My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
Agda Pkt 2026.01.26 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
Agda Pkt 2026.01.26 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2026 11:37:07 AM
Creation date
1/27/2026 11:34:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
1/26/2026
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
372
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Facets of Livability <br />Every jurisdiction must balance limited resources while meeting resident needs and striving to optimize community <br />livability. To this end, it is helpful to know what aspects of the community are most important to residents and which <br />they perceive as being of higher or lower quality. It is especially helpful to know when a facet of livability is <br />considered of high importance but rated as lower quality, as this should be a top priority to address. <br />Mobility <br />Inclusivity and Engagement <br />Community Design <br />Safety <br />Education, Arts, and Culture <br />Utilities <br />Natural Environment <br />Health and Wellness <br />Economy <br />Parks and Recreation <br />53% <br />56% <br />58% <br />63% <br />63% <br />65% <br />69% <br />69% <br />70% <br />62% <br />81% <br />63% <br />77% <br />90% <br />67% <br />83% <br />81% <br />67% <br />85% <br />82% <br />Quality and Importance by the Numbers <br />The table below shows the proportion of residents who rated the community facets positively for quality and the <br />priority (importance) placed on each. Also displayed is whether local quality ratings were lower, similar, or higher <br />than communities across the country (the national benchmark). <br />Quality <br />% excellent or good <br />Importance <br />% essential or very importantFacet of Livability <br />Safety Quality <br />Importance <br />Economy Quality <br />Importance <br />Utilities Quality <br />Importance <br />Parks and Recreation Quality <br />Importance <br />Natural Environment Quality <br />Importance <br />Mobility Quality <br />Importance <br />Community Design Quality <br />Importance <br />Health and Wellness Quality <br />Importance <br />Education, Arts, and Culture Quality <br />Importance <br />Inclusivity and Engagement Quality <br />Importance <br />62% <br />90% <br />69% <br />85% <br />63% <br />83% <br />70% <br />82% <br />65% <br />81% <br />53% <br />81% <br />58% <br />77% <br />69% <br />67% <br />63% <br />67% <br />56% <br />63% <br />Quality/Importance Gap Analysis <br />The gap analysis chart below shows the same data as above; however, this chart more clearly illustrates the <br />comparative differences in quality and importance ratings for each facet, as well as the absolute ratings for each. <br />Quality Importance <br />vs. national benchmark <br />Similar <br />vs. national benchmark <br />Lower Similar <br />8 <br />11.A. - Page 17 of 43 <br />151
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.