Land Use Zoning Districts in San Jose, CA.

Boundary of incorporated areas in the City of San Jose, CA.Data is published on Mondays on a weekly basis.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of legacy pollutants formerly used in commercial and industrial processes, with peak use between 1950 and 1980. "Old Industrial" indicates that an area's land use was Industrial prior to 1980 and has not yet been redeveloped. Regional monitoring data demonstrate higher loads of PCBs in stormwater runoff from Old Industrial areas, compared with other land uses types. In order to reduce PCBs runoff to the Bay, the City will investigate and treat Old Industrial areas, on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Investigation occurs through sample collection and lab testing, as well as desktop analysis. Treatment to control or abate PCBs runoff may include redevelopment, full trash capture device installation, enhanced street sweeping, and implementation of BMPs or cleanup on confirmed source properties. This layer shows the current investigation and treatment status for each Old Industrial parcel in San Jose. Data updated annually.

URL: https://geoscience.data.qld.gov.au/dataset/mr010907

The PARISH OF SAN JOSE Mine map was published in 1967 at 40 Chains to an Inch, and charted by the Mines District Office to administer permit and permit related spatial information. The map was maintained internally as a provisional office chart and is located within the Bajool (9050) 1:100 000 map area.
The map product is available to all government agencies, industry and the public for reference.
Title and Image reference number is PARISH OF SAN JOSE_0173.
Hard copy can be found in Cabinet PU78-45 Drawer 5.

This layer was created for the redistricting project map. BUSD provided a powerpoint file that showed the boundaries since they could not locate the original shapefile that was used. The core information used the generate the boundaries are the image in the powerpoint file and the 2020 census block boundaries. The source of image used is described below by the original contractor Bruce Wicinas. I was drafted to help BUSD around 1991. At that time they used planning software authored by a San Jose company, "Educational Data Systems." This was long before ESRI was known to the likes of school districts or acknowledged by the Census Bureau. "Educational Data Systems," which had many school district clients around the U.S., performed their own particle-ization of school district geography. They divided districts into rectangles of approximately 4 - 8 city blocks. These they called "planning areas." They were convenient. BUSD they divided into 445, a number neither too fine nor too coarse.Many years later, .shp files became widely available. Alas, not all Planning Area perimeters coincide with line segments of .shp files. In the Berkeley flatlands the discrepancies are not so bad. But in the hills, there aren't "blocks" but meandering strips. "Planning Areas" have line segments which don't correspond to streets or perimeters of .shp files.About 15 years ago I enhanced my custom software to read shp files. Thus I could superimpose Planning Areas and .shp files, observing the overlap discrepancies. I'll omit for now the rest of this story; what I did about the discrepancy between census Block Groups and Planning Areas. I could go into that if you are interested.I got "Planning Areas" into my custom software from the ancient EdSys data, somehow ,decades ago. I may have read a file containing polygon coordinates. At that time I could export the planning area polygons via DXF. But they have no relationship to .shp. I could provide a representation of GIS planning areas in coordinates such as "State Plane" but this probably does you no good. I have never written an ".shp" file exporter. The .shp file format is mind-boggling; archaic compared to modern methods.About 25 years ago I wrote an on-line means by which staff at BUSD can type in a Berkeley address and get the corresponding socio-ec category number. It does this by determining the "planning area number" - 1 through 445 - containing the address. That on-line software could provide the attendance zone as well but no one ever asked for that. The student assignment software used by the high school and by admissions performs that function internally. Every student has an attendance zone number as soon as they get added to the database.

