On a regional scale, with a southern California that is divided into three Transects oriented around three Urban Cores (Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino), where are the best places along the edges of each Transect to begin restoring suburban land uses to wilderness and countryside? And, where should new urban-growth boundaries be erected?

Additionally, how can existing communities at these edges be retrofitted to conserve land for agricultural, recreational, and ecological uses? And, what sorts of incentives and regulations are necessary to do so?

Southern California, as we all know, is currently short on Clustered Land Development. And, while specific centers and corridors have been identified as strategic growth opportunities, other areas need protection from future and prior urbanization.

Are you advocating a green belt concept or land reclamation?

I'm mostly speaking about existing, former, or potential green belts, as well as some landfills.

Generally-speaking, the mountains and the ocean are providing the major constraints on urbanization; however, the Puente Hills, Kellogg Hill, and some of the other natural separations between Greater Los Angeles and the Inland Empire are areas, which should remain exurban and relatively-undeveloped.

Norco is one example of a community that strongly desires to retain its rural character. But, other places should be preserved for their beauty and for their ecological, agricultural, and/or recreational utility. What does everyone think needs to be conserved?

Some great hillsides of the Santa Ana Canyon have been strip-mined or developed in the last decade or so, and the results are atrocious. There are currently fights underway to retain orange groves in Riverside and Redlands, but, if we don't have some wholesale changes in thinking, these areas are likely to be lost.

It's complicated. In order for us to realistically advocate limits of growth we would need to increase density or make increased density allowable in the urban core. That means getting rid of so much of the single use buildings that front major boulevards and encroaching justifiably on some single family neighborhoods. If I see hardy upzoning happening within the core of LA then I would advocate for more limited growth further out.

Well, a population equivalent of two Chicagos is expected to be added to the SCAG region by 2035, so we have to densify around new and existing transit lines. And, the concentration of growth there is already taking place. Hopefully, as we do this, we can also eliminate some of the excess single-family dwellings along the edges since a 40% surplus of that building typology is expected within the next 25 years due largely to shifting demographics.