"""District boundaries: When the zoning map shows a zoning district boundary as following a particular feature, or reflects a clear intent that the boundary follows the feature, the boundary will be construed as following that feature as it actually exists.Map interpretations: Where any uncertainty exists about a zoning boundary, the actual location of the boundary will be determined by the Zoning Administrator using the following rules of interpretation.(1) A boundary shown on the zoning map as approximately following a river, stream, lake or other watercourse will be construed as following the actual centerline of the watercourse. If, subsequent to the establishment of the boundary, the centerline of the watercourse should move as a result of natural processes (flooding, erosion, sedimentation, etc.), the boundary will be construed as moving with the centerline of the watercourse.(2) A boundary shown on the zoning map as approximately following a ridge line or topographic contour line will be construed as following the actual ridge line or contour line. If, subsequent to the establishment of the boundary, the ridge line or contour line should move as a result of natural processes (erosion, slippage, subsidence, etc.), the boundary will be construed as moving with the ridge line or contour line.(3) A boundary shown on the zoning map as approximately following lot lines or other parcel boundaries assigned by the Will County Supervisor of Assessments will be construed as following such lot lines or parcel boundaries.(4) A boundary shown on the zoning map as approximately following a street or railroad line will be construed as following the centerline of the street or railroad right-of-way.(5) A boundary shown on the zoning map as approximately following the boundary of an adjacent municipality will be construed as following that boundary.(6) A boundary shown on the zoning map as approximately parallel to, or as an apparent extension of, a feature described above will be construed as being actually parallel to, or an extension of, the feature.(7) Zoning boundaries that do not coincide with a property line, parcel boundary, landmark or particular feature will be determined with a scale.(8) It is the intent that the entire unincorporated area of the county, including all land and water areas, rivers, streets, alleys, railroads, and other right-of-ways, be included in the districts established by this zoning ordinance. If any area is not shown on the zoning map as being included in a zoning district, it will be deemed to be classified in the E-1 district until otherwise reclassified by a zoning map amendment in accordance with chapter 155-16.30."""

This data set was generated through the 2020 LU/LC update mapping effort. The 2020 update is the seventh in a series of land use mapping efforts that was begun in 1986. Revisions and additions to the initial baseline layer were done in subsequent years from imagery captured in 1995/97, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2015 and now, 2020. This present 2020 update was created by comparing the 2015 LU/LC layer from NJDEP's Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database to 2020 color infrared (CIR) imagery and delineating and coding areas of change. Work for this data set was done by Aerial Information Systems, Inc., Redlands, CA, under direction of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Bureau of Geographic Information System (BGIS). LU/LC changes were captured by adding new line work and attribute data for the 2020 land use directly to the base data layer. All 2015 LU/LC polygons and 2015 LU/LC coding remains in this data set, so change analysis for the period 2015-2020 can be undertaken from this one layer. The mapping was done by USGS HUC8 basins, 13 of which cover portions of New Jersey. This statewide layer is composed of the final data sets generated for each HUC8 basin. Initial QA/QC was done on each HUC8 data set as it was produced with final QA/QC and basin-to-basin edgematching done on this statewide layer. The classification system used was a modified Anderson et al., classification system. Minimum mapping unit (MMU) is 1 acre for changes to non-water and non-wetland polygons. Changes to these two categories were mapped using .25 acres as the MMU. (See entry under the Advisory section concerning additional review being done on NHD waterbody attribute coding and impervious surface estimation.) ADVISORY This data set, edition 20231120, is a statewide layer that includes updated land use/land cover data for all HUC8 basins in New Jersey. The polygon delineations and associated land use code assignments are considered the final versions for this mapping effort. Note, however, that there is continuing review being done on this layer to update several additional attributes not presently evaluated in this edition. These attributes include several from the National Hydrography Database (NHD) that are specific to the waterbodies mapped in this layer, and several attributes containing impervious surface estimates for each polygon. Evaluating the NHD codes facilitates extracting the water features mapped in this layer and using them to update the New Jersey portion of the NHD. Those NHD specific attributes are still being evaluated and may be added to a future edition of this base data set. Similarly, additional review is being done to assess the feasibility of incorporating data on impervious surface (IS) amounts generated from two independent projects, one of which was just completed by NOAA, into this base land use layer. While the NHD and IS attributes will enhance the use of this base layer in several types of analyses, this present layer can be used for doing all primary land use analyses without having those attributes evaluated. Further, evaluating these extra attributes will result in few, if any, changes to the polygon delineations and standard land use coding that are the primary features of this layer. As such, the layer is being provided in its present edition for general use. As the additional attributes are evaluated, they may be added to a future edition of this data set. The basic land use features and codes, however, as mapped in this version of the data set will serve as the base 2020 LU/LC update. As stated in this metadata record's Use Constraints section, NJDEP makes no representations of any kind, including, but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the digital data layers furnished hereunder. NJDEP assumes no responsibility to maintain them in any manner or form. By downloading this data, user agrees to the data use constraints listed within this metadata record.The data for Somerset County data was extracted & processed from the latest dataset by the Somerset County Office of GIS Services (SCOGIS).