The Rio Puerco quadrangle is located southwest of Albuquerque in central New Mexico and covers part of the western part of the Isleta Reservation. The U.S. Geological Survey, the New Mexico Bureau of Geology and Mineral Resources, and the University of New Mexico have conducted geologic mapping on the Isleta Reservation and vicinity as part of the Middle Rio Grande Basin Project. The map area contains surficial deposits, calcic soils, fluvial deposits of the Rio Puerco, deposits of the Santa Fe Group, and three volcanic fields. The area is characterized by predominantly north-trending normal faults with generally down-to-the-east movement. Post-Santa Fe Group deposits are composed of surficial deposits (Pleistocene-Holocene) and fluvial deposits of the Rio Puerco (Pleistocene-Holocene). The surficial deposits are divided into eolian, alluvial, colluvial, and landslide deposits. The fluvial deposits of the Rio Puerco consist of four terrace and present channel deposits. The Santa Fe Group is divided into lower and upper parts. The lower part of the Santa Fe Group is exposed near the southwestern corner of the study area where deposits consist of reddish-brown mudstone and sandstone correlated to the Popotosa Formation (Unit 1) of Lozinsky and Tedford (1991). They interpreted deposition of the unit in a basin-floor playa setting. The Popotosa Formation is in fault contact to the east with deposits of the upper Santa Fe Group. The upper Santa Fe Group is derived from major tributary fluvial systems (ancestral Rio Puerco Puerco and possibly the Rio San Jose drainages) draining the adjacent Colorado Plateau and Sierra Nacimiento and correlated to parts of Kelley's (1977) Ceja Formation of the Santa Fe Group and equivalent to Machette's (1978) Sierra Ladrones Formation, Connell's Arroyo Ojito Formation (Connell and others, 1999, and Maldonado's lithofacies of the Isleta Reservation (Maldonado and Atencio,1998a, b). The group also locally includes a fine- grained unit (lower Pleistocene) referred to here as the sand, silt, and clay of Chavez Grant (Qsc). The Ceja Formation of the Santa Fe Group as defined here is divided into the following units in descending stratigraphic order: (1) upper sand and gravel unit (upper Pliocene), (2) middle silt, sand, and clay unit (upper Pliocene), and (3) lower sand and gravel unit (Pliocene). The three volcanic fields in the map area are: (1) basalt of Cat Hills, dated at 98-110 ka and composed of seven lava flows and four cinder cones; the flows overlie calcic soils that overlie the upper sand and gravel unit of the Ceja Formation; (2) lava flow of Cat Mesa, dated at about 3 Ma and interfingers with the upper part of the Ceja Formation; (3) diabase of Mohinas Mountain, dated at 8.3 Ma (Baldridge and others, 1987) and intrudes the Popotosa Formation. Numerous high-angle faults cut the area but are mostly buried. The faults generally trend north but deviate to the northwest and northeast. The major normal faults are the Cat Mesa and Mohinas Mountain faults.

1:24,000 scale Geologic Map of the Nelson Quadrangle, Clark County, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines Map 134. Detailed Geologic Mapping By Jame s E . Faulds, John W. Bell, and Eric L. Olson in 2002. Field work done 1999. Map includes two cross sections and 42 geologic units. The quadrangle includes part of the Highland range, Eldorado Valley, and Piute Valley. It contains excellent exposures of early to middle Miocene volcanic and sedimentary rocks, the upper part of the ~16.6 Ma Searchlight. Mining district. The Miocene section rests nonconformably on Early Proterozoic gneiss. As a result of the middle Miocene extension, Tertiary strata are moderately to steeply tilted and cut by complex arrays of normal faults. Flat-lying Quaternary alluvial-fan deposits dominate Eldorado and Piute Valleys and onlap tilted Miocene strata in the Highland Range. The GIS work was in support of the U.S. Geological Survey COGEOMAP program. Office Reviewers: Frank Hillemeyer, La Cuesta International, Inc., Kingman, AZ.; Jonathan Miller, Dept. of Geology, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.; Alan Ramelli, NBMG; Eugene Smith, Dept. of Geoscience, UNLV. Field Reviewers: Frank Hillemeyer, La Cuesta International, Inc., Kingman, AZ.; Werner Hellmer, Dept. of Building, Clark County; Ryan Murphy, Dept. of Geological Sciences , University of Nevada; John Peck, Consulting Geologist, Las Vegas , NV.; Jonathan Price, NBMG; Alan Ramelli, NBMG. The geologic mapping was supported by the U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP Program (Agreement No. HQ-AG-2036) and a grant from the National Science Foundation (E AR 98-96032). The 40Ar/39Ar dates were obtained through geochronology labs at the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, for which we thank Steve Harlan, and the New Mexico Bureau of Mines, for which we thank Bill McIntosh and Matt Heizler. We greatly appreciated the hospitality of several landowners in the area, including Barney and Elaine Reagan, Gene Lambert, and John Kuyger. We also thank the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for providing housing during part of this study. Base map: U.S. Geological Survey Nelson SW 7.5' Quadrangle. To download and view this map resource, map text, and associated GIS zipped data-set, please see the links provided.

Boundaries depicting areas with natural asbestos, obtained from State Water Resources Control Board's GeoTracker.Data is published on Mondays on a weekly basis.

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red. A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.Banks received federal backing to lend money for mortgages based on these grades. Many banks simply refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade, making it impossible for people in many areas to become homeowners. While this type of neighborhood classification is no longer legal thanks to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which was passed in large part due to the activism and work of the NAACP and other groups), the effects of disinvestment due to redlining are still observable today. For example, the health and wealth of neighborhoods in Chicago today can be traced back to redlining (Chicago Tribune). In addition to formerly redlined neighborhoods having fewer resources such as quality schools, access to fresh foods, and health care facilities, new research from the Science Museum of Virginia finds a link between urban heat islands and redlining (Hoffman, et al., 2020). This layer comes out of that work, specifically from University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab. More information on sources and digitization process can be found on the Data and Download and About pages. NOTE: This map has been updated as of 1/16/24 to use a newer version of the data layer which contains more cities than it previously did. As mentioned above, over 200 cities were redlined and therefore this is not a complete dataset of every city that experienced redlining by the HOLC in the 1930s. Map opens in Sacramento, CA. Use bookmarks or the search bar to get to other cities.Cities included in this mapAlabama: Birmingham, Mobile, MontgomeryArizona: PhoenixArkansas: Arkadelphia, Batesville, Camden, Conway, El Dorado, Fort Smith, Little Rock, Russellville, TexarkanaCalifornia: Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, StocktonColorado: Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Fort Collins, Fort Morgan, Grand Junction, Greeley, Longmont, PuebloConnecticut: Bridgeport and Fairfield; Hartford; New Britain; New Haven; Stamford, Darien, and New Canaan; WaterburyFlorida: Crestview, Daytona Beach, DeFuniak Springs, DeLand, Jacksonville, Miami, New Smyrna, Orlando, Pensacola, St. Petersburg, TampaGeorgia: Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, SavannahIowa: Boone, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Dubuque, Sioux City, WaterlooIllinois: Aurora, Chicago, Decatur, East St. Louis, Joliet, Peoria, Rockford, SpringfieldIndiana: Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Lake County Gary, Muncie, South Bend, Terre HauteKansas: Atchison, Greater Kansas City, Junction City, Topeka, WichitaKentucky: Covington, Lexington, LouisvilleLouisiana: New Orleans, ShreveportMaine: Augusta, Boothbay, Portland, Sanford, WatervilleMaryland: BaltimoreMassachusetts: Arlington, Belmont, Boston, Braintree, Brockton, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Dedham, Everett, Fall River, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Holyoke Chicopee, Lawrence, Lexington, Lowell, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Milton, Needham, New Bedford, Newton, Pittsfield, Quincy, Revere, Salem, Saugus, Somerville, Springfield, Waltham, Watertown, Winchester, Winthrop, WorcesterMichigan: Battle Creek, Bay City, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Muskegon, Pontiac, Saginaw, ToledoMinnesota: Austin, Duluth, Mankato, Minneapolis, Rochester, Staples, St. Cloud, St. PaulMississippi: JacksonMissouri: Cape Girardeau, Carthage, Greater Kansas City, Joplin, Springfield, St. Joseph, St. LouisNorth Carolina: Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Elizabeth City, Fayetteville, Goldsboro, Greensboro, Hendersonville, High Point, New Bern, Rocky Mount, Statesville, Winston-SalemNorth Dakota: Fargo, Grand Forks, Minot, WillistonNebraska: Lincoln, OmahaNew Hampshire: ManchesterNew Jersey: Atlantic City, Bergen County, Camden, Essex County, Monmouth, Passaic County, Perth Amboy, Trenton, Union CountyNew York: Albany, Binghamton/Johnson City, Bronx, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Elmira, Jamestown, Lower Westchester County, Manhattan, Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie, Queens, Rochester, Schenectady, Staten Island, Syracuse, Troy, UticaOhio: Akron, Canton, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Hamilton, Lima, Lorain, Portsmouth, Springfield, Toledo, Warren, YoungstownOklahoma: Ada, Alva, Enid, Miami Ottawa County, Muskogee, Norman, Oklahoma City, South McAlester, TulsaOregon: PortlandPennsylvania: Allentown, Altoona, Bethlehem, Chester, Erie, Harrisburg, Johnstown, Lancaster, McKeesport, New Castle, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre, YorkRhode Island: Pawtucket & Central Falls, Providence, WoonsocketSouth Carolina: Aiken, Charleston, Columbia, Greater Anderson, Greater Greensville, Orangeburg, Rock Hill, Spartanburg, SumterSouth Dakota: Aberdeen, Huron, Milbank, Mitchell, Rapid City, Sioux Falls, Vermillion, WatertownTennessee: Chattanooga, Elizabethton, Erwin, Greenville, Johnson City, Knoxville, Memphis, NashvilleTexas: Amarillo, Austin, Beaumont, Dallas, El Paso, Forth Worth, Galveston, Houston, Port Arthur, San Antonio, Waco, Wichita FallsUtah: Ogden, Salt Lake CityVirginia: Bristol, Danville, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Phoebus, Richmond, Roanoke, StauntonVermont: Bennington, Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Newport City, Poultney, Rutland, Springfield, St. Albans, St. Johnsbury, WindsorWashington: Seattle, Spokane, TacomaWisconsin: Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee County, Oshkosh, RacineWest Virginia: Charleston, Huntington, WheelingAn example of a map produced by the HOLC of Philadelphia:

