Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>This draft dataset represents planned and proposed projects that will appear in the 2020 Los Angeles River Master Plan. Planned projects have been sourced from published plans including, but not limited to, the Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan (LLARRP) and the City of LA's Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP), as well as organizing institutions. Proposed project sites were selected through opportunity and need analysis by OLIN, Gehry Partners, and Geosyntec.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>This draft dataset represents planned and proposed projects that will appear in the 2020 Los Angeles River Master Plan. Planned projects have been sourced from published plans including, but not limited to, the Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan (LLARRP) and the City of LA's Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP), as well as organizing institutions. Proposed project sites were selected through opportunity and need analysis by OLIN, Gehry Partners, and Geosyntec.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>For modeling purposes only. Station locations are approximate. Adapted from stations_gen.shp.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: Adapted from stations_gen.shp (Systems Analysis and Research Unit).
Updated by:
doreen Morrissey
Transportation Planning Manager
Long Range Planning
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213.922.3704
morrisseyd@metro.net
November 2015
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">This is an export of the table dated 7/9/2018 from the Urban Displacement website. Data exported on 7/6/20 to assist with a project for the CEO. Below is an abstract taken from said </SPAN><A href="https://www.urbandisplacement.org:443/map/socal" STYLE="text-decoration:underline;"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">website</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">:</SPAN></P><P><SPAN>In 2016, the UCLA team developed a neighborhood change database to help stakeholders better understand where neighborhood transformations are occurring and to identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in both transit and non-transit neighborhoods. The July 2018 update expands the geographical coverage of the database to include Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, and updates the gentrification and sociodemographic indicators with 2015 data from the American Community Survey. While the UCLA, UCB and Portal State teams have worked in tandem, the outcomes and types of maps are not identical because of differences in project funding, project scope, and data availability in the three regions. Additional details of the methodology for the Southern California maps can be found in the </SPAN><A href="https://ww3.arb.ca.gov:443/research/single-project.php?row_id=65188" STYLE="text-decoration:underline;"><SPAN>2017 project report to the California Air Resources Board (Contract Number 13-310)</SPAN></A><SPAN>.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>The Office of the Assessor maintains assessment records of real and personal property in the County of Los Angeles. Many of these records are available for sale. The data is available in the form of CD-ROM, DVD, hardcopy, and on-line access. The Office of the Assessor also offers a GIS Tax Parcel Base Map.Some layers included (not an exhaustive list):parcel boundary map (shapefile format)local rollLA County wall mappublicly owned parcelssales listunsecured rolland labels (for mailings)A discussion of parcel accuracyOccasionally questions about the spatial accuracy of parcel information come up. In general, it is important to note that the parcels are for tax assessment purposes only, come from many sources, some historical, and are not necessarily survey grade. That said, they are in general extremely reliable.Here is a longer description from Emilio Solano, head of the Assessor Mapping and GIS Services:The very short answer is this: our data is in its majority accurate within a couple of feet, in other cases will not be so accurate.The issue of accuracy when applied to assessor’s data is very subjective. Our data is very accurate if we consider that all the information matches recorded information, we try our best to keep recent data as it was recorded, and older data gets slightly adjusted to match the most recent data. Another factor to consider is that about one third of the total number of new parcels created every year comes from deeds, not subdivision maps, that is, there is not, in the majority of the cases, any new survey data, more likely general descriptions of where the new boundaries should exist, or references to adjacent properties, even calls to documents recorded many years ago, referring to them just by the document number. In those cases we have to consider the intent of the owner when describing the property in the deed.Another couple of factors that have an impact in the accuracy of our data comes from the fact that we assembled this vast amount of information with digital data provided from at least a dozen of cities, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Torrance, etc. plus all the data gathered by LACO DPW in CAD format. We had to compile all that data, rectify it and adjusted as needed, always keeping in mind that the integrity of the data should be maintained by matching RECORDED information. Another factor is that the data was also coming from tens of thousands of individual recordings, it wasn’t as clean cut as when you look at a single subdivision, no matter how big, where every line is clearly identified by a bearing and a distance within a perfectly traced boundary. Our original data sources even go back as far as remainder pieces of land described by Spanish