The Sustainable Development Code

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

T
goals.
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

AF
Sustainable
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

R

to
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

D

density
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
times.vi
This
increases

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

T
production.xi
Biologists
predict
that
the
current
alarming
rate
of
species
extinction
will

AF
accelerate
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

R
growth-‐management
policies
and
development
codes
which,
despite
using
“smart
growth”

labels,
severely
limit
land-‐use
choices
and
density,
creating
in
effect,
legally
mandated
low-‐
D

density
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

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

T
comprehensive
reform
of
land-‐use
codes
focused
on
the
environmental,
the
economic
and

AF
the
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

D

reforming
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

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

T
particularly
pernicious
effect
of
enabling
NIMBY
groups
to
prevent
sustainable
compact

AF
and
mixed-‐use
urban
development.

2.
Planned
Unit
Development
(PUD)

R
Planned
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

D

types,
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.

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

AF
4.
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

R
spaces
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

D

dense
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.

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

T
influenced
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

R
planning
literature.

Dooyeweerd
developed
the
concept
of
modalities,
an
integrated
and

holistic
philosophy
that
can
be
used
to
explain
the
interdependence
between
aspects
of
the

D

urban
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;

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:

T
overcoming
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

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

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

AF
of
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

R
1500
miles
away,
the
food
system
is
as
sprawling
and
dependent
on
fossil
fuel
as
our

cities.xxv

D

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

T
statement,
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.

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

AF
and
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

R
references
and
exemplary
codes
with
hyperlinks.
The
y-‐axis
rows
are
organized
according

to
overcoming
barriers,
creating
incentives,
and
enacting
standards.

D

For
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

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

T
standards
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

D

Create
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

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

T
Strategic
success
factors

Finally,
it
is
essential
to
understand
that
successful
outcomes
require
that

AF
regulatory
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

R

Comprehensive
Plan
is
recommended
as
strategic
support.
Within
the
realm
of
programs

and
administration,
examples
of
successful
support
include
conservation
easements
to

D

protect
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

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

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:

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2008/06_metropolicy/06_metropolicy_fullreport.pdf
ii
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
Earth's
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:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/data_sources/.

v
Energy
Use
by
Sector
(2007).
Retrieved
April
20,
2009,
from
Energy
Information
Administration
Web
site:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec2.pdf
vi
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

T
billion
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:

http://www.asce.org/reportcard/pdf/fullreport03.pdf.
viii
Peak
oil
is
the
point
in
t ime
when
the
m aximum
rate
o f
global
petroleum
e xtraction
is
reached,
a fter
which

AF
the
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-‐
ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter85_200801.pdf.
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

R
the
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:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-‐
D

report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
xii
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:

http://www.well.com/~davidu/amnh.html
.
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:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_2.pdf.

xv

McNeely,
Jeffrey
A.
(2006).
Biofuels:
Green
energy
or
grim
reaper?
Retrieved
A pril
20,
2009
from
B BC
News

Web
site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5369284.stm
xvi
The
Illusion
of
Clean
Coal
( March
5 ,
2009).
Retrieved
April
20,
2009,
from
The
E conomist
Web
s ite:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13235041
xvii
Bossel,
Ulf
(2006).
Does
a
Hydrogen
Economy
Make
Sense?
Proceedings
of
the
I EE,
94
(10).

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:
http://www.law.du.edu/index.php/rmlui

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
http://www.smartcodecentral.org/
xxiii
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.

T
Available
online
at
http://law.du.edu/images/uploads/rmlui/rmlui-‐sustainable-‐
SustainableZoningFramework%206.pdf.

xxv
American
Planning
Association
(2007).
Policy
Guide
on
C ommunity
and
Regional
Food
Planning.
Retrieved

AF
April
2 0,
2009,
from
A merican
Planning
Association
Web
site:

http://www.planning.org/divisions/initiatives/foodsystem.htm
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:
http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS00-‐04.pdf

xxviii
U.S.
E PA
(2007).
Inventory
of
U .S.
Greenhouse
Gas
Emissions
and
Sinks:
1990
-
2005.
W ashington,
DC

R
xxix
Rocky
Mountain
Land
Use
Institute
(2009).
Sustainable
C ommunity
Development
Code.
Retrieved
April
2 0,

2009
from
RMLUI
Web
site:
http://www.law.du.edu/rmlui
D

The Sustainable Development Code

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to The Sustainable Development Code

More from Penn Institute for Urban Research

Recently uploaded

The Sustainable Development Code