Important Note:The metadata description below mentions the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (or RHNA). Part of meeting RHNA Eligibility is satisfying a list of criteria set by the State of California that needs to be met in order to qualify. This dataset contains both RHNA Eligible and non-RHNA Eligible sites. Non-RHNA Eligible sites are those that didn't quite meet the eligibility criteria set by the state, but will be still eligible for Rezoning per Department of Regional Planning guidelines, and thus represents a full picture of ALL sites that are eligible for Rezoning. The official Housing Element Rezoning layer that was certified by the State of California is located here, but it should be noted that this layer only contains sites that are RHNA Eligible.IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:12/18/24 - Following the completion of the annexation to the City of Whittier on 11/12/24, 27 parcels were removed along Whittier Blvd which contained 315 Very Low Income units and 590 Above Moderate units. Following a joint County-City resolution of the RHNA transfer to the city, 247 Very Low Income units and 503 Above Moderate units were taken on by Whittier. 10/23/24 - Modifications were made to this layer during the updates to the South Bay and Westside Area Plans following outreach in these communities. In the Westside Planning area, 29 parcels were removed and no change in zoning / land use policy was proposed; 9 Mixed Use sites were added. In the South Bay, 23 sites were removed as they no longer count towards the RHNA, but still partially changing to Mixed Use.5/31/22 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*SitusAddress - Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Vacant / Nonvacant – Parcels that are vacant or non-vacant per the Use Code from the Assessor Data*Units Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Max Year - Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*Current LUP (Description) – This is a brief description of the land use category. In the case of multiple land uses, this would be the land use category that covers the majority of the parcel*Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross) - Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaProposed LUP – Final – The proposed land use category to increase density.Proposed LUP (Description) – Brief description of the proposed land use policy.Prop. LUP – Final (Min Density) – Minimum density for the proposed land use category.Prop. LUP – Final (Max Density) – Maximum density for the proposed land use category.Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Current Zoning (Description) - This is a brief description of the zoning category. In the case of multiple zoning categories, this would be the zoning that covers the majority of the parcel*Proposed Zoning – Final – The proposed zoning category to increase density.Proposed Zoning (Description) – Brief description of the proposed zoning.Acres - Acreage of parcelMax Units Allowed - Total Proposed Land Use Policy UnitsRHNA Eligible? – Indicates whether the site is RHNA Eligible or not. Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates

This EnviroAtlas dataset estimates the intersection density of walkable roads within a 750 meter radius of any given 10 meter pixel in the community. Intersections are defined as any point where 3 or more roads meet and density is calculated using kernel density, where closer intersections are weighted higher than further intersections. Intersection density is highly correlated with walking for transportation. This dataset was produced by the US EPA to support research and online mapping activities related to EnviroAtlas. EnviroAtlas (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas) allows the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem services for the contiguous United States. The dataset is available as downloadable data (https://edg.epa.gov/data/Public/ORD/EnviroAtlas) or as an EnviroAtlas map service. Additional descriptive information about each attribute in this dataset can be found in its associated EnviroAtlas Fact Sheet (https://www.epa.gov/enviroatlas/enviroatlas-fact-sheets).

This statistics shows a ranking of the metropolitan areas in the United States in 2013 with the highest population density. As of 2013, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim in California was ranked first with a population density of 1,046 inhabitants per square kilometer.