The 2002 Sierra County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Central District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and Central District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

The 1995 Madera County land use survey data set was developed by DWRthrough its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). Thedata was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s San Joaquin District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and San Joaquin District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Water source and irrigation method information was not collected for this survey. 5. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

This data set was developed as an information layer for the Washington State Department of Commerce. It is designed to be used as part of the Puget Sound Mapping Project to provide a generalized and standardized depiction of land uses and growth throughout the Puget Sound region.

This map represents land uses, zoning abbreviations and zoning descriptions. Zoning data was collected in raster format and digitized by State Department of Commerce staff. The generalized depiction of intended future land use is based primarily upon 2012 zoning and 2010 assessor's records.NOTE: Because this is a large dataset, some geoprocessing operations (i.e. dissolve) may not work on the entire dataset. You will receive a topoengine error. Clipping out an area of interest (i.e. a county) and performing the operation on it instead of on the full dataset is a way to get around this software limitation.

There are two basic types of zoning districts: conventional zoning districts and planned d​evelopment districts. The general purpose of both types of zoning districts is to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the L​ee Plan, as well as to provide protection to the public health, safety and welfare through the regulation of land use.Conventional zoning districts are districts within which land use is controlled through the regulation of the height and bulk of buildings and structures, the minimum area and ​dimensions of lots, the percentage of lot coverage, minimum open space and yard areas, through the use of setback requirements, the density of population, and the type and intensity of use of the land and buildings. Use and development ​regulations for the conventional districts are provided in Chapter 34 of the Land Development Code. Planned Development zoning is required for larger projects, known as Developments of County Impact. Other proposed developments, regardless of size, may seek a planned development designation where the developer desires and the Division Director determines that it is in the public interest to do so. The Lee Plan provides that certain owner-initiated rezoning and special exceptions meeting specific thresholds will be reviewed as Developments of County Impact. The Development of County I​mpact thresholds are further categorized as major and minor planned developments. Planned development zoning districts allow greater flexibility in design but may have conditions attached during the approval process. Use and development regulations for planned development districts are provided in Chapters 12, 32 and 34 of the Land Development Code.See https://www.leegov.com/dcd/zoning for more information.

