Laserfiche WebLink
156 <br />ik, <br />-4: Share of Regional Need in Each Band <br />Atmbelow 3Q% <br />ofAM| <br />49.9% <br />31 %tc50% <br />of AM| <br />24.9% <br />Applying these regional shares to each community's adjusted allocation does not reflect the <br />diversity within communities' existing housing stock. For example, one community might <br />have a higher -than -average share of housing in the 51Y6-80Y6 band and lower -than -average <br />shares of housing in the other two bands. To expand housing options and choice, we reduce <br />this community's allocation in the 51%-80% band and increase its allocation in the other <br />two bands. <br />The method for Part 3 is diagrammed below in Figure B-5. We start with the regional shares <br />of the Need, adjusting them as outlined in the previous paragraph. Those adjustments <br />are developed in Step 1, where we compare each community's shares of affordable units <br />in each band to the average shares for all uevvered communities. In Step 2, we combine <br />thooeadjuotrnentovviththe"equa|ohare''factoro,reou|tingineachcornrnunity'oohareof <br />its allocation that goes to each band. Finally, in Step 3, we apply those shares to the total <br />allocation tocalculate the number ofunits ineach band. <br />Note that Part 3 does not change the overall allocation for communities developed in Part 2. <br />Rather, we are simply assigning different shares of each community's allocation to different <br />bands. Accordingly, vveare n0longer examining differences across communities in the <br />overall level of affordable housing, but differences in affordability within each community's <br />set ofaffordable units. <br />Appendices <br />