For the past several censuses, the Census Bureau has invited people to self-respond before following up in-person using census takers. The 2010 Census invited people to self-respond predominately by returning paper questionnaires in the mail. The 2020 Census allows people to self-respond in three ways: online, by phone, or by mail.The 2020 Census self-response rates are self-response rates for current census geographies. These rates are the daily and cumulative self-response rates for all housing units that received invitations to self-respond to the 2020 Census. The 2020 Census self-response rates are available for states, counties, census tracts, congressional districts, towns and townships, consolidated cities, incorporated places, tribal areas, and tribal census tracts.The Self-Response Rate of Los Angeles County is 65.1% for 2020 Census, which is slightly lower than 69.6% of California State rate.More information about these data is available in the Self-Response Rates Map Data and Technical Documentation document associated with the 2020 Self-Response Rates Map or review FAQs.Animated Self-Response Rate 2010 vs 2020 is available at ESRI site SRR Animated Maps and can explore Census 2020 SRR data at ESRI Demographic site Census 2020 SSR Data.Following Demographic Characteristics are included in this data and web maps to visualize their relationships with Census Self-Response Rate (SRR).1. Population Density: 2020 Population per square mile,2. Poverty Rate: Percentage of population under 100% FPL,3. Median Household income: Based on countywide median HH income of $71,538.4. Highschool Education Attainment: Percentage of 18 years and older population without high school graduation.5. English Speaking Ability: Percentage of 18 years and older population with less or none English speaking ability. 6. Household without Internet Access: Percentage of HH without internet access.7. Non-Hispanic White Population: Percentage of Non-Hispanic White population.8. Non-Hispanic African-American Population: Percentage of Non-Hispanic African-American population.9. Non-Hispanic Asian Population: Percentage of Non-Hispanic Asian population.10. Hispanic Population: Percentage of Hispanic population.

This map uses smart mapping to show the density of transit stops in Los Angeles, CA. The stops provide information about the surrounding population of each stop.The LA Transit Stops layer displays transit stops with the following information about the population within a 5 minute walk of each transit stop:PopulationPercent employedPercent of seniorsPercent minoritiesNumber of householdsPercent below the poverty linePoverty indexDiversity indexRaceThe layer was created using Esri's Enrich Layer tool in ArcGIS Online.

Density of Bike and Pedestrian KSI's (Killed or Severely Injured) by CPA (Community Plan Area, defined by City of Los Angeles Dept. of City Planning). Density is normalized by Area (sq miles). Collision data is taken from SWITRS data 2009 to 2013 [link] For more information about Community Plan Areas, go to City of Los Angeles Dept of Planning : cityplanning.lacity.org/

50 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2050.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents. Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley. How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life? Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.

IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:5/31/22– Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*ASI Status - Sites Inventory Status (Nonvacant or Vacant)SitusAddress- Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*SitusCity - Site Address (City) from Assessor Data*SitusZIP - Site Address (ZIP) from Assessor Data*LV_IV_Ratio - Land Value to Improvement Value Ratio from Assessor Data*YearBuiltMax- Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Publicly Owned - If publicly owned, indicates whether it's Federal, State, County, or Special DistrictUnits Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area)- Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*SP - 1 - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Specific Plan (in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 1 (desc) - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Specific Plan Category Description (in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 1 (% area) - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Specific Plan (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 2 - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Specific Plan (in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 2 (desc) - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Specific Plan Category Description (in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 2 (% area) - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Specific Plan (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 3 - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Specific Plan (in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 3 (desc) - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Specific Plan Category Description (in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*SP - 3 (% area) - Specific Plan from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Specific Plan (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Specific Plan category present)*Acres - Acreage of parcelLUP Units - Total - Total Land Use Policy Units (note - takes into account different densities and % area covered if there are multiple categories)Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross)- Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaSite Status - Status of the site - mostly shows as 'available', but some are flagged as 'Pending Project'Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates to income capacity units)Lot Consolidation ID - Parcels with a unique identfier for consolidation potential (based on parcel ownership)Lot Consolidation Notes - Specific notes for consolidationConsolidation - Adjacent Parcels - All adjacent parcels that are tied to each lot consolidation IDsUsed in Previous Housing Elements? - These are the Very Low and Low Income level parcels that showed up in previous Housing ElementsShape_Length - Perimeter (feet)Shape_Area - Area (sq feet)*As it existed in 2021

The EcoTrends project was established in 2004 by Dr. Debra Peters (Jornada Basin LTER, USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range) and Dr. Ariel Lugo (Luquillo LTER, USDA-FS Luquillo Experimental Forest) to support the collection and analysis of long-term ecological datasets. The project is a large synthesis effort focused on improving the accessibility and use of long-term data. At present, there are ~50 state and federally funded research sites that are participating and contributing to the EcoTrends project, including all 26 Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites and sites funded by the USDA Agriculture Research Service (ARS), USDA Forest Service, US Department of Energy, US Geological Survey (USGS) and numerous universities.

