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).

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

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:1/7/25 - 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. 10/16/24 - 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. NOTE: This layer only shows those that are RHNA Eligible, but internal versions of this layer also show sites that were not-RHNA eligible, or removed during the development of this layer in 2020 – 2022.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 IDsShape_Length - Perimeter (feet)Shape_Area - Area (sq feet)*As it existed in 2021

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.

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.

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.

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 percent urban population measurements in percent units and were aggregated to a yearly timescale.

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.

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.

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

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

Buildout for the General Plan 2035 for UNINCORPORATED areas of Los Angeles County. This layer is a combination of the Buildout for the General Plan 2035 and the Antelope Valley Area Plan, that was generated for the EIRs for both plans. The Board of Supervisors adopted both the Antelope Valley Area Plan and General Plan 2035 on 6/16/15 and 10/6/15, respectively. The Antelope Valley Area Plan contained the buildout for Antelope Valley which has the projected buildout to 2035. The buildout for the General Plan 2035 contained the projected buildout to 2035 as well as the buildout according to the adopted Land Use Policy of all the other Community / Area Plan, so it is important to note that only the areas covered by the General Plan and Antelope Valley Area Plan contain projections to the year 2035. Please see the ‘PLAN_NAME’ field for those areas covered by the plans listed below:Altadena Community Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 1986Antelope Valley Area Plan – Projected for 2035East Los Angeles Community Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 1988General Plan 2035 – Projected for 2035Hacienda Heights Community Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 2011Malibu Coastal Zone – Uses Plan from 1986 (during GP update process, this plan was updated, but didn’t make it into the GP EIR)Marina Del Rey Land Use Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 2012Rowland Heights Community Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 1981Santa Catalina Island – Uses Adopted Plan from 1983Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 2012Santa Monica Mountains North Area Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 2000Twin Lakes Community Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 1991Walnut Park Neighborhood Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 1987West Athens – Westmont Community Plan – Uses Adopted Plan from 1990In this layer there are the various density factors that went into calculating the final number. The fields depicting UNITS, POP, and EMP (Housing Units, Population, Employment / Jobs) will be of the most interest to people.A detailed methodology document is available in the EIR of both the Antelope Valley Area Plan and General Plan 2035, direct links are below.Appendix E of Antelope Valley EIR – click hereAppendix D of General Plan 2035 EIR – click hereUpdate Frequency - None (data generated for General Plan / Antelope Valley EIRs - will not be updated)

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.

OverviewThese are the Homeless Counts for 2020 as provided by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), and the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach. The majority of this data comes from LAHSA using tract-level counts; the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach did not have tract-level counts available. The purpose of this layer is to depict homeless density at a community scale. Please read the note from LAHSA below regarding the tract level counts. In this layer LAHSA's tract-level population count was rounded to the nearest whole number, and density was determined per square mile of each community. It should be noted that not all of the sub-populations captured from LAHSA (eg. people living in vans, unaccompanied minors, etc.) are not captured here; only sheltered, unsheltered, and total population. Data generated on 12/2/20.Countywide Statistical AreasLos Angeles County's 'Countywide Statistical Areas' layer was used to classify the city / community names. Since this is tract-level data there are several times where a tract is in more than one city/community. Whatever the majority of the coverage of a tract is, that is the community that got coded. The boundaries of these communities follow aggregated tract boundaries and will therefore often deviate from the 'Countywide Statistical Area' boundaries.Note from LAHSALAHSA does not recommend aggregating census tract-level data to calculate numbers for other geographic levels. Due to rounding, the census tract-level data may not add up to the total for Los Angeles City Council District, Supervisorial District, Service Planning Area, or the Los Angeles Continuum of Care.The Los Angeles Continuum of Care does not include the Cities of Long Beach, Glendale, and Pasadena and will not equal the countywide Homeless Count Total.Street Count Data include persons found outside, including persons found living in cars, vans, campers/RVs, tents, and makeshift shelters. A conversion factor list can be found at https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-count/Please visit https://www.lahsa.org/homeless-count/home to view and download data.Last updated 07/16/2020

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.

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.

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. On-premises outlets include establishments where alcohol is served to be consumed on site, such as bars and restaurants.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.

This layer represents the proposed Transit Oriented Districts (TODs), as depicted in Figure 6.5 in the General Plan 2035. These are UNINCORPORATED urban and suburban areas with access to major transit and commercial corridors that have the most potential for infill development, and are well-suited for higher density housing and mixed uses. With the exception of the East Los Angeles 3rd Street Specific Plan, all TODs are 1/2 mile buffers around a major transit stop.NOTE: The TODs depicted in General Plan 2035 rescind the TODs adopted previously in 2004 / 2005. To view these earlier layers, please contact the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning.UPDATED: 9/25/25 for a slight adjustment to the Aviation Station buffer to align with the actual station location. NEED MORE FUNCTIONALITY? If you are looking for more layers or advanced tools and functionality, then try our suite of GIS Web Mapping Applications.

20 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2020.

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.

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.