grants and ranchos, section land plus newer surveys.Even though we always input our data based on survey records using COGO tools, whenever possible, a lot of the data is not. Considering all that, our GIS layer is by far, the most accurate data set of its size available anywhere in the county, both in positional accuracy, and conformity to the information provided by legal sources.All that being said, the resulting fact is that, as mark mentioned, in some areas our data will be very accurate, in others it won’t. The most important thing to keep in mind is that given that our responsibility is to reflect property information as recorded, we do not use anything else as a guide, for example we never use an aerial image to change the position of a line just because it doesn’t fall on top of a fence shown on a photo; remember that many people build their fenced, especially the ones made out of concrete blocks, a couple of inches inside the property boundary because is difficult to dig a trench along an existing wooden or wire fence, now multiply those little variances spread out over a 4000+ square miles of land and you will get a picture of what we are up to.That’s why we continually try to stress in anybody using our data that, if they need total accuracy they will need to hire a surveyor to get it. Our 11 by 17 maps are our only official source of information and should only be used for assessment purposes, or in the case of other uses, just for information, to get an accurate idea of how close to the real location a line could be.</SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: County of Los Angeles Office of the Assessor
Name: Countywide Statistical Area (City/Community)
Display Field: CITY_TYPE
Type: Feature Layer
Geometry Type: esriGeometryPolygon
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN><SPAN>The CSA project was developed to provide a common geographic boundary for reporting departmental statistics for unincorporated areas to the Board of Supervisors. </SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>The CIO and the LA County Enterprise GIS group worked with the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Unincorporated Area and Field Deputies to establish names that reflect as best as possible the general name preferences of residents and historical names of areas. A Board Motion will establish these area names as “Board Approved.” CSAs differ from the more informal “Community” geographies because:</SPAN></SPAN></P><UL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>They are primarily focused on broad statistics and reporting, not mapping of communities.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>They represent board approved geographies comprised of Census block groups split by cities.</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>They must cover the entire unincorporated County</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>There can be no holes or overlapping areas</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></UL><P><SPAN>The CSAs originally were created using Census Block Groups split by cities (e.g. "Split Block Groups") as a geographic building block. These boundaries are subsequently updated as needed based on city's annexation/deannexation records. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>In the City of Los Angeles, the LA City Neighborhood file was overlaid on the Block Groups and boundaries assigned using the centroid of the block group - therefore, while the names of the CSAs in LA City match the neighborhood file, the boundaries are not the same.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>Additionally, CSAs are to be named according to the following recommended naming conventions:</SPAN></SPAN></P><UL STYLE="margin:0 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 0;"><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>All names will be assumed to begin with “Unincorporated” (e.g. Unincorporated El Camino Village) for the unincorporated areas. They will not be part of the Statistical Geography Name (so the name of the Statistical Area would be “El Camino Village”).</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Names will not contain “Island” – beginning each name with “Unincorporated” will distinguish an area from any surrounding cities. There may be one or more exceptions for certain small areas (e.g. “Bandini Islands”)</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>A forward slash implies an undetermined boundary between two areas within a statistical geography (e.g. Westfield/Academy Hills or View Park/Windsor Hills)</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Certain established names may include hyphens (e.g. Florence-Firestone)</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN><SPAN>Aliases may be defined in parentheses (e.g. Unincorporated Long Beach (Bonner/Carson Park))</SPAN></SPAN></P></LI></UL><P><SPAN><SPAN>Data Fields:</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>CITY_TYPE: Incorporated cities or unincorporated areas</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>LCITY: Name of incoprporated cities</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN><SPAN>COMMUNITY: Unincorporated community names and LA City neighborhood names.</SPAN></SPAN></P><P><SPAN /></P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: Los Angeles County Enterprise GIS (eGIS)
egis@isd.lacounty.gov
Color: [0, 163, 218, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 10 Font Family: Tahoma Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>This is the outline of LA County to be used for cartographic purposes. There is a "LINE TYPE" field that can be used to symbolize thick lines for the majority of the county outline, then thin lines for the complex areas like Los Angeles / Long Beach Harbor. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">UPDATE HISTORY:</SPAN></P><UL><LI><P><SPAN>1/9/13 - to include Los Angeles / Long Beach Harbor area adjustment (DPW linework)</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">11/22/16 - for massive city boundary update from DPW data.</SPAN></P></LI></UL></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: County of Los Angeles
Department of Regional Planning
GIS Section
Description: <DIV STYLE="text-align:Left;"><DIV><DIV><P><SPAN>Boundaries of all cities and unincorporated communities in the county. </SPAN></P><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">UPDATE HISTORY (beginning 2015)</SPAN></P><UL><LI><P><SPAN>1/5/15 - Re-orginization between Torrance and Rolling Hills Estates</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>4/22/15 - Annexation to Los Angeles from Florence-Firestone (Jordan Downs)</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>6/9/15 - updated 'Adopted Date' for Santa Clarita Valley (wasn't done before!)</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>6/17/15 - following the adoption of the Antelope Valley Area Plan update, the boundary between Santa Clarita Valley and AV was updated, as well as the boundary between Kagel / Lopez Canyons and Antelope Valley.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>8/31/15 - updated Universal City for Reorganization 2014-01.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>11/5/15 - updated following the General Plan 2035 going into effect. Boundary change for Kagel / Lopez Canoyns, South San Gabriel / Whittier Narrows, and added boundary for Pepperdine University.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>3/17/16 - following an Assessor adjustment of parcel #3022012017, city boundary between Palmdale and AV was adjusted. Informed DPW as well.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>4/21/16 - updated San Clemente Island to match what DPW had (compared to imagery, ours was shifted). Also a re-orginization between the cities of Rolling Hills Estates, Rolling Hills, and Rancho Palos Verdes. Links to both are here (</SPAN><A href="http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/RLHS0005.pdf"><SPAN>document 1</SPAN></A><SPAN>, </SPAN><A href="http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/RLHS0004.pdf"><SPAN>document 2</SPAN></A><SPAN>).</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>11/15/16 - Updated for annexation to Santa Clarita that became effective on this day (link to official annexation document is </SPAN><A href="http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/SCLR0038.pdf"><SPAN>here</SPAN></A><SPAN>). Also, updates that resulted from a comprehensive city boundary update after comparison with Public Works' city boundary layer.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>4/19/17 - Updated for reorganization between the cities of Pomona and Diamond Bar (click </SPAN><A href="http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/POM0078.pdf"><SPAN>here</SPAN></A><SPAN>).</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>2/5/18 - Updated for reorganization between the cities of Monrovia and Bradbury (click </SPAN><A href="http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/BRAD0004.pdf"><SPAN>here</SPAN></A><SPAN>).</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>11/20/18 - Updated for RPPL 2017005805 (adopted 10/30/18) for re-alignments between the unincorporated communities of Santa Clarita Valley and Antelope Valley (for plan amendment, click </SPAN><A href="http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/128611.pdf"><SPAN>here</SPAN></A><SPAN>).</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>11/21/18 - updated for Plum Canyon / Skyline Ranch / North Sand Canyon Annexation. This annexation was effective on 11/15/18, and a link to the official LAFCO annexation document is </SPAN><A href="https://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/SCLR0039.pdf"><SPAN>here</SPAN></A><SPAN>.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>1/29/19 - updated for South Walnut / Pomona annexation, which was effective on 1/16/19. A link to the official LAFCO annexation document is </SPAN><A href="https://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/POM0079.pdf"><SPAN>here</SPAN></A><SPAN>.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN>5/28/19 - updated for detachment from city of Los Angeles to Del Aire. Effective 5/16/19, and a link to the official LAFCO annexation document is </SPAN><A href="https://pw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/LA0296.pdf"><SPAN>here</SPAN></A><SPAN>.</SPAN></P></LI><LI><P><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">7/25/19 - updated for annexation and detachment from the city of Arcadia to South Monrovia Islands and East Pasadena-East San Gabriel, respectively. Effective 6/13/19, and a link to the official LAFCO annexation document is </SPAN><A href="http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/SMPM_AnnexationCity/ARC0068.pdf"><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">here</SPAN></A><SPAN STYLE="font-weight:bold;">.</SPAN></P></LI></UL></DIV></DIV></DIV>
Copyright Text: County of Los Angeles
Department of Regional Planning, Department of Public Works, Asssessor's Office
Color: [0, 112, 255, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 10 Font Family: Tahoma Font Style: normal Font Weight: bold Font Decoration: none
Min. Scale: 144447.638572 Max. Scale: 0.0 Label Placement: esriServerPolygonPlacementAlwaysHorizontal Label Expression: N/A Use Coded Values: true Symbol:
Color: [255, 0, 0, 255] Background Color: N/A Outline Color: N/A Vertical Alignment: bottom Horizontal Alignment: left Right to Left: false Angle: 0 XOffset: 0 YOffset: 0 Size: 10 Font Family: Tahoma Font Style: normal Font Weight: normal Font Decoration: none