There is a newer and more authoritative version of this layer here! It is owned by the University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab and contains data on many more cities.The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red. A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.Banks received federal backing to lend money for mortgages based on these grades. Many banks simply refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade, making it impossible for people in many areas to become homeowners. While this type of neighborhood classification is no longer legal thanks to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which was passed in large part due to the activism and work of the NAACP and other groups), the effects of disinvestment due to redlining are still observable today. For example, the health and wealth of neighborhoods in Chicago today can be traced back to redlining (Chicago Tribune). In addition to formerly redlined neighborhoods having fewer resources such as quality schools, access to fresh foods, and health care facilities, new research from the Science Museum of Virginia finds a link between urban heat islands and redlining (Hoffman, et al., 2020). This layer comes out of that work, specifically from University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab. More information on sources and digitization process can be found on the Data and Download and About pages. This layer includes 7,148 neighborhoods spanning 143 cities across the continental United States. NOTE: As mentioned above, over 200 cities were redlined and therefore this is not a complete dataset of every city that experienced redlining by the HOLC in the 1930s. More cities are available in this feature layer from University of Richmond.Cities included in this layerAlabama: Birmingham, Mobile, MontgomeryCalifornia: Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, StocktonColorado: DenverConnecticut: East Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, StamfordFlorida: Jacksonville, Miami, St. Petersburg, TampaGeorgia: Atlanta, Augusta, Chattanooga, Columbus, MaconIllinois: Aurora, Chicago, Decatur, Joliet, GaryIndiana: Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Gary, Muncie, South Bend, Terre HauteKansas: Greater Kansas City, WichitaKentucky: Lexington, LouisvilleLouisiana: New OrleansMassachusetts: Arlington, Belmont, Boston, Braintree, Brockton, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Dedham, Everett, Haverhill, Holyoke Chicopee, Lexington, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Milton, Needham, Newton, Quincy, Revere, Saugus, Somerville, Waltham, Watertown, Winchester, WinthropMaryland: BaltimoreMichigan: Battle Creek, Bay City, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Pontiac, Saginaw, ToledoMinnesota: Duluth, MinneapolisMissouri: Greater Kansas City, Springfield, St. Joseph, St. LouisNorth Carolina: Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Winston SalemNew Hampshire: ManchesterNew Jersey: Atlantic City, Bergen Co., Camden, Essex County, Hudson County, TrentonNew York: Bronx, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Elmira, Binghamton/Johnson City, Lower Westchester Co., Manhattan, Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie, Queens, Rochester, Staten Island, Syracuse, UticaOhio: Akron, Canton, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Hamilton, Lima, Lorrain, Portsmouth, Springfield, Toledo, Warren, YoungstownOregon: PortlandPennsylvania: Altoona, Erie, Johnstown, New Castle, Philadelphia, PittsburghSouth Carolina: AugustaTennessee: Chattanooga, KnoxvilleTexas: DallasVirginia: Lynchburg, Norfolk, Richmond, RoanokeWashington: Seattle, Spokane, TacomaWisconsin: Kenosha, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, RacineWest Virginia: Charleston, WheelingAn example of a map produced by the HOLC of Philadelphia:

Launched in 2017, Bay Wheels is the San Francisco Bay Region's bike share program with over 6,000 bicycles – both pedal-powered and pedal-assist electric bikes – at more than 500 stations in San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville. An easy-to-use bike share system helps the region to achieve the Plan Bay Area 2050 statutory target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled. Bike share also serves as an important first-last mile connection to regional transit. Bay Wheels is a partnership between the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the five local governments, and Lyft.In 2023, the MTC committed $20 million to expand the Bay Wheels system. This investment will reduce the price of an annual membership, add 55 stations to the network, and add more than 2,000 e-bikes to the Bay Wheels fleet.Information on using the Bay Wheels bike share stations/bikes can be found at https://www.lyft.com/bikes/bay-wheels.More information about bike share efforts at MTC can be found on the Bay Wheels Bike Share Program page.Status information was added to the Bay Wheels Bike Share Station attributes to designate whether station locations support access to, and use of, public transit and if they serve an Equity Priority Community. The features used for this analysis were from:Equity Priority Communities - Plan Bay Area 2050Transit Service Areas (2020)