2022 STATEWIDE CROP MAPPING - PROVISIONALLand use data is critically important to the work of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and other California agencies. Understanding the impacts of land use, crop location, acreage, and management practices on environmental attributes and resource management is an integral step in the ability of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to produce Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) and implement projects to attain sustainability. Land IQ was contracted by DWR to develop a comprehensive and accurate spatial land use database for the 2022 water year (WY 2022). The primary objective of this effort was to produce a spatial land use database with accuracies exceeding 95% using remote sensing, statistical, and temporal analysis methods. This project is an extension of the 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 land use mapping, which classified over 14 million acres of land into irrigated agriculture and urban area. Unlike the 2014 and 2016 datasets, the WY 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 datasets include multi-cropping and incorporates DWR ground-truth data from Siskiyou, Modoc, Lassen and Shasta counties. Land IQ integrated crop production knowledge with detailed ground truth information and multiple satellite and aerial image resources to conduct remote sensing land use analysis at the field scale. Individual fields (boundaries of homogeneous crop types representing cropped area, rather than legal parcel boundaries) were classified using a crop category legend and a more specific crop type legend. A supervised classification method using a random forest approach was used to classify delineated fields and was carried out county by county where training samples were available. Random forest approaches are currently some of the highest performing methods for data classification and regression. To determine frequency and seasonality of multiple-cropped fields, peak growth dates were determined for annual crops. Fields were attributed with DWR crop categories and included citrus/subtropical, deciduous fruits and nuts, field crops, grain and hay, idle, pasture, rice, truck crops, urban, vineyards, and young perennials. These categories represent aggregated groups of specific crop types in the Land IQ dataset. Accuracy was calculated for the crop mapping using both DWR and Land IQ crop legends. The overall accuracy result for the crop mapping statewide was 98.1% at the DWR Class level and 96.7% at the DWR Subclass level. Accuracy and error results varied among crop types. In particular, some less extensive crops that have very few validation samples may have a skewed accuracy result depending on the number and nature of validation sample points. DWR revised crops and conditions from the Land IQ classification were encoded using standard DWR land use codes added to feature attributes, and each modified classification is indicated by the value 'r' in the ‘DWR_REVISE' data field. Polygons drawn by DWR, not included in Land IQ dataset receive the 'n' code for new. Boundary change (i.e. DWR changed the boundary that LIQ delivered could be split boundary) indicated by 'b'. Each polygon classification is consistent with DWR attribute standards, however some of DWR's traditional attribute definitions are modified and extended to accommodate unavoidable constraints within remote-sensing classifications, or to make data more specific for DWR's water balance computation needs. The original Land IQ classifications reported for each polygon are preserved for comparison, and are also expressed as DWR standard attributes. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions about local conditions or revisions in the final data set should be forwarded to the appropriate Regional Office Senior Land Use Supervisor. Revisions were made if: - DWR corrected the original crop classification based on local knowledge and analysis, -PARTIALLY IRRIGATED CROPS Crops irrigated for only part of their normal irrigation season were given the special condition of ‘X’, -In certain areas, DWR changed the irrigation status to irrigated or non-irrigated. Among those areas the special condition may have been changed to 'Partially Irrigated' based on image analysis and local knowledge, - young versus mature stages of perennial orchards and vineyards were identified (DWR added ‘Young’ to Special Condition attributes), - DWR determined that a field originally classified ‘Idle’ was actually cropped one or more times during the year, - the percent of cropped area was changed from the original acres reported by Land IQ (values indicated in DWR ‘Percent’ column), - DWR determined that the field boundary should have been split to better reflect separate crops within the same polygon and identified by a 'b' in the DWR_REVISED column, - The ‘Mixed’ was added to the MULTIUSE column refers to no boundary change, but percent of field is changed where more than one crop is found, - DWR identified a distinct early or late crop on the field before the main season crop (‘Double’ was added to the MULTIUSE column); if the 1st and 2nd sequential crops occupied different portions of the total field acreage, the area percentages were indicated for each crop). This dataset includes multicropped fields. If the field was determined to have more than one crop during the course of the water year, the order of the crops is sequential, beginning with Class 1. All single cropped fields will be placed in Class 2, so every polygon will have a crop in the Class 2 and CropType2 columns. In the case that a permanent crop was removed during the water year, the Class 2 crop will be the permanent crop followed by ‘X’ – Unclassified fallow in the Class 3 column. In the case of Intercropping, the main crop will be placed in the Class 2 column with the partial crop in the Class 3 column. The column 'MAIN_CROP' was added in 2019 and has been continued through the 2022 dataset. This column indicates which field Land IQ identified as the main season crop for the water year representing the crop grown during the dominant growing season for each county. The column ‘MAIN_CROP_DATE’, continued in the 2022 dataset, indicates the NDVI peak date for this main season crop. Asterisks (* or **) in attribute table indicates no data have been collected for that specific attribute.Prior to WY 2021 final mapping release, pasture areas that where mechanically harvested during a water year were classified as P6-Miscellaneous Grasses. Starting with the WY 2021 final mapping release and moving forward these harvested pasture areas are classified as P3-Mixed Pasture.

