26 - Laserfiche WebLink

RHNA Income Allocation 1/04/07 Page 3 three different multipliers (like the 175 percent example used above) that determine how far ajurisdiction must move toward the regional income distribution. The first step in this process is to add together the percentages of very low and low income households in a jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction's result is then compared to the regional proportion. Based On this comparison, jurisdictions are put into one of three categories: . Low concentration: where less than 25 percent of total households have very low or low incomes. . Moderate concentration: where less than 45 percent of total households have very low or low incomes. . High concentration: where more than 45 percent of total households have very low or low incomes (San Pablo is the highest in the region at 65 percent). Jurisdictions in the low concentration category, such as Livermore, Pleasanton, Clayton, Danville, and Los Altos Hills move the furthest (185 percent) toward the regional average. Those in the moderate concentration category, such as Albany, Walnut Creek, Napa, San Francisco, and San Jose, move 180 percent and those in the high concentration category, which includes Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, San Rafael, Gilroy, and Sebastopol, move 175 percent. Once the multiplier for the jurisdiction has been determined, the steps for determining the jurisdiction's share of housing units in each income category is the same as the one for the first alternative methodology described above. Taking the City of Piedmont example used above, this scenario would result in a higher share of very low-income units for the city because the city falls into the low concentration category and has a multiplier of 185 percent. Here, the share is 35 percent compared to 33 percent in the example above. City Jurisdiction Proportion 9 Regional Proportion 23 Difference Piedmont 14 Multiplier 185% Adjustment Factor 26 Total Share 35 The result of this allocation scenario is that jurisdictions with a low concentration of low and very low income households get higher allocations of very low- and low-income housing units. Those jurisdictions that already have a high concentration of very low- and low-income households are allocated fewer units in these categories. As in the first alternative scenario, the effect of this allocation scenario is to change the income distribution in each jurisdiction to more closely match the regional distribution by taking both a jurisdiction's existing conditions and future development into account. This third alternative scenario specifically looks at the proportion of very low- and low-income households in ajurisdiction as the factor for determining how far the jurisdiction must move toward the regional average income distribution. Summary The alternative allocation scenarios described above have been designed to promote a more equitable regional income distribution by addressing existing concentrations of poverty in individual jurisdictions. The scenarios demonstrate different possible approaches and outcomes for moving jurisdictions toward the region's income distribution. Staff recommends that the HMC consider these alternative income allocations and come to a consensus on a recommendation to the ABAG Executive Board.