13 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE CITY OF Wnca. e e LEASANTON© MEMORANDUM Date: September 22, 2021 To: Planning Commission From: Ellen Clark, Director of Community Development ATTACHMENT 5 Subject: Agenda Item 4: Draft Preliminary Report for 6th Cycle Housing Element Update This memorandum clarifies statistics quoted in the Preliminary Report Housing Needs Assessment, concerning the place of residence of Pleasanton employees. The Preliminary Report, on page A-10 notes that "only eight percent of people employed in Pleasanton also live in the city." It is important to note two different metrics that exist for local employment and residency, both drawn from Census datal: • Percentage of Total Jobs in Pleasanton, occupied by workers who also live in Pleasanton. The 8% figure quoted in the Preliminary report derives from this data point and represents the proportion of all local jobs occupied by local residents. As shown in Figure 1, this number has declined somewhat from 9.6% in 2002, to 8.1 % in 2018, based on the source data. Percentage of Employed Residents who also hold jobs in Pleasanton. This data point is slightly different, since it is providing the proportion of employed residents of Pleasanton who hold jobs within the city. As shown in Figure 2, the proportion of employed residents who work locally has ranged from 22.9% in 2002 to 15.2% in 2018; although this reflects a substantial decline since 2002, the 2018 number is an improvement from the lowest percentage seen (in 2010), when the proportion of Pleasanton's workforce employed locally stood at only 13.7%.2 Staff will revise the Housing Needs Assessment to ensure these data and trends are properly characterized. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2018). 2 The September 21, 2021 Comment Letter submitted by Becky Dennis notes a data point of 15.4% for local jobs held by employed Pleasanton residents in 2010, based on Census ACS data, which differs slightly from the 13.7% shown in Figure 2 for the same year. It is unclear why this information is different, but may have been derived from a slightly different data set than the figures quoted in this memorandum.