Land Use Policy as created by the Los Angeles County General Plan 2035, which provides the policy framework for how and where the UNINCORPORATED County will grow through the year 2035. For more information about the General Plan, please click here.PLEASE NOTE: Land Use Policy in the UNINCORPORATED areas of Los Angeles county are organized in two data layers: General Plan 2035, and Area / Community Plans. The picture below shows the areas covered by the General Plan 2035 in dark brown, and the Area / Community Plan area in beige. Click here to access the 'Area / Community Plan' layer.LAST UPDATED: 12/11/24 for annexation to the City of Whittier.NEED MORE FUNCTIONALITY? If you are looking for more layers or advanced tools and functionality, then try our suite of GIS Web Mapping Applications.

SCAG has developed its regional geospatial dataset of land use information at the parcel-level (approximately five million parcels) for 197 local jurisdictions in its region. The regional land use dataset is developed (1) to aid in SCAG’s regional transportation planning, scenario planning and growth forecasting, (2) facilitate policy discussion on various planning issues, and (3) enhance information database to better serve SCAG member jurisdictions, research institutes, universities, developers, general public, etc. It is the most frequently and widely utilized SCAG geospatial data. In 2020, SCAG successfully released the final 2016 regional land use dataset, developed for the Final Connect SoCal 2020, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which includes general plan land use, specific plan land use, zoning code and existing land use information. The 2016 regional land use dataset was reviewed by local jurisdiction, and SCAG staff made every effort to ensure the data reflect local jurisdiction’s input received during the Connect SoCal 2020 Local Input and Envisioning Process.After the successful adoption of Connect SoCal 2020, SCAG has initiated the 2019 regional land use data development process to update parcel-based land use information in preparation for Connect SoCal 2024. From late 2019 to early 2020, SCAG staff obtained the 2019 parcel boundary GIS file and tax roll property information from county assessor’s offices. After months of data standardization and clean-up process, SCAG staff released the 2019 parcel boundary GIS files along with the 2019 Annual Land Use dataset in February 2021. In December 2021, SCAG staff successfully developed the preliminary dataset of the 2019 regional land use data and released the draft SCAG Data/Map Book in May 2022. The preliminary land use data was reviewed by local jurisdictions during the Local Data Exchange (LDX) process for Connect SoCal 2024. As a part of the 2019 regional land use data development process, SCAG staff made every effort to review the local jurisdictions’ inputs and comments and incorporated any updates to the regional land use datasets. The products of this project will be used as one of the key elements for Connect SoCal 2024 plan development, growth forecasting, scenario planning, and SCAG’s policy discussion on various planning issues, as well as Connect SoCal key growth strategy analysis.Note: This dataset is intended for planning purposes only, and SCAG shall incur no responsibility or liability as to the completeness, currentness, or accuracy of this information. SCAG assumes no responsibility arising from use of this information by individuals, businesses, or other public entities. The information is provided with no warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Users should consult with each local jurisdiction directly to obtain the official land use information.

The 1994 Placer County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Central District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and Central District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

To download:1. Click the Download button above.2. A side panel will appear showing download options. Under Shapefile, click the Download button.3. When the download completes, browse to the location of the downloaded .zip, copy it to the location where you manage your redistricting files, then right-click to extract the contents. You will then be able to use the file in GIS software.If, rather than downloading the data, you wish the reference online versions of these datasets directly to ensure you are always using the most up-to-date data, please contact the County of San Bernardino Innovation and Technology Departments at 909-884-4884 or by emailing OpenData@isd.sbcounty.gov for informations and instructions for doing so.Parcel polygons for the County of San Bernardino with assessment and zoning attributes. This parcel data is maintained by the County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department, and the Surveyor and Assessor offices.