Data from the EcoTrends project are available through an exploratory web portal (http://www.ecotrends.info). This web portal enables the continuation of data compilation and accessibility by users through an interactive web application. Ongoing data compilation is updated through both manual and automatic processing as part of the LTER Provenance Aware Synthesis Tracking Architecture (PASTA). The web portal is a collaboration between the Jornada LTER and the LTER Network Office.

The following dataset from California Current Ecosystem (CCE) contains human population density measurements in numberPerKilometerSquared units and were aggregated to a yearly timescale.

Unique dispensaries, both licensed and unlicensed storefronts, excludes delivery only establishments. Geographies based on geocoded address of dispensary and shapefile overlay.Prior to the legalization of recreational marijuana use in 2018, California had a loosely regulated medicinal cannabis market with many unlicensed dispensaries operating. The ready availability of marijuana dispensaries, not all of which are compliant with State safety requirements, has facilitated widespread marijuana use, which in turn is associated with a number of adverse health outcomes, including higher risk for lung infections and mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety. Cities and communities should take an active role in educating residents, particularly youth, pregnant persons, and other vulnerable groups, about the potential risks of marijuana use and adopting policies that regulate and ensure safe marijuana retail activity.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

Gravity data were compiled, collected, and edited to produce an isostatic gravity map of the Los Angeles 30 x 60 minute quadrangle, California. This record focuses primarily on the principal facts, that is, gravity observations, and the corrections made to those values to reflect the effects of elevation and terrain, and deep crustal structure.

California was the state with the highest resident population in the United States in 2024, with 39.43 million people. Wyoming had the lowest population with about 590,000 residents. Living the American Dream Ever since the opening of the West in the United States, California has represented the American Dream for both Americans and immigrants to the U.S. The warm weather, appeal of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, as well as cities that stick in the imagination such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, help to encourage people to move to California. Californian demographics California is an extremely diverse state, as no one ethnicity is in the majority. Additionally, it has the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States. By 2040, the population of California is expected to increase by almost 10 million residents, which goes to show that its appeal, both in reality and the imagination, is going nowhere fast.

"Due to the size of this dataset, both Shapefile and Spreadsheet download options will not work as expected. The File Geodatabase is an alternative option for this data download"SCAG has developed its regional geospatial dataset of land use information at the parcel-level (approximately five million parcels) for 197 local jurisdictions in its region. The regional land use dataset is developed (1) to aid in SCAG’s regional transportation planning, scenario planning and growth forecasting, (2) facilitate policy discussion on various planning issues, and (3) enhance information database to better serve SCAG member jurisdictions, research institutes, universities, developers, general public, etc. This is SCAG's 2016 regional land use dataset developed for the Final Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), including general plan land use, specific plan land use, zoning code and existing land use. Please note this data was reviewed by local jurisdictions and reflects each jurisdiction's input received during the Connect SoCal Local Input and Envisioning Process.Note: This dataset is intended for planning purposes only, and SCAG shall incur no responsibility or liability as to the completeness, currentness, or accuracy of this information. SCAG assumes no responsibility arising from use of this information by individuals, businesses, or other public entities. The information is provided with no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Users should consult with each local jurisdiction directly to obtain the official land use information.Data DictionaryField NameData TypeField DescriptionOBJECTIDObject IDInternal feature numberShapeGeometryType of geometrySCAGUID16Text2016 SCAG unique identification numberSCAGUID12Text2012 SCAG unique identification numberAPNTextAssessor’s parcel numberCOUNTYTextCounty nameCOUNTY_IDDoubleCounty FIPS codeCITYTextCity nameCITY_IDDoubleCity FIPS codeACRESDoubleAcreage informationYEARDoubleDataset yearCITY_GP_COText2016 Jurisdiction’s general plan land use designationSCAG_GP_COText2016 SCAG general plan land use codeDENSITYDoubleAverage density of residential/housing development (dwelling unit per acre) permitted based on jurisdiction’s general planLOWDoubleMinimum density of residential/housing development permitted (dwelling unit per acre) based on jurisdiction’s general planHIGHDoubleMaximum density of residential/housing development permitted (dwelling unit per acre) based on jurisdiction’s general planYEAR_ADOPTDateYear when jurisdiction adopted/last updated current general plan land use elementGP12_CITYText2012 jurisdiction’s general plan land use designationGP12_SCAGText2012 SCAG general plan land use codeSP_NAMETextSpecific plan nameCITY_SP_COText2016 Jurisdiction’s specific plan land use designationSCAG_SP_COText2016 SCAG specific plan land use codeDENSITY_SPDoubleAverage density of residential/housing development (dwelling unit per acre) permitted based on jurisdiction’s specific planLOW_SPDoubleMinimum density of residential/housing development permitted (dwelling unit per acre) based on jurisdiction’s specific planHIGH_SPDoubleMaximum density of residential/housing development permitted (dwelling unit per acre) based on jurisdiction’s specific planYR_AD_SPDateYear when jurisdiction adopted/last updated current specific planSP_INDEXShort IntegerSpecific plan index ('0' = outside specific plan area; '1' = inside specific plan area)CITY_ZN_COText2016 Jurisdiction’s zoning codeSCAG_ZN_COText2016 SCAG zoning codeZN12_CITYText2012 jurisdiction’s zoning codeLU16Text2016 SCAG existing land use codeLU12Text2012 SCAG existing land use codeNOTESTextAdditional informationShape_LengthDoubleLength of feature in internal unitsShape_AreaDoubleArea of feature in internal units squared2016 SCAG Land Use CodesLegendLand Use DescriptionSingle Family Residential1110 Single Family Residential1111 High Density Single Family Residential (9 or more DUs/ac)1112 Medium Density Single Family Residential (3-8 DUs/ac)1113 Low Density Single Family Residential (2 or less DUs/ac)Multi-Family Residential1120 Multi-Family Residential1121 Mixed Multi-Family Residential1122 Duplexes, Triplexes and 2- or 3-Unit Condominiums and Townhouses1123 Low-Rise Apartments, Condominiums, and Townhouses1124 Medium-Rise Apartments and Condominiums1125 High-Rise Apartments and CondominiumsMobile Homes and Trailer Parks1130 Mobile Homes and Trailer Parks1131 Trailer Parks and Mobile Home Courts, High-Density1132 Mobile Home Courts and Subdivisions, Low-DensityMixed Residential1140 Mixed Residential1100 ResidentialRural Residential1150 Rural ResidentialGeneral Office1210 General Office Use1211 Low- and Medium-Rise Major Office Use1212 High-Rise Major Office Use1213 SkyscrapersCommercial and Services1200 Commercial and Services1220 Retail Stores and Commercial Services1221 Regional Shopping Center1222 Retail Centers (Non-Strip With Contiguous Interconnected Off-Street Parking)1223 Retail Strip Development1230 Other Commercial1231 Commercial Storage1232 Commercial Recreation1233 Hotels and MotelsFacilities1240 Public Facilities1241 Government Offices1242 Police and Sheriff Stations1243 Fire Stations1244 Major Medical Health Care Facilities1245 Religious Facilities1246 Other Public Facilities1247 Public Parking Facilities1250 Special Use Facilities1251 Correctional Facilities1252 Special Care Facilities1253 Other Special Use FacilitiesEducation1260 Educational Institutions1261 Pre-Schools/Day Care Centers1262 Elementary Schools1263 Junior or Intermediate High Schools1264 Senior High Schools1265 Colleges and Universities1266 Trade Schools and Professional Training FacilitiesMilitary Installations1270 Military Installations1271 Base (Built-up Area)1272 Vacant Area1273 Air Field1274 Former Base (Built-up Area)1275 Former Base Vacant Area1276 Former Base Air FieldIndustrial1300 Industrial1310 Light Industrial1311 Manufacturing, Assembly, and Industrial Services1312 Motion Picture and Television Studio Lots1313 Packing Houses and Grain Elevators1314 Research and Development1320 Heavy Industrial1321 Manufacturing1322 Petroleum Refining and Processing1323 Open Storage1324 Major Metal Processing1325 Chemical Processing1330 Extraction1331 Mineral Extraction - Other Than Oil and Gas1332 Mineral Extraction - Oil and Gas1340 Wholesaling and WarehousingTransportation, Communications, and Utilities1400 Transportation, Communications, and Utilities1410 Transportation1411 Airports1412 Railroads1413 Freeways and Major Roads1414 Park-and-Ride Lots1415 Bus Terminals and Yards1416 Truck Terminals1417 Harbor Facilities1418 Navigation Aids1420 Communication Facilities1430 Utility Facilities1431 Electrical Power Facilities1432 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities1433 Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities1434 Water Storage Facilities1435 Natural Gas and Petroleum Facilities1436 Water Transfer Facilities1437 Improved Flood Waterways and Structures1438 Mixed Utilities1440 Maintenance Yards1441 Bus Yards1442 Rail Yards1450 Mixed Transportation1460 Mixed Transportation and UtilityMixed Commercial and Industrial1500 Mixed Commercial and IndustrialMixed Residential and Commercial1600 Mixed Residential and Commercial1610 Residential-Oriented Residential/Commercial Mixed Use1620 Commercial-Oriented Residential/Commercial Mixed UseOpen Space and Recreation1800 Open Space and Recreation1810 Golf Courses1820 Local Parks and Recreation1830 Regional Parks and Recreation1840 Cemeteries1850 Wildlife Preserves and Sanctuaries1860 Specimen Gardens and Arboreta1870 Beach Parks1880 Other Open Space and Recreation1890 Off-Street TrailsAgriculture2000 Agriculture2100 Cropland and Improved Pasture Land2110 Irrigated Cropland and Improved Pasture Land2120 Non-Irrigated Cropland and Improved Pasture Land2200 Orchards and Vineyards2300 Nurseries2400 Dairy, Intensive Livestock, and Associated Facilities2500 Poultry Operations2600 Other Agriculture2700 Horse RanchesVacant3000 Vacant3100 Vacant Undifferentiated3200 Abandoned Orchards and Vineyards3300 Vacant With Limited Improvements3400 Beaches (Vacant)1900 Urban VacantWater4000 Water4100 Water, Undifferentiated4200 Harbor Water Facilities4300 Marina Water Facilities4400 Water Within a Military Installation4500 Area of Inundation (High Water)Specific Plan7777 Specific PlanUnder Construction1700 Under ConstructionUndevelopable or Protected Land8888 Undevelopable or Protected LandUnknown9999 Unknown

License types included: 20, 21, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 83, 85, 86, and 87. Geographies based on geocoded address of outlet and shapefile overlay. Alcohol outlet density refers to the number of retail outlets in a community that sell alcohol relative to the number of residents living in that community. Off-premises outlets include establishments, such as liquor stores, convenience stores, or grocery stores, where alcohol is sold in original, sealed containers to be consumed off site.In general, consumption of alcohol tends to be higher in communities where the alcohol outlet density is also high. Communities with higher alcohol outlet density have been found to experience higher rates of violence and crime.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

"Walkability is a measure of the pedestrian environment within each Census tract. The Walkability Index is comprised of a number of factors that influence whether a person will walk, including land use mix, residential density, retail density, and intersection density. Higher scores represent more walkable areas.Scores were calculated for each variable per tract, then standardized (Z-score).The final Walkability score is the sum of all Z-scores (intersection density Z-score was weighted by a factor of two). For more information, see page 85 of the 2013 Health Atlas, which is available as a PDF on the Los Angeles City Planning website, https://planning.lacity.gov."

As described in the Executive Summary below from the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element, these are the parcels from the 'Rezoning Program' as of 7/26/21. For more information about the Draft Housing Element, please click here.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (from Draft Housing Element):The County is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated areas to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The unincorporated areas have been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Very Low Income – 25,648Lower Income – 13,691Moderate Income – 14,180Above Moderate Income – 36,533The Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. Other strategies to accommodate the RHNA include projected number of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. The remainder of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development.MORE DETAILED INFO ON METHODOLOGY: ((PLACEHOLDER for Appendix G from BOS Consent posting))UPDATE HISTORY:1/5/21 - Coded Supervisorial District for each parcel2/4/21 - Added four fields that show the proposed / existing Land Use Policy / Zoning that display the category + brief description + density range - done mainly for the Story Map. Also, renamed the GIS layer (removed 'Adequate_Sites_Inventory' from the name).3/16/21 - Added 'Status Update (2021)' field to flag those parcels for removal following findings from Housing Section and EIR consultant.3/31/21 - Began making edits based on QC done by Housing Section in March, 2021 and exported this layer to an ARCHIVE version so we have the original data if needed. Made the following updates in AltadenaCoded all 'GC' categories as 'N/A' for RHNA Eligible and removed proposed LUP / Zoning category - THESE CAN NO LONGER BE COUNTED IN REZONE.Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Nulled out proposed zoning categories. Need to re-do unit calculations!4/1/21 - Continuing with Altadena QC, updating Status Update (2021) field:Downgraded Proposed MU to Proposed CG for all current 'MU / Non-Commercial Zones', and updated min/max density. Need Proposed Zoning from HE Section for consistency with CG category. Need to re-do unit calculations!Coded the ones marked 'Zoe to review'4/4/21 - Coded additional parcels that were condos (missed from before). Updated '2021 Update notes' and condo-related fields (including units). In Altadena, re-calculated units for all that are downgraded from Prop LU MU > CG. Identified those not meeting 16 unit minimum, and of those that were RHNA eligible, were coded as 'No'. Noted in the '2021 Update notes'.4/5/21 - Made the following edits per QC results from Housing Section:Lennox / W. Athens - coded '65 dB' parcels as "N/A" (removing from Rezoning list).Altadena - verified that no additional RHNA eligible parcels removed due to the criteria: “Existing residential buildings 50 or more years old, where the number of units allowed under the new LU is at least 2 - 3 times what's on the ground”All areas - coded Density Bonus of 27.5% as identified from the Housing Section as blank4/6/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from Housing Section from the Rezoning list.4/7/21 - Continued making edits per the QC results from the Housing Section for Altadena.4/10/21 - Double-checked all Rezone edits. Re-calculated all units for all those that were updated (Status Update 2021 IS NOT NULL) and are on Rezoning list (RHNA Eligible? <> 'N/A'). Exported RHNA eligible to spreadsheet and double-checked unit maths.4/12/21 - Updated last proposed zoning categories in Altadena (confirmed by Housing Section). Updated current / proposed zoning descriptions (removed zoning suffices).4/13/21 - Made additional QC updates to some statuses regarding parcels that overlap with ASI.4/14/21 - Updated current zoning for the recently adopted By-Right Housing Ordinance Zone Change (all of these cases have the status of "N/A" - or, not considered for rezoning)4/15/21 - Researched 11 parcels that were coded as 'Yes - Rezoning Program' for RHNA Eligibility AND were flagged as not RHNA eligible for the model runs done previously 'Filter 2b'. Confirmed they should all remain RHNA eligible with the exception of 2.4/27/21 - Updated status for additional sites during week of 4/19, and on 4/27. Updated 107 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Moderate Income"4/28/21 - Updated 310 parcels to the RHNA Eligibility Status of "Yes - Above Moderate Income"5/4/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "No" since it overlapped with ASI.5/5/21 - Updated RHNA Eligibility Status to "Yes - Moderate" and "Yes - Above Moderate", and also removed two parcels that were also Historical Sites, per QC requests from Housing Section. SUMMARIZED THIS DATA AS A TABLE TO RESPOND TO SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT 1.5/11/21 - Updated schema:RHNA Eligible now just 'Yes' or 'No' (Rather than 'Yes + Inc level')Added fields for various income levels - to match what is in ASI layerKept 'Realistic Capacity' for the 'Non RHNA-Eligible' sites (these aren't broken down by Income level)Calculated 'Very Low' and 'Low' income levels to be 50/50 of the 'Realistic Capacity' (rounded up for VL, rounded down for L)5/12/21 - PREP FOR HCD TEMPLATE - Added field for Vacant / Non Vacant uses per the Assessor Use Code (ends in 'V' or 'X')6/2/21 - Updated one parcel that had 'Prop min density' blank. Trimmed Site Address field of trailing spaces.6/10/21 - ARCHIVED - exported to an archived layer as this is a snapshot in time from when it was sent to HCD on 6/7/21.6/28/21 - Exported the features (essentially copied the layer) as there was some strange behavior of attributes not selecting and joins not fully working - suspected that the data was slightly corrupted somehow, however a simple copy seemed to fix the issue. Modified several parcels per QC done by Housing Section in June, added some parcels as well.6/29/21 - Added sites per June QC and updated relevant fields - flagged those that need to have units recalculated in a temporary field.6/30/21 - Updated units for added sites. Flagged several parcels in FF and WALP for removal. RENAMED 'RHNA STATUS' CATEGORIES FROM "N/A" TO "REMOVE" (to be consistent with the ASI)7/1/21 - Removed or otherwise modified several parcels due to overlapping with new bldg permits / entitlements.7/6/21 - Updated based on refinements identified by the Housing Section on 7/1/21: Adding back Central Ave in Florence-Firestone and adding/removing sites in La Crescenta-Montrose, and updating some minor things (not related to units).7/7/21 - Checked math on all unit calculations using formulas in Excel - a small number of them were off by 1 unit (probably due to not rounding), and they were fixed. Added 'Planning Areas' field.7/20/21 - Incorporated changes following additional QC and zoning Inconsistencies identified in South and West Whittier following significant shortfall with the removal of Northlake Specific Plan:Added Income Category field and calculated valuesRemoved one parcel that overlapped with an existing Mobile Home ParkRemoved 1,122 polygons flagged as "REMOVED" that overlapped with the South and West Whittier changes (select by location against "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer.Added parcels for Above Moderate RHNA units from "Zoning_Inconsistancy_Parcels_SDs_345" layer and filled in fields as necessary.Added Adj Cluster IDs for 8 of the newly added parcels (adding to the next highest available ID in the whole dataset)7/24/21 - Coded all empty Site Addresses with nearest Street Intersection. See analysis fields starting with "Street_Intersection" in 'Housing_Element_2021_2029' File GDB.7/25/21 - Added ZIP Codes for those that were blank.7/26/21 - re-worded the metadata description (above UPDATE HISTORY)7/30/21 - 7/31/21 - Added Proposed Florence-Firestone TOD parcels.9/13/21 - Slight update to calculate the 'Income Category' field for those with RHNA Eligible = NO - to make those NULL.11/16/21 - Removed Density Bonus from the bottom 15% of sites (71 sites out of the 468) per HCD's comment. For the sites that fell below the 16 units, they were moved to the Above Moderate income category to receive RHNA credit.12/30/21 - Added updated Supervisorial District ID from 2021 update.2/17/22 - Cleared out Realistic Capacity and all income level units for "RHNA Eligible = NO". This is a clean-up measure. Kept all unit calculations for these up until the 'Realistic Capacity' field.3/15/22 & 3/16/22 - Re-allocation of income-level units per recommendation by HCD. New fields were added to indicate the original income level unit numbers (as submitted to the state following the Board Hearing), and an HCD Comments field was added to flag these parcels that changed, and the transfer of units between the income categories.SLA - move units from VL/L to Mod. Added 2,238 to Mod and subtracted 1,144 from VL, and 1,094 Low Income (lots with sf < 5,950). Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none.SLA - move units from L to AM. Remaining Low Income after Step 1 is 5,819, so take approximately half of that. Selecting from pool outside of those selected in STEP 1, and lot size < 10,000sf, moved 2,566 from Low Income to Above Moderate. Checked if there were any project-specific allocations to income levels and there were none. OTHER SUBMARKET - move units from L to AM. Moved 10,031 units from L to AM (lots < 90,000 sf). NOTE, that this was most of

Recent advances in quantitative tools for examining urban morphology enable the development of morphometrics that can characterize the size, shape, and placement of buildings; the relationships between them; and their association with broader patterns of development. Although these methods have the potential to provide substantial insight into the ways in which neighborhood morphology shapes the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of neighborhoods and communities, this question is largely unexplored. Using building footprints in five of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles) and the open-source R package, foot, we examine how neighborhood morphology differs across U.S. metropolitan areas and across the urban-exurban landscape. Principal components analysis, unsupervised classification (K-means), and Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis are used to develop a morphological typology of neighborhoods and to examine its association with the spatial, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of census tracts. Our findings illustrate substantial variation in the morphology of neighborhoods, both across the five metropolitan areas as well as between central cities, suburbs, and the urban fringe within each metropolitan area. We identify five different types of neighborhoods indicative of different stages of development and distributed unevenly across the urban landscape: these include low-density neighborhoods on the urban fringe; mixed use and high-density residential areas in central cities; and uniform residential neighborhoods in suburban cities. Results from regression analysis illustrate that the prevalence of each of these forms is closely associated with variation in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics such as population density, the prevalence of multifamily housing, and income, race/ethnicity, homeownership, and commuting by car. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and suggesting avenues for future research on neighborhood morphology, including ways that it might provide insight into issues such as zoning and land use, housing policy, and residential segregation.

A better understanding of urban form metrics and their environmental outcomes can help urban policymakers determine which policies will lead to more sustainable growth. In this study, we have examined five urban form metrics – weighted density, density gradient slope, density gradient intercept, compactness, and street connectivity – for 462 metropolitan areas worldwide. We compared urban form metrics and examined their correlations with each other across geographic regions and socioeconomic characteristics such as income. Using the K-Means clustering algorithm, we then developed a typology of urban forms worldwide. Furthermore, we assessed the associations between urban form metrics and two important environmental outcomes: green space access and air pollution. Our results demonstrate that while higher density is often emphasized as the way to reduce driving and thus PM2.5 emissions, it comes with a downside – less green space access and more exposure to PM2.5. Moreover, street connectivity has a stronger association with reduced PM2.5 emissions from the transportation sector. We further show that it is not appropriate to generalize urban form characteristics and impacts from one income group or geographical region to another, since the correlations between urban form metrics are context specific. Our conclusions indicate that density is not the only proxy for different aspects of urban form and multiple indicators such as street connectivity are needed. Our findings provide the foundation for future work to understand urban processes and identify effective policy responses. Methods The dataset includes the raw data required to calculate the urban form metrics used in the article including weighted density, street connectivity, density gradient slope, density gradient intercept, and compactness. We merged it with the GHSL statistics data (open-source data available here) for the analysis. The street connectivity metric was calculated using the approach proposed by Barrington-Leigh and Millard-Ball (2020). The metric was calculated based on OpenStreetMap. Other metrics were calculated using the expressions and methods explained in the paper. The data source for the process was the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL) 2015. Please see the README document for more information.

Zoning is a locally regulated law that is used as a guideline for land management control and conformity by establishing specific policy that must be followed in the use of land and buildings. Zoning asserts explicit uses that are permitted under varying circumstances. It dictates reasonable development by protecting property from detrimental uses on nearby properties. Zoning also standardizes the size of lots, the building set backs from roads or adjoining property, maximum height of buildings, the population density, and other land use issues.Zoning is used to designate, regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and land, for agriculture, residence, commerce, trade, industry or other purposes; to regulate and limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter erected or altered to regulate and determine the size of yards and other open spaces and to regulate and limit the density of population; and for said purposes to divide the City into zones of such number, shape and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement. These regulations are deemed necessary in order to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to conserve and stabilize the value of property; to provide adequate open spaces for light and air, and to prevent and fight fires; to prevent undue concentration of population; to lessen congestion on streets; to facilitate adequate provisions for community utilities and facilities such as transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and to promote health, safety, and the general welfare all in accordance with the comprehensive plan.For more information, please refer to Section 12.04 of the Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Municipal Code and the Generalized Summary of Zoning Regulations, City of Los Angeles.Refresh Rate: Monthly