2-10-25 1
CITY OF ALHAMBRA
AGENDA
ALHAMBRA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
MISSION STATEMENT
The City of Alhambra is dedicated to responsive, creative leadership and quality services, ensuring desirable neighborhoods and a supportive business environment, while being sensitive to the diversity of our community.
Watch and listen to the meeting as follows:
Zoom Webinar direct link:
https://cityofalhambra-org.zoom.us/j/81321778489?pwd=YU1BTWtqSXpNeEo1MWFSME1mZ1FmUT09 Webinar ID: 813 2177 8489, Passcode: 644586
Or by telephone by dialing (833) 548 -0276 (Toll Free) or (833) 548 -0282 (Toll Free) or (877) 853 -5257 (Toll Free) or (888) 475 -4499 (Toll Free) or +1(719) 359-4580 or +1(309) 205-3325 or +1(253) 215-8782 or +1(346) 248-7799 or +1(646) 931-3860 or +1(301) 715-8592 or +1(312) 626-6799 or +1(646) 558-8656 and entering Webinar ID: 813 2177 8489 and Passcode: 644586. Please Note: All members of the public calling or logging into the meeting will be muted so that the meeting can proceed. If there are technical difficulties with Zoom during the meeting, the meeting will proceed regardless. Meetings can also be viewed via livestream here: https://www.spectrumstream.com/streaming/alhambra/live.cfm
Addressing the Council:
In person: Section 2.04.210 of the Alhambra Municipal Code establishes the procedures for addressing the Council. Any person wishing to address the Council during the meeting should complete a Speaker Request Card and submit it to the City Clerk so the City Council knows you wish to speak . When called upon by the presiding officer, please step to the podium.
Via Zoom or Telephone: “Raise your hand” - Members of the public may speak by using the “Raise Hand” function during the public comments portion, if on Zoom or telephone . Staff will unmute speakers participating via Zoom or telephone and announce your name when it is your time to speak.
Remarks are limited to 5 minutes; however, the presiding officer may either extend or reduce the maximum time to such period of time as the Council may determine.
Standards of Decorum : Any person addressing the Council who refuses to stop speaking after his/her time has expired or any person who behaves in such a manner as to interfere with or impede the progress of the City Council meeting who, after a request by the presiding officer, refuses to cease such behavior may be removed from the City Council chambers upon direction of the presiding officer.
Enforcement of Decorum: The Chief of Police, or his/her designee, shall be Sergeant -at-Arms of the Council meetings. The Sergeant-at-Arms shall carry out all orders and instructions given by the presiding officer for the purpose of maintaining order and decorum at the Council meeting.
Persons Authorized to be Within Rail : No person, except City official or their designees, shall be permitted within the rail in front of the Council Chamber without the express consent of the Council.
Agenda Tracking Numbers: All numbers listed in bold after the title of each Agenda item are City Clerk tracking numbers that are used for filing and research purposes.
2 2-10-25
CITY OF ALHAMBRA
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
ALHAMBRA CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, 111 South First Street
February 10, 2025
6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
COUNCIL: Lee, Maza, Maloney, Andrade-Stadler, Wang
FLAG SALUTE: Led by Mayor Wang
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We acknowledge that the land on which we are gathered is the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the Gabrielino/Tongva peoples. We seek to prioritize respect for the historic culture and contemporary presence of the native peoples throughout California, especially in the greater Los Angeles/Alhambra area. We come with respect and gratitude for the Gabriel ino/Tongva people who still consider themselves the caretakers of this land. It is through their examples that we are reminded of our greater responsibility to take care of Mother Earth and to take care of each other.
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON -AGENDIZED ITEMS (TIME LIMITATION S: 5 MINUTES PER SPEAKER, 30 MINUTES TOTAL)
Citizens wishing to address the Council on any matter which is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council not on the Agenda may do so at this time. Once the 30-minute time limit has been reached, any remaining speakers will be permitted to speak at the end of the meeting. Speakers will only be allowed to speak once per meeting for non -agendized items.
Please note that while the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council cannot take action unless the matter appears as an item on a forthcoming agenda.
PRESENTATIONS
1. RESULTS OF COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY – F2M24-33
As part of the Strategic Plan, the City Council prioritized community engagement and information. In 2024, staff moved forward with engaging a professional consultant to conduct a Community Satisfaction Survey, particularly in advance of the City’s new Strategic Plan and new Fiscal Year Budget. The purpose of the Community Satisfaction Survey is to obtain statistically reliable data to improve the City’s understanding of the residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services, faci lities, and policies provided by the City. The City engaged True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the City’s survey. This will be the third satisfaction survey pursued by the City over the last five years. The survey provides opportun ity to analyze the City’s progress with services and/or to understand top of mind community priorities.
True North is a full -service survey research firm dedicated to providing agencies with understanding of community perceptions, concerns, and priorities. The firm has conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for more than 400 cities and school districts.
Alhambra’s Community Satisfaction Survey was broadly defined and designed to help
3 2-10-25
identify: key resident issues; satisfaction with City services; opinions on strategic topics; satisfaction with communications and engagement; and other background and demographic data to understand needs, perceptions, and interests. Representatives from True North Research will present to the City Council details rega rding the results of the Community Satisfaction Survey. The full detailed results of the survey are featured in the final report prepared by True North, which is available on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofalhambra.org/DocumentCenter/View/6098/Alhambra-Community- Opinion-Survey-Report-25-v1T
Recommended Action: City Council receive and file the 202 4 Community Satisfaction Survey.
2. 2024 CITY ACCOMPLISHMENTS REPORT – F2M24-33
Staff will outline the 2024 Accomplishments Report which highlights many of the past year’s achievements. The accomplishments align with the City’s Strategic Plan, which is prioritized to reflect the community’s core values. The Report is intended to heighten community awareness of new and ongoing activities and projects.
Recommended Action: City Council receive and file the informational report.
3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION – F2M20-51
Over the past few months, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has been working on reviewing the Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. During the course of this work, some Commissioners have raised certain issues. Staff will present responses based upon staff’s understanding of the City ’s Council’s expectations for the creation of a Historic Preservation Ordinance, and operation of the HPC with respect to: Request to Revisit Historic Context Statement (Phase I) and Historic Resources Survey (Phase II) ; Adding Items to the Commission Agenda and Providing Direction to Staff ; Providing Links for Virtual Meetings ; Moving Public Comment to the Beginning of the Agenda ; and Pre- meeting Calls . Additionally, s ince the HPC meeting on January 22, 2025, Historic Resources Group contacted staff to discuss the project budget. Due to the level of detail required by the Commission, the additional time spent preparing for, and attending meetings is impacting costs. Staff anticipates presenting a contract amendment to the Council requesting an increase in the budget in order to complete the project.
Recommended Action: City Council receive and file this report, or direct staff as deemed appropriate.
CONSENT AGENDA (Item Nos. 4 – 13)
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion unless a citizen or Council member requests otherwise; in which case, the item will be removed for separate consideration.
4. ACCEPT SUMMER LUNCH PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS – F2M25-18, M2M25-12
4 2-10-25
The California State Library offers grants in support of library programs and pop-up visits at summer lunch sites to enhance access to books and library services by the community.
In December, 2024, staff applied for this funding opportunity and was awarded $8,318 to support library programming at the City’s park sites participating under the free Summer Lunch Program. The grant funds will be used to purchase giveaway books and programming supplies to be used during the Library’s mobile visits this summer.
Recommended Action: City Council accept $8,318 in grant funds from the California State Library to support the Library’s mobile summer programs and services; appropriate revenue and ex penditure funds in the amount of $ 8,318; authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the grant agreement with the California State Library, subject to final language approval by the City Manager and City Attorney; and, direct staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council’s action. (M2M25-12)
5. NOTICE OF COMPLETION: ALL-INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR GRANADA AND ALHAMBRA PARKS – F2M24-32, C2M24-13, M2M25-13
On February 26, 2024, the City Council awarded a contract to Landscape Structures Inc. in the amount of $1,199,999.49 to construct the All-Inclusive Playgrounds at Granada and Alhambra Park s. There were no change orders associated with the project. Staff has inspected this project, and all work has been completed in accordance with the City’s requirements and specifications. As such, it would be appropriate for the City Council to accept this project as complete.