The Durham City-County Planning Department is in the processing of writing a New UDO along with a new zoning map. This zoning map will help the Durham community review what upcoming changes may occur and allow public participation throughout the process. This zoning map will be revised throughout the drafting process and may change without public notice until the adoption of the New UDO and Zoning Map. For more questions about the New UDO and the New Zoning Map, contact the Planning Department at NewUDO@DurhamNC.gov

The 2003 Solano County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance which, following reorganization in 2009, is now called Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management (DSIWM). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered, digitized and quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DSIWM headquarters and North Central Region. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were drawn on-screen using orthorectified imagery. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). Fields outside of the Montezuma Hills were surveyed in May to map winter grain and again during the summer to collect data on other annual and perennial crops. In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey. 5. This survey contains areas where land use data was not collected. These are indicated by “NS” in the class1 field. The non-surveyed area is located primarily in the Montezuma Hills near the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, but also includes a few polygons outside that area. Many fields in the Montezuma Hills are usually planted to non-irrigated grain, so using only the fields mapped as “grain” to calculate acreage in this survey is likely to undercount the actual acres of grain grown in Solano County in 2003. 6. Sources of the irrigation water are included in this land use data. Water sources were determined through a combination of noting groundwater wells in the field and using the boundaries of Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, Reclamation District 2068 and the boundary of the Delta Service Area. We received the water district and Reclamation District boundaries from Solano Irrigation District in November of 2004. The boundaries had been recently updated at that time. There are likely to be individual fields whose actual water source is different from the source designated on our map because we did not verify water sources by contacting each grower.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

The 1993 Sacramento County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Central District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and Central District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Not all land use codes will be represented the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

The 1994 Butte County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through it’s Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Northern District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and Northern District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 3. Irrigation type information was not collected for this survey. 4. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

The 1995 Yuba County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures before finalizing. The land uses that were gathered were detailed agricultural land uses, and lesser detailed urban and native vegetation land uses. The data was gathered and digitized by staff of DWR’s Central District. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DPLA headquarters and Central District. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were hand drawn directly on USGS quad maps and then digitized. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries, or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and, to an extent possible, whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. For example, the surveyor might have seen a cropped field in the photograph, and the field visit showed a field of corn, so the field was given a corn attribute. In another field, the photograph might have shown a crop that was golden in color (indicating grain prior to harvest), and the field visit showed newly planted corn. This field would be given an attribute showing a double crop, grain followed by corn. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. If the data is to be brought into a GIS for analysis of cropped (or planted) acreage, two things must be understood: a. The acreage of each field delineated is the gross area of the field. The amount of actual planted and irrigated acreage will always be less than the gross acreage, because of ditches, farm roads, other roads, farmsteads, etc. Thus, a delineated corn field may have a GIS calculated acreage of 40 acres but will have a smaller cropped (or net) acreage, maybe 38 acres. b. Double and multicropping must be taken into account. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. To estimate actual cropped acres, the two crops are added together (38 acres of grain and 38 acres of corn) which results in a total of 76 acres of net crop (or planted) acres. 4. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey.The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standard version 3.3, dated April 13, 2022. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. See the CADWR Land User Viewer (gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer) for the most current contact information. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov.

THIS PLAN IS NOT A ZONING MAP. Within each map category on this plan map, numerous land uses, zoning districts and housing types may occur. This plan map may be interpreted only as provided in the adopted plan text entitled: Interpretation of The Land Use Plan Map: Adopted Policy Of The Land Use Element. That adopted text provides necessary definitions and standards for allowable land uses, densities, or intensities of use for each map category, and for interpretation and application of the plan as a whole. The adopted text must be consulted in its entirety in interpreting any one plan map category, and no provision shall be used in isolation from the remainder. Restrictions accepted by the Board of County Commissioners in association with Land Use Plan map amendments shall be considered as an adopted part of the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) and are delineated in the adopted text.This Land Use Plan (LUP) map, in conjunction with all other adopted components of the CDMP, will govern all development-related actions taken or authorized by Miami-Dade County. The LUP map generally reflects municipal land use policies adopted in comprehensive plans. However, with limited exceptions enumerated in the Statement of Legislative Intent, this plan does not supersede local land use authority of incorporated municipal governments authorized in accordance with the Miami-Dade County Charter. For further guidance on future land uses authorized within incorporated municipalities, consult the local comprehensive plan adopted by the pertinent municipality.Updated: Weekly The data was created using: Projected Coordinate System: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereProjection: Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere