description: This digital map database, compiled from previously published and unpublished data, and new mapping by the authors, represents the general distribution of bedrock and surficial deposits in the mapped area. Together with the accompanying text file (oakmf.ps, oakmf.pdf, oakmf.txt), it provides current information on the geologic structure and stratigraphy of the area covered. The database delineates map units that are identified by general age and lithology following the stratigraphic nomenclature of the U.S. Geological Survey. The scale of the source maps limits the spatial resolution (scale) of the database to 1:24,000 or smaller.; abstract: This digital map database, compiled from previously published and unpublished data, and new mapping by the authors, represents the general distribution of bedrock and surficial deposits in the mapped area. Together with the accompanying text file (oakmf.ps, oakmf.pdf, oakmf.txt), it provides current information on the geologic structure and stratigraphy of the area covered. The database delineates map units that are identified by general age and lithology following the stratigraphic nomenclature of the U.S. Geological Survey. The scale of the source maps limits the spatial resolution (scale) of the database to 1:24,000 or smaller.

The Digital Geologic Map of San Francisco and parts of Oakland, California is composed of GIS data layers complete with ArcMap 9.3 layer (.LYR) files, two ancillary GIS tables, a Map PDF document with ancillary map text, figures and tables, a FGDC metadata record and a 9.3 ArcMap (.MXD) Document that displays the digital map in 9.3 ArcGIS. The data were completed as a component of the Geologic Resources Inventory (GRI) program, a National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) funded program that is administered by the NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD). Source geologic maps and data used to complete this GRI digital dataset were provided by the following: USGS. Detailed information concerning the sources used and their contribution the GRI product are listed in the Source Citation sections(s) of this metadata record (sfoa_metadata.txt; available at http://nrdata.nps.gov/goga/nrdata/geology/gis/sfoa_metadata.xml). All GIS and ancillary tables were produced as per the NPS GRI Geology-GIS Geodatabase Data Model v. 2.1. (available at: http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/geology/GeologyGISDataModel.cfm). The GIS data is available as a 9.3 personal geodatabase (sfoa_geology.mdb), and as shapefile (.SHP) and DBASEIV (.DBF) table files. The GIS data projection is NAD83, UTM Zone 10N. That data is within the area of interest of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Fort Point National Historic Site, Rosie the Riveter National Historical Park and San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park.

Map data that predict the varying likelihood of landsliding can help public agencies make informed decisions on land use and zoning. This map, prepared in a geographic information system from a statistical model, estimates the relative likelihood of local slopes to fail by two processes common to an area of diverse geology, terrain, and land use centered on metropolitan Oakland. The model combines the following spatial data: (1) 120 bedrock and surficial geologic-map units, (2) ground slope calculated from a 30-m digital elevation model, (3) an inventory of 6,714 old landslide deposits (not distinguished by age or type of movement and excluding debris flows), and (4) the locations of 1,192 post-1970 landslides that damaged the built environment. The resulting index of likelihood, or susceptibility, plotted as a 1:50,000-scale map, is computed as a continuous variable over a large area (872 km2) at a comparatively fine (30 m) resolution. This new model complements landslide inventories by estimating susceptibility between existing landslide deposits, and improves upon prior susceptibility maps by quantifying the degree of susceptibility within those deposits. Susceptibility is defined for each geologic-map unit as the spatial frequency (areal percentage) of terrain occupied by old landslide deposits, adjusted locally by steepness of the topography. Susceptibility of terrain between the old landslide deposits is read directly from a slope histogram for each geologic-map unit, as the percentage (0.00 to 0.90) of 30-m cells in each one-degree slope interval that coincides with the deposits. Susceptibility within landslide deposits (0.00 to 1.33) is this same percentage raised by a multiplier (1.33) derived from the comparative frequency of recent failures within and outside the old deposits. Positive results from two evaluations of the model encourage its extension to the 10-county San Francisco Bay region and elsewhere. A similar map could be prepared for any area where the three basic constituents, a geologic map, a landslide inventory, and a slope map, are available in digital form. Added predictive power of the new susceptibility model may reside in attributes that remain to be explored-among them seismic shaking, distance to nearest road, and terrain elevation, aspect, relief, and curvature.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. The boundaries were digitized based on legal descriptions from the US Postal Service. The date of the legal descriptions is unknown. Zip code areas for which a legal description could not be obtained were digitized using the zip code contained in the site address from the August, 2009 Oakland County tax parcel feature class. The key attribute is Zip.

Descriptions of Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 34 Super DistrictsSuper District #1 - Greater Downtown San Francisco: This area, the northeastern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Van Ness Avenue on the west, 11th Street on the southwest, and Townsend Street on the south. This Super District includes the following neighborhoods and districts: Financial District, Union Square, Tenderloin, Civic Center, South of Market, South Park, Rincon Hill, Chinatown, Jackson Square, Telegraph Hill, North Beach, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, Polk Gulch and Fisherman's Wharf. Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island are also part of Super District #1.Super District #2 - Richmond District: This area, the northwestern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Van Ness Avenue on the east, Market Street on the southeast, and 17th Street, Stanyan Street, and Lincoln Way on the south. Super District #2 includes the following neighborhoods and districts: the Presidio, the Western Addition District, the Marina, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights, Cathedral Hill, Japantown, Hayes Valley, Duboce Triangle, the Haight-Ashbury, the Richmond District, Inner Richmond, Outer Richmond, Laurel Heights, Sea Cliff, and the Golden Gate Park.Super District #3 - Mission District: This area, the southeastern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Townsend Street, 11th Street, Market Street, 17th Street, Stanyan Street, and Lincoln Way on the northern boundary; 7th Avenue, Laguna Honda, Woodside Avenue, O'Shaughnessy Boulevard and other smaller streets (Juanita, Casita, El Verano, Ashton, Orizaba) on the western boundary; and by the San Mateo County line on the southern boundary. Super District #3 includes the following neighborhoods and districts: China Basin, Potrero Hill, Inner Mission, Outer Mission, Twin Peaks, Parnassus Heights, Dolores Heights, Castro, Eureka Valley, Noe Valley, Bernal Heights, Glen Park, Ingleside, Ocean View, the Excelsior, Crocker-Amazon, Visitacion Valley, Portola, Bayview, and Hunters Point.Super District #4 - Sunset District: This area, the southwestern quadrant of the city, is bounded by Lincoln Way (Golden Gate Park) on the north; 7th Avenue, Laguna Honda, Woodside Avenue, O'Shaughnessy Boulevard and other smaller streets (Juanita, Casita, El Verano, Ashton, Orizaba) on the eastern boundary; and by the San Mateo County line on the southern boundary. Super District #4 includes the following neighborhoods and districts: Inner Sunset, the Sunset District, Sunset Heights, Parkside, Lake Merced District, Park-Merced, Ingleside Heights, West Portal and St. Francis Wood.Super District #5 - Daly City/San Bruno: This northern San Mateo County Super District includes the communities of Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, South San Francisco, Pacifica, San Bruno, Millbrae, and the north part of Burlingame. The boundary between Super District #5 and Super District #6 is Broadway, Carmelita Avenue, El Camino Real, Easton Drive, the Hillsborough / Burlingame city limits, Interstate 280, Skyline Boulevard, the Pacifica city limits, and the Montara Mountain ridgeline extending to Devil's Slide on the coast.Super District #6 - San Mateo/Burlingame: The central San Mateo County Super District includes the communities of Hillsborough, San Mateo, Foster City, Belmont, the southern part of Burlingame, and the coastside communities of Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, and Half Moon Bay. The southern boundary of Super District #6 is the Foster City city limits, the Belmont/San Carlos city limits, Interstate 280, Kings Mountain, Lobitos Creek extending to Martins Beach on the coast.Super District #7 - Redwood City/Menlo Park: The southern San Mateo County Super District includes the communities of San Carlos, Redwood Shores, Redwood City, Atherton, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Woodside, Portola Valley, and the coastside communities of San Gregorio and Pescadero.Super District #8 - Palo Alto/Los Altos: This Santa Clara County Super District includes the communities of Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and the western part of Mountain View. Boundaries include the San Mateo County line, US-101 on the north, and Cal-85 (Stevens Creek Freeway) and Stevens Creek on the east.Super District #9 - Sunnyvale/Mountain View: This is the "Silicon Valley" Super District and includes the communities of Mountain View (eastern part and shoreline), Sunnyvale, Santa Clara (northern part), Alviso, and San Jose (northern part). Also included in this Super District is the "Golden Triangle" district. Super District #9 is bounded by US-101, Cal-85, Stevens Creek on the western boundary; Homestead Road on the southern boundary; Pierce Street, Civic Center Drive and the SP tracks in Santa Clara City; and Interstate 880 as the eastern boundary.Super District #10 - Cupertino/Saratoga: This Super District is located in south central Santa Clara County and includes the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Santa Clara City (southern part), Campbell (western part), San Jose (western part), Monte Sereno, Los Gatos and Redwood Estates. This area is bounded by Stevens Creek and the Santa Cruz Mountains on the west, Homestead Road on the north, Interstate 880/California Route 17 on the east; Union Avenue, Camden Avenue and Hicks Road (San Jose) also on the eastern boundary; and the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line on the south.Super District #11 - Central San Jose: This central Santa Clara County Super District is comprised of San Jose (central area), Santa Clara City (downtown area), and Campbell (east of Cal-17). The general boundaries of Super District #11 are Interstate 880/California Route 17 on the west; US-101 on the east; and the Capitol Expressway, Hillsdale Avenue, Camden Avenue, and Union Avenue on the south boundary.Super District #12 - Milpitas/East San Jose: This eastern Santa Clara County Super District includes the City of Milpitas, and the East San Jose communities of Berryessa, Alum Rock, and Evergreen. Boundaries include Interstate 880 and US-101 freeways on the west; San Jose City limits (Evergreen) on the south; and the mountains on the east.Super District #13 - South San Jose: This south-central Santa Clara County Super District includes the southern part of San Jose including the Almaden and Santa Teresa neighborhoods. Super District #13 is surrounded by Super District #10 on the west; Super District #11 on the north; Super District #12 on the northeast; and Super District #14 on the south at Metcalf Road (Coyote).Super District #14 - Gilroy/Morgan Hill: This area of Santa Clara County is also known as "South County" and includes the communities of Gilroy, Morgan Hill, San Martin and the Coyote Valley. Also included in this Super District are Loma Prieta (western boundary of the Super District) and Mount Hamilton in the northeastern, rural portion of Santa Clara County. This area is bounded by Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties on the south, and Merced and Stanislaus Counties on the eastern border.Super District #15 - Livermore/Pleasanton: This is the eastern Alameda County Super District including the Livermore and Amador Valley communities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon Village, and Sunol. This Super District includes all of eastern Alameda County east of Pleasanton Ridge and Dublin Canyon.Super District #16 - Fremont/Union City: The southern Alameda County Super District includes the communities of Fremont, Newark and Union City. The boundaries for this Super District are the Hayward/Union City city limits on the north side; the hills to the immediate east; the Santa Clara/Alameda County line on the south; and the San Francisco Bay on the west.Super District #17 - Hayward/San Leandro: This southern Alameda County Super District includes the communities of Hayward, San Lorenzo, San Leandro, Castro Valley, Cherryland, and Ashland. The northern border is the San Leandro/Oakland city limits.Super District #18 - Oakland/Alameda: This northern Alameda County Super District includes the island city of Alameda, Oakland, and Piedmont. The Oakland neighborhoods of North Oakland and Rockridge are in the adjacent Super District #19. The border between Super Districts #18 and #19 are the Oakland/Emeryville city limits; 52nd and 51st Streets; Broadway; and Old Tunnel Road.Super District #19 - Berkeley/Albany: This northern Alameda County Super District includes all of Emeryville, Berkeley, and Albany, and the Oakland neighborhoods in North Oakland and Rockridge. The Super District is surrounded by the Alameda/Contra Costa County lines; the San Francisco Bay; and the Oakland Super District.Super District #20 - Richmond/El Cerrito: This is the western Contra Costa Super District. It includes the communities of Richmond, El Cerrito, Kensington, Richmond Heights, San Pablo, El Sobrante, Pinole, Hercules, Rodeo, Crockett, and Port Costa. The eastern boundary to Super District #20 is defined as the Carquinez Scenic Drive (east of Port Costa); McEwen Road; California Route 4; Alhambra Valley Road; Briones Road through the Regional Park; Bear Creek Road; and Wildcat Canyon Road to the Alameda/Contra Costa County line.Super District #21 - Concord/Martinez: This is one of three central Contra Costa County Super Districts. Super District #21 includes the communities of Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Clayton, and Pacheco. This area is bounded by Suisun Bay on the north; Willow Pass and Marsh Creek on the east; Mt Diablo on the southeast; and Cowell Road, Treat Boulevard, Oak Grove Road, Minert Road, Bancroft Road, Oak Park Boulevard, Putnam Boulevard, Geary Road, and Pleasant Hill Road on the south; and Briones Park, Alhambra Valley Road and Cal-4 on the west.Super District #22 - Walnut Creek: This central Contra Costa County Super District includes the communities of Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Moraga and Orinda. The latter three communities are more popularly known as Lamorinda. The border with Super District #23 generally follows the southern city limits of Walnut Creek.Super

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. A spatial representation of generalized Oakland County community master plans. These polygons were digitized from each of Oakland's 62 community's future land use map in their master plan. The data was completed in March of 2006 and will be updated as each community amends their plan. The key attribute is Composite Plan representing generalized, countywide future land uses.This data depicts a future land use based on each community's master plan as currently adopted. The data will be updated each time a community amends their master plan. Below is a list recording the master plan and date of adoption that was used to digitize each community. Township of Addison Addison Township Land Use Master Plan - 7/9/2002 City of Auburn Hills City of Auburn Hills Master Land Use Plan - 11/7/2002 Auburn Hills Opkyke Road Corridor Study - 2/1/2007 Auburn Hills Collier Road Area Land Use Study - 1/3/2008 City of Berkley City of Berkley, Michigan Master Plan Update - 1/23/2007 Village of Beverly Hills Village of Beverly Hills Master Plan - 3/28/2007 Village of Bingham Farms Village of Bingham Farms Master Plan - 9/13/2004 City of Birmingham The Birmingham Plan - 1/1/1979 Township of Bloomfield Charter Township of Bloomfield Master Plan Update - 3/26/2007 City of Bloomfield Hills Master Plan of Land Use City of Bloomfield Hills - 8/11/1987 Township of Brandon Brandon Township Land Use Plan Update - 3/14/2000 City of the Village of Clarkston Master Plan City of the Village of Clarkston - 8/4/1997City of Clawson Downtown Clawson Framework Urban Design Plan - 11/1/2004 Master Plan City of Clawson - 1/23/1990 Township of Commerce Commerce Charter Township Master Plan 2003 - 6/28/2004 Commerce Charter Township Master Plan Amendment - 11/27/2006 City of Farmington Master Plan City of Farmington - 2/1/1998 City of Farmington Hills Master Plan for Future Land Use City of Farmington Hills - 3/28/1996 City of Fenton Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 (Used the Holly Township Master Plan because Fenton's was unavailable) City of Ferndale City of Ferndale Land Use Plan - 6/1/1998 Village of Franklin Franklin Village Master Plan Update - 10/15/1997 Township of Groveland Master Plan for Future Land Use - 5/9/2005 City of Hazel Park Master Plan, Hazel Park Michigan - 3/21/2000 Township of Highland Highland Township Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2000-2020 - 7/6/2000 South Milford Road Corridor Micro-Area Analysis - 4/13/2005 East Highland Commercial District Micro Area Analysis - 12/19/2002 West Highland Micro-Area Analysis - 8/2/2001 North Hickory Ridge Road Micro-Area Analysis - 12/7/2006 Township of Holly Holly Township Master Plan - 11/10/2003 Village of Holly Village of Holly Master Plan - 1/24/2007 City of Huntington Woods Huntington Woods Master Plan - 12/17/2007 Township of Independence Independence Township Vision 2020 Master Plan - 12/9/1999 City of Keego Harbor City of Keego Harbor Comprehensive Master Plan - 9/5/2002 City of Lake Angelus City of Lake Angelus Master Plan - 7/25/1994 Village of Lake Orion Master Plan 2002-2022 - 1/6/2003 Amendment #1 to Lake Orion Master Plan - 3/3/2008 City of Lathrup Village The Lathrup Village Plan - 1/1/1981 Village of Leonard Master Plan Village of Leonard - 10/17/1991 Township of Lyon Charter Township of Lyon Master Plan - 3/27/2006 City of Madison Heights Madison Heights Master Plan: 1990, 2000, 2010 - 10/16/1990 Madison Heights Future Land Use Plan Amendment - 5/15/2007 Township of Milford Charter Township of Milford Land Use Plan Update - 5/27/1999 Village of Milford Village of Milford Master Plan - 3/1/1998 City of Northville City of Northville Master Plan - 2/22/2000 City of Novi City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use 2004 - 12/1/2004 City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use Amendments - 4/16/2008 Township of Novi None (Does not have a Master Plan, assumed to be Single Family Residential) City of Oak Park City of Oak Park Master Plan - 9/9/1996 City of Oak Park Master Plan Addition - Unknown Township of Oakland Oakland Charter Township A Community Master Plan - 1/4/2005 City of Orchard Lake Village Master Plan City of Orchard Lake Village - 6/6/2006 Township of Orion Orion Township Master Plan - 5/7/2003 Lapeer Road Master Plan Update - 4/19/2006 Village of Ortonville The Ortonville Plan - 1/1/1980 Township of Oxford Charter Township of Oxford Master Plan - 7/14/2005 Village of Oxford Village of Oxford Master Plan - 5/10/2005 City of Pleasant Ridge City of Pleasant Ridge Community Master Plan - 9/1/1999 City of Pontiac Pontiac 2010 A New Reality - 12/4/1991 City of Rochester Master Plan: 2000 City of Rochester - 6/3/2000 Downtown Development Area MP amendment - 5/2/2005 City of Rochester Hills Rochester Hills Master Land Use Plan 2007 - 2/6/2007 Township of Rose Master Plan Rose Township - 7/7/2005 City of Royal Oak Master Plan City of Royal Oak - 8/24/1999 Township of Royal Oak A Vision for the Year 2010 Master Plan 1996 Update - 12/11/1996 City of South Lyon Master Plan of Future Land Use City of South Lyon - 1/10/2002 City of Southfield Southfield Master Plan - 1/1/1988 Township of Southfield Southfield Township Master Plan - 11/25/2002 Township of Springfield Springfield Township Master Plan - 3/7/2002 City of Sylvan Lake Sylvan Lake Master Plan 2005 - 4/10/2007 City of Troy City of Troy Future Land Use Plan - 1/8/2002 City of Walled Lake City of Walled Lake Master Plan - 8/1/2002 Township of Waterford Waterford Master Plan 2003-2023 - 1/2/2003 Township of West Bloomfield West Bloomfield Township 2005 Master Land Use Plan Update - 7/26/2005 Township of White Lake White Lake Township Master Plan - 10/6/2006 City of Wixom City of Wixom Master Plan - 8/9/2005 Village of Wolverine Lake Village of Wolverine Lake Land Use Plan - 12/4/1985 Every category identified on the future land use map within each master plan was translated into a composite value. For example, one community may have two commercial districts- Local Commerical and General Commercial. Another community may have three commercial districts- Neighborhood Commercial, Hi-Tech Office, and Retail Commercial. A wide range of uses could be included in these categories, but for the purpose of this feature class, they are all translated into "Commercial/Office." In some cases a category on community's future land use map could not be translated into a single composite category. When this occurred, areas were manually translated into the appropriate generalized category. For example, a Public Lands class on a community's map would be manually translated into the Public/Institutional and Recreation/Conservation composite categories.

The Flood Hazard Area feature class was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) contractors, FMSM, in August, 2006. The data was then updated in November, 2022 from FEMA’s website. This polygon feature class represents the flood hazard areas present in the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) database. The maps are effective as of September 29, 2006 . The scale of the data collection is 1:12,000. See the original metadata document for additional information. New data was sent to Oakland County in December, 2006 to reflect a LOMR done in the Troy area.

BY USING THIS WEBSITE OR THE CONTENT THEREIN, YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF USE. The DevelopmentAuthority polygon feature class identifies certain types of entities that encourage development/redevelopment in designated areas. This feature class currently represents Downtown Development Authorities (DDA), Tax Increment Finance Authorities (TIFA), and Local Development Finance Authorities (LDFA); however, it will also depict Corridor Improvement Authorities (CIA) and Brownfield Redevelopment Authorities (BRA) in the future. These five types of authorities have the ability to capture tax increment financing (TIF). The features were digitized using legal descriptions, parcel lists, and maps that were provided to the State of Michigan Office of the Great Seal and/or Oakland County Equalization by the authority. The key attributes are Name (official name of the authority), Type (the type of development authority), and DevelopmentPlan (yes/no indicating if the feature represents an area that is part of a development plan and can caputre tax increment financing).Tax Increment Financing is a tool used to promote redevelopment and community improvement projects by channeling funding toward projects in targeted areas. TIF is captured from the increase of property values from a base year. Millage rates from taxing jurisdictions are applied to the increased value. The resulting tax revenue is directed to the authority, rather than the appropriate jurisdiction. Beginning in 1994, taxing jurisdictions have the option to "opt out" of having its taxes captured by the authority. Also since 1994, school taxes may no longer be captured unless they are necessary to make payments on existing eligible obligations. For more information about TIF, see Michigan Department of Treasury's Tax Increment Financing FAQ web page at http://www.michigan.gov/treasury/0,1607,7-121-3218---F,00.html. The State of Michigan has adopted enabling legislation to allow TIF through five types of authorities. Each type of authority has a focus relating to development/redevelopment: Downtown Development Authority (PA 197 of 1975) Correct and prevent deterioration in business districtsEncourage historic preservationPromote economic growth of the districts Tax Increment Finance Authority (PA 450 of 1980)Prevent urban deteriorationEncourage economic development and activityEncourage neighborhood revitalization and historic preservationClosed to new applicants since 1987Allows the development of virtually any type of land use Local Development Finance Authority (PA 281 of 1986)Encourage local developmentPromote conditions of employmentPromote economic growthLimited to business activities involving:ManufacturingAgricultural processingHigh-technology activitiesEnergy productionBusiness incubators Brownfield Redevelopment Authority (PA 381 of 1996)Promote revitalization, redevelopment, and reuse of certain propertyFocus on tax reverted, blighted, or functionally obsolete propertyMDEQ must approve brownfield redevelopment areas Corridor Improvement Authority (PA 281 of 2005)Correct and prevent deterioration in business districtsEncourage historic preservationPromote economic growth of the districtsMust be adjacent to a road classified as an arterial or collectorThese quasi-public entities are created by resolution through a community's governing body. CIA and LDFA boundaries may cross municipal boundaries. In the case of these multi-jurisdictional authorities, both communities must pass resolutions establishing authority. There is currently only one Joint LDFA (Cities of Southfield and Troy) and there are no CIAs in Oakland County. When the community establishes the authority, it must also define the geographic boundaries in which it will operate. DDAs and CIAs are authorized to levy and collect taxes through a special assessment on all properties within the authority boundary. After the authority and its boundaries are established, the authority creates a tax increment financing and development plan. The plan estimates the amount of tax increment financing that will be captured and lists specific projects on which it will be spent. It also defines the development area where the tax increment financing and projects will occur. The development area must be completely within the authority boundary; however, it may be coincident with the authority boundary. An authority may contain multiple development areas, each with its own development and tax increment financing plan. BRAs normally designate development areas as a one or two parcels for a specific development project, while the other types of authorities define development areas as a larger area. Also, LDFAs are only allowed to capture TIF from parcels in a permitted use, such as manufacturing. There may be both eliglible and inelgible parcels within a development area; however, the inelgible parcels do not participate in TIF capture. The base year used to calculate the amount of tax increment financing is set when the development plan is adopted. If the development plan is expanded at a later date, the base year could be reset for the entire development area or the capture could be calculated using multiple base years. The source for the base year was the tax billing code used by Oakland County Equalization. When no tax billing code was available (for communities that don't use the county's assessing system), the community was contacted to obtain the base year. When two separate authorities overlap, each authority can establish overlapping development areas. The authority that first created the development area has first claim on tax increment financing capture. Authority boundaries are represented using multiple features when the development area is not coincident with the authority boundary. One feature represents the development area and a second feature represents the remainder of the authority district that is not part of the development area. Multiple features are also used to represent authorities that have multiple development areas or development areas that have multiple base years. Brownfield Redevelopment Authorities are unique in that the authority boundaries are generally defined as the entire municipality. For this reason, the non-development areas of BRA's have been excluded from this data. The following list shows communities in Oakland County that have established a BRA: City of Auburn Hills City of Birmingham City of Farmington City of Farmington Hills City of Ferndale City of Hazel Park Charter Township of Highland Village of Holly City of Madison Heights Village of Milford County of Oakland City of Oak Park City of Pontiac City of Rochester City of Rochester Hills Charter Twp of Royal Oak City of Royal Oak City of Southfield City of Troy Charter Township of Waterford Source documents for the boundary of each feature were obtained from the State of Michigan Office of the Great Seal, Oakland County Equalization, and the Oakland County Treasurer's office. These could be in the form of a legal description, parcel list, and/or map. For several boundaries, multiple sources were available and conflicted with each other. When this occurred, hierarchy was given to the legal description, then a parcel list, over the map, and the conflict is noted in the Comments field. However, if a parcel was shown in a parcel list, but not described in the authority based on the legal description, then it was still shown in the authority.It should also be noted that legal descriptions were not digitized using exact coordinate geometry. Instead, features were created by referencing the legal description to snap vertices to parcels, right-of-way, section corners, subdivisions, and lots. Features digitized from a legal description or map included road and railroad rights-of-way as it was described or shown in the document.For vague legal descriptions and parcel lists, right-of-way was addressed uniquely for each authority. Some source documents had statements that all or half of the surrounding right-of-way is to be included in the boundary, but some did not address right-of-way at all. In these cases, right-of-way was addressed distinctly for each authority based on the type of authority and the source documents with the method used recorded in the Comments field. The data will be updated on an "as needed" basis when authorities amend their development plans or new authorities are established. Oakland County Equalization and the Oakland County Treasurer's Office will notify and forward the source documents of necessary revisions to Oakland County Planning and Economic Development Services who is the custodian of the feature class. Communities will be contacted annually to verify that the districts have not changed without the knowledge of county departments. In particular, county departments may not be aware of BRA development projects when no TIF is captured. Lastly, because the tax parcel feature class is revised periodically and it is important for the features to be coincident with the tax parcel feature class, the development authority feature class will also be updated annually to correct conflicts due to parcel shifting.

Socio-demographic and delivery characteristics of births by HOLC grade In San Francisco, Oakland and Los Angeles California.