press.iv  Halls,   Chris  (Ed.)  (2008).  G lobal  Footprint  Network.   Retrieved  April  20,  2009,   from  G lobal   Footprint  Network.  Web  site:  v  Energy   Use  by  Sector  (2007).   Retrieved  April  20,  2009,  from  Energy   Information  Administration   Web  site:  Ziegler,  Edward  H .  (2008).  A merican  C ities,  U rban   Collapse,  a nd  Environmental   Doom.  Planning  &  Environmental  Law,  60,  7 ,  9 .vii  The  U nited   States  h as  a  $ 2  trillion   infrastructure  m aintenance   deficit  that   increases   by   an  estimated  $100   Tbillion  each  y ear.  See  Report  Card  for  America’s  Infrastructure  2003  Progress  Progress  Report:  An  update  to  the  2001  Report  Card  (2003).  Retrieved  April  20,  2009,  from  American  Society  o f  Civil  Engineers  Web  s ite:  Peak  oil  is  the  point   in  t ime  when  the  m aximum  rate  o f   global  petroleum  e xtraction  is   reached,  a fter  which   AFthe  rate  of  production  enters  terminal  d ecline.ix.  The  Association   for  the   Study  o f   Peak  O il  and   Gas  (ASPO)  predicted  in  their  January  2008   newsletter  that  the  production  peak  for  all  o il,  including  non-­‐conventional  sources,  would  occur  in  2010.  Note  that  estimates  for  the  date  of  global  peak  oil  production  vary  considerably  due  to  the  volatility  of  variables  and  that  only  in  hindsight  will  the  peak  be  clear.  Retrieved  April  20,  2009  from  ASPO  Web  s ite:    http://www.aspo-­‐  Note  that  estimates  for  the  date  of  global  peak  oil  production  vary  considerably  due  to  the  v olatility  of  v ariables  and  that  only  in  hindsight  w ill   Rthe  peak  be  clear.x  Kunstler,  James   Howard  (2005).  The   Long   Emergency.   New  York:  Atlantic   Monthly  Press.xi  Climate  Change  2007  Synthesis   Report:  Summary  f or  Policy  Makers  (2007).   Retrieved  April  20,  2009,   from  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change  Web  s ite:­‐ Dreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdfxii  Nearly  70%  o f   biologists  v iew  the  p resent  era  as  p art  o f  a  mass  e xtinction  event,  possibly  one  of  the   fastest  ever,  according  to  a  1998  survey  by  the  A merican  Museum  of  Natural  History.  Retrieved  April  20,  2009  from  American  Museum  o f  Natural  History  Web  s ite:  .  See  also  E .  O.  Wilson  (2006).  The  Creation:  An  Appeal  to  Save  Life  on  Earth.  New  York:  W.  W.  Norton  &  Company.xiii  Ziegler,  Edward  H .  (2003).  Urban  Sprawl,   Growth   Management  and  Sustainable   Development  in  the  U nited  States:  Thoughts  on  the  Sentimental  Quest  for  a  New  Middle  landscape.  Virginia  Journal  of  Social  Policy  &  Law,  11,  26.  xivAny  significant  growth   in  the  use  o f  plug-­‐in-­‐hybrid   cars   w ill   necessarily  r equire  the  use  of  fossil   fuels   as  the  proportion  o f  renewable  energy  within  the  entire  energy  portfolio  is  expected  to  increase  only  slightly  faster  than  the  overall  increase  in  energy  demand.  See  Annual  Energy  Outlook  2009,  Energy  Demand  Projections  (2009).  Retrieved  April  20,  2 009  from  Energy  Information  Administration  Web  site:    xv    McNeely,  Jeffrey  A.  (2006).   Biofuels:  Green  energy  or  grim  reaper?  Retrieved  A pril  20,  2009   from  B BC  News  Web  site.  The  Illusion  of   Clean   Coal  ( March  5 ,  2009).   Retrieved  April  20,  2009,   from   The  E conomist  Web  s ite:  Bossel,  Ulf  (2006).  Does  a   Hydrogen  Economy   Make   Sense?  Proceedings  of   the  I EE,  94  (10).  
  16. 16. Working  Paper                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        xviii    Dawe,  Pat  and  Hootman,  Tom  (2009).  G oing   beyond   LEED:  Carbon  Accountability  a t  the  Development  Scale.  Presentation  made  at  the  18th  Annual  Land  Use  Conference  o f  the  Rocky  Mountain  Land  Use  Institute.  Retrieved  April  2 0,  2009  from  RMLUI  Web  s ite:  xix  Ziegler,  Edward  H .,  (2009).   The  Case  for   Megapolitan   Growth  Management  in  the  2 1st  Century:   Regional  Urban  Planning  and  Sustainable  Development  in  the  United  States.  The  Urban  Lawyer  4(1).  xx  272  U.S.   365  (1926).xxi  Kendig,  L ane  (1980).  Performance   Zoning.  W ashington,   D .C.;  Chicago,  IL:  Planners   Press.  xxii  The   SmartCode   is  a  unified  d evelopment  ordinance  developed   by  Duany  Andres  a nd  Elizabeth  Plater-­‐Zyberk.  Retrieved  April  20,  2009  from  SmartCode  Central  Web  site:  at  Peter  S.  Brandon  and   Patrizia  L ombardi  ( 2005).  Evaluating  Sustainable  Development  in   the   Built  Environment.  Oxford,  U K;  Malden,  MA:  Blackwell  Publishing.  See  Chapter  4  in  particular.xxiv  The  theory  o n  m odalities   is  articulated  in  The  Philosophy  of  the  Cosmonomic   Idea  (1935-­‐1936)  [De  Wijsbegeerte  d er  Wetsidee  (Amsterdam:  1935-­‐36)].  Herman  Dooyeweerd  w as  a  professor  o f  law  at  the  Free  University  o f  A msterdam.  This  writing  is  available  in  English  in  the  Encyclopedia  o f  the  Science  o f  Law  Volume  1  Mellen,  Series  A ,  vol.  8 ,  General  Editor:  D.F.M.  Strauss,  Translated  by  Robert  D.  Knudsen,  Edited  by  Alan  M.  Cameron    ( New  York:  The  Edwin  Mellen  Press,  2 002).    A  d etailed  discussion  o n  linking  Dooyeweerd’s  modalities  w ith  topical  elements  o f  the  Sustainable  Community  Development  Code  may  be  found  in  van  Hemert,  James  (2007).  Sustainable  Zoning:  A  New  Imperative.  The  Rocky  Mountain  Land  Use  Institute.   TAvailable  online  at­‐sustainable-­‐SustainableZoningFramework%206.pdf.  xxv  American   Planning  Association  (2007).  Policy  Guide  on   C ommunity  and   Regional  Food  Planning.   Retrieved   AFApril  2 0,  2009,  from  A merican  Planning  Association  Web  site: xxvi  Ibid.xxvii  Martin  C .   Heller   and   Gregory  A .  Keoleian  (2000).   Life  Cycle-­Based  Sustainability   Indicators   for  Assessment  of  the  U.S.  Food  Systems.  Ann  A rbor:  University  o f  Michigan,  Center  for  Sustainable  Systems.  Retrieved  April  20,  2009:­‐04.pdf  xxviii  U.S.  E PA  (2007).  Inventory  of  U .S.   Greenhouse  Gas   Emissions  and  Sinks:  1990  -­  2005.  W ashington,   DC   Rxxix  Rocky   Mountain   Land  Use  Institute  (2009).  Sustainable  C ommunity  Development  Code.   Retrieved  April  2 0,  2009  from  RMLUI  Web  site: D