Recommended Action: City Council accept the work of Landscape Structures Inc. for the All -Inclusive Playground Equipment at Granada Park and Alhambra Park as complete in the amount of $1,199,999.49; direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County of Los Angeles for recordation; instruct the Finance Director to release the 5 percent retention 35 days from the date of recordation if no liens are filed; and, direct staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council’s action. (M2M25-13)
6. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) W ITH THE ALHAMBRA POLICE OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION (APOA) – F2M25-2, R2M25-6, C87-16C, M2M25-14
Previously, the City Council approved a revised MOU between the City and APOA on August 26, 2024. Since then, CalPERS staff reached out to City staff regarding a need to revise certain language in the City and APOA’s existing MOU for compliance purposes. In particular, City staff complied by revising language pertaining to Drone Officer as First Responder and Acting Assignment as Watch Commander and Officer in Charge (Patrol).
No changes were made to benefits pertaining to these assignments. The changes have been reviewed and approved by APOA.
Recommended Action: City Council adopt Resolution No. R2M2 5-6 entitled: A Resolution of the Alhambra City Cou ncil approving a Revised Comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alhambra and the Alhambra Police Officers’ Association that incorporates California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) required revisions; and, direct staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council’s action. (M2M25-14)
5 2-10-25
7. RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED COMPREHENSIVE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE ALHAMBRA POLICE DISPATCHERS’
ASSOCIATION (APDA), AN AMENDED CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR DISPATCHER AND A NEW CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR LEAD DISPATCHER – F2M25-2, C2M21- 51, R2M25-7, M2M25-15
Occasionally, opportunities arise that offer the ability to restructure and reorganize existing staffing structures in order to provide improved operations, functions and customer service. With Council’s approval of the new Lead Dispatcher classification, City staff can move one step closer to restructuring the Police Department’s Communications Division in Fiscal Year 2025-26, to offer improved and more efficient operations and functions.
These changes are in alignment with Goal One of the City’s Strategic Plan to “Enhance Public Safety.” A new Lead Dispatcher Class Specification provides Division personnel with better support. The Lead Dispatcher will be tasked with overseeing, training, and leading subordinate dispatchers in handling of calls for law enforcement and in other emergency assistance. The existing Dispatcher Class Specification is being amended to bring physical demand requirements to current standards.
Recommended Action: City Council adopt Resolution No. R2M2 5-7 entitled: A Resolution of the Alhambra City Council approving a Revised Comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alhambra and the Alhambra Police Dispatchers’ Association, an amended Class Specification for Dispatcher and a new Class Specification for Lead Dispatcher ; and, direct staff to undertake the steps necessary to finalize Council’s action. (M2M25-15)
8. CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) TO THE CESAR CHAVEZ FOUNDATION
FOR A PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT IN DOWNTOWN
ALHAMBRA – F2M19-39, R2M20-40, M2M25-16
In November 2020, the City Council approved a DDA with American Family Housing (AFH) to build a seven story 50 -unit affordable housing project (Mariposa Project) on a City - owned parcel currently used as a surface parking lot in the downtown district betwee n First and Second Streets, south of Main Street, immediately north of an AT&T Building.
From 2022 through 2024, the City Council approved an amendment clarifying the number of public parking spaces and five extensions to obtain all necessary construction funding including State of California Tax Credits. AFH did not receive tax credits and assigned the Mariposa Project to the Cesar Chavez Foundation (CCF). In October 2024, the City Council approved the proposed Assignment of the DDA to CCF. CCF is a 50 -year-old non-profit organization with eight affordable housing projects (434 units) in the San Gabriel Valley region either in development or under construction. CCF reviewed the Mariposa Project construction and development costs. To make the project more competitive with 2025 State funding opportunities, CCF is revising the project and proposing the Mariposa Project become a four -story building with approximately 36 large family units. The revisions to the project necessitate the restated DDA.
Recommended Action: City Council approve the amended and restated Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to the Cesar Chavez Foundation (CCF), subject to final language approval by the City Attorney and City Manager ; and, direct staff to
6 2-10-25
undertake the steps necessary to finalize the Council’s action, including, but not limited to the execution and recordation of all documents contemplated by the DDA. (M2M25-16)
9. NOTICE INVITING BIDS: ROOF REPLACEMENT AT ALHAMBRA FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION 74 – F2M24-36, N2M25-15
The roof at the Fire Department Station 74, located at 2505 W. Norwood Place, is over 20 years old. An emergency repair to the flat roof was done last year which consisted of cleaning and applying a polyurethane foam to seal. Water stains on the wall have been observed and there are also multiple broken tiles in the valleys of the roof. The recommendation is to remove the existing roof and underlayment, repa ir any damaged decking and replace with tile roofing . Specifications have been prepared and will be included in the advertised notice of inviting bids.
Recommended Action: City Council authorize staff to issue a Notice Inviting Bids to prospective contractors for roof replacement at the Alhambra Fire Department, Station 74, with bids due no later than 10:30 a.m. on March 13, 2025 and opened on 11:00 a.m. that same day; and , direct staff to undertake the steps nece ssary to finalize the Council’s action.
10. TREASURER’S REPORT – F2M25-1
Recommended Action: City Council receive and file as submitted the Treasurer's Report prepared by the Director of Finance for the month of December, 2024, listing all of the City's investments as of December 31, 2024.
11. MINUTES
Recommended Action: City Council review and approve as submitted the Minutes of the January 13, 2025 regular meeting of the City Council and the January 27, 2025 special meeting of the City Council.
12. PERSONNEL ACTIONS – F2M25-2
Recommended Action: City Council ratify the actions of the City Manager set forth in that certain Personnel Actions document dated February 10, 2025 showing the various appointments, classifications, salary changes, etc., since the last City Council meeting.
13. DEMANDS - F2M25-1
Recommended Action: City Council approve as submitted Final Check List ( 9300 thru 9313) in the amount of $735.00 for the period ending January 22, 2025; Final Check List (255661 thru 255790) in the amount of $680,222.08 for the period ending January 23, 2025 and Schedule of Wire Transfers in the amount of $1,887,955.88 for the week ending January 17, 2025 ; and, Final Check List ( 255970 thru 256135 ) in the amount of $1,238,893.31 for the period ending January 30, 2025 and Schedule of Wire Transfers in the amount of $7,431,333.02 for the week ending January 24, 2025.
7 2-10-25
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR NON -AGENDIZED ITEMS CONTINUED (TIME LIMITATION - 5
MINUTES PER SPEAKER)
Continuation of public comment for speakers that wish to comment on non-agendized items, but were unable to speak during the first public comment period . Please note that while the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the City Council cannot take action unless the matter appears as an item on a forthcoming agenda.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (ANNOUNCEMENTS & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS) F2M25-7
Each Councilmember at his/her discretion may address the Council and public on matters of general information and/or concern, including announcements and future agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Alhambra City Council is scheduled for Monday, February 24, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
N O T I C E
Agenda Items: Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to the items listed on this agenda are on file with the City Clerk in Alhambra City Hall, located at 111 South First Street, Alhambra, California, and are available for inspection during regular office hours, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m . or please call (626) 570 -5090. If you would like to sign -up to receive the City Council meeting agenda and staff reports packet, please visit the City’s website at www.cityofalhambra.org and you will be able to submit your email address on the homepage to the subscription service. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.5(b), materials related to agenda items for regular meetings of the Alhambra City Council that are distributed less than 72 hours prior to that meeting, will be made available for public inspection at the Alhambra City Clerk’s Office.
Broadcast of Meeting: A live video stream of each Council meeting is available throu gh the City’s website. The regular meetings of the Alhambra City Council are recorded and are broadcast on Charter Channels 3 and 182 at 7:30 p.m. on Thursdays and Mondays following the meeting.
Recordings are also available for viewing by the public on th e City of Alhambra’s website, at the Alhambra Public Library and, upon appointment, in the City Clerk’s Office.
Americans with Disabilities Act: If you require special assistance to participate in any City meeting (including assisted listening devices), please contact the City Clerk's Office at (626) 570 -5090.
Notification of at least 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Translation Services Requests: If you require translation services in order to participate in a meeting please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 570-5090. All requests for translation services shall be made by 4 p.m. the Thursday prior to the City Council meeting. If translation is not requested by 4 p.m. the Thursday prior to the City Council meeting, staff will try to accommodate the request if possible.
LAUREN MYLES, CMC
CITY CLERK
Item No. _____
1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
iCity of Alhambra True North Research, Inc. © 2025
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Year-to-Year Comparisons & Statistical Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Overall Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Changes to Improve Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Specific Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Differentiators of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Performance Needs & Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Strategic Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Customer Service & Local Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Contact with City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Assessment of City Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Perceptions of City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Satisfaction With Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Preferred Communication Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 City’s Website. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Attention Paid to Local Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Programming, Pre-Test & Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Data Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 List of Tables
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iii
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating City of Alhambra by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 2 Rating City of Alhambra by Years in Alhambra & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 3 Rating City of Alhambra by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 4 Rating City of Alhambra by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 5 Rating City of Alhambra by Council District & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Table 6 Changes to Improve City by Study Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Table 7 Importance of Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Table 8 Satisfaction With Services by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 9 Satisfaction With Services by Overall Satisfacti on With City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 10 Resident Service Needs & Priorities Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Table 11 Strategic Plan Priorities by Years in Alhambra & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 12 Strategic Plan Priorities by Ethnicity & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 13 Strategic Plan Priorities by Age & Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 14 Strategic Plan Priorities by Council & Child in Hsld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 15 Perception of City Staff by St udy Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 16 Agreement With Statements by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 17 Preferred Method of Communication by Overall Satisfaction, Satisfaction With Communication & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Table 18 Preferred Method of Communication by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Table 19 Demographics of Sample by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 List of Figures
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 iv
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Rating City of Alhambra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 2 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3 Overall Satisfaction by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 4 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Alhambra, Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 5 Overall Satisfaction by Age, Gender & Council District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction by Ethnicity & Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 7 Importance of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 8 Satisfaction With Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 9 Resident Service Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 10 Strategic Plan Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 11 Contact City Staff by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Figure 12 Contact City Staff by Years in Alhambra, Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld & Survey Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 13 Contact City Staff by Age, Gender & Council Di strict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 14 Contact City Staff by Overall Satisfaction , Ethnicity & Employment Status . . . . . . . 24 Figure 15 Perception of City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 16 Agreement With Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 17 Agreement With Statements by Overall Satisfac tion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 18 Agreement With Statements by Attentivene ss to City Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 19 Satisfaction With Communication by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Figure 20 Satisfaction With Communication by Years in Alhambra, Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld, Survey Language & Visited City Website in Past Year . . . . . . 29 Figure 21 Satisfaction With Communication by Age, Gender & Council District . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 22 Satisfaction With Communication by Overall Satisfaction, Ethnicity & Employment Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 23 Preferred Method of Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 24 Visited City Website in Past Year by Study Ye ar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 25 Visited City Website in Past Year by Years in Alhambra, Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld, Survey Language & Satisfaction With Communication. . . . . . 32 Figure 26 Visited City Website in Past Year by Age, Gender & Council District. . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 27 Visited City Website in Past Ye ar by Overall Satisfaction, Ethnicity & Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 28 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of Alhambra City Government by Study Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 29 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of Alhambra City Government by Years in Alhambra, Home Ownership Status, Child in Hsld, Survey Language & Satisfaction With Communication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 30 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of Alhambra City Government by Age, Gender & Council District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 31 Attentiveness to Issues, Decisions, Activities of Alhambra City Government by Overall Satisfaction, Ethnicity & Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Figure 32 Main Reason for not Being More Civically Engaged, Attending Public Meetings . . . 35 Figure 33 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 1
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I NTRODUCTION
The City of Alhambra is dedicated to responsive and creative leadership, quality services, ensur- ing desirable neighborhoods, and supporting th e local business environment while also being sensitive to the diversity of the community. Incorporated in 1903, the City is currently home to an estimated 79,798 residents and is one of the more racially and ethnically diverse cities in Southern California with a high percentage of both Asian and Hispanic residents. 1 As part of its commitment to provide high qua lity services and responsive local governance, the City of Alhambra engages its re sidents on a daily basis and rece ives regular feedback on issue, policy, and performance matters. Although thes e informal feedback mechanisms are a valuable source of information for the City in that they provide timely and accurate information about the opinions of specific residents, it is important to recognize that they do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the comm unity as a whole. For the most part, informal feedback mecha- nisms rely on the resident to initiate feedback, which creates a self-selection bias—the City receives feedback only from those residents wh o are motivated enough to initiate the feedback process. Because these residents tend to be either very pleased or very displeased with the ser- vice they have received, their collective opinions are not necessarily representative of the City’s resident population as a whole.
PURPOSE OF STUDY The motivation for the current st udy was to design and employ a methodology that would avoid the self-selection bias noted above and thereby provide the City with a statistically reliable understanding of its residents’ satisfaction, priorities, and concerns as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. Ultimately, the survey results and analyses presented in this report provide City Council and staff with information that can be used to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas including service improve- ments and enhancements, measuring and tracking internal performance, planning, budgeting, policymaking, and community engagement.
To assist in this effort, the City selected True North Research to design the research plan and conduct the study. Broadly defined, the study was designed to:
• Identify key issues of importance for residents, as well as their perceptions of the quality of life in Alhambra;
• Measure residents’ overall satisfaction with th e City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and their satisfaction with a variety of specific services; • Gather opinions on topics including public safety, affordable housing, parks and recreation, mobility, infrastructure, and sustainability to help inform Alhambra’s strategic priorities; • Determine satisfaction with the City’s commun ication with residents, along with preferred methods of communication and level of civic engagement; and • Collect additional background and demographic data that are relevant to understanding res- idents’ perceptions, needs, and interests.
1. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 Americ an Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.
Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 2City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY A full description of the methodology used for this study is included later in this report (see Methodology o n p a g e 3 7 ) . I n b r i e f , t h e s u r v e y w a s administered to a random sample of 635 adults who reside within the City of Alhambra. The sur- vey followed a mixed-method design that employed multiple recruiting methods (email, text, and phone) and multiple data collection methods (phone and online). Administered in English, Spanish, and Chinese between January 10 and January 18, 2025, the average interview lasted 18 minutes.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to me et the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.
For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It pro- vides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey in a Question & Answer for- mat. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-by-question discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents ), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and anal yzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 40), and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.
YEAR-TO-YEAR COMPARISONS & STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE This is not the first statistically reliable community survey conducted for the City of Alhambra. Similar studies were conducted by True North for the City in 2021 and 2022. Because of the interest in tracking the City’s performance over time, many figures an d tables in this report present the results of questions asked in 2025 alongside the results found in the most recent (2022) survey for identi- cal questions. In such cases, True North conduc ted the appropriate tests of statistical signifi- cance to identify changes that likely reflect actual changes in public opinion between the prior survey (2022) and the current survey (2025)—as opposed to being due to chance associated with independently selected samples. Differences be tween the two studies are identified as statisti- cally significant if we can be 95% confident that the differences reflect an actual change in public opinion between the two studies. Statistically si gnificant differences within response categories over time are denoted by the † symbol which a ppears in the figure next to the appropriate response value for 2025.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS True North thanks the City of Alhambra for the opportunity to conduct the study and for contributing valuable input during the design stage of this study. The collective experience, insight, and local knowledge provided by city representatives and staff improved the overall quality of the research presented here.
DISCLAIMER The statements and conclu sions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North and not necessarily those of the City of Alhambra. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.
ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and customers. Thro ugh designing and implementing scientific sur- veys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews, as well as expert interpretation of the findings, Introduction
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 3City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, per formance management, establishing fiscal pri- orities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns.
During their careers, Dr. McLarney (President) and Mr. Sarles (Principal Researcher) have designed and conducted over 1,500 survey research studies for public agencies—including more than 500 studies for California municipalities and special districts.
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 4
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City of Alhambra with a sta- tistically reliable understanding of its residents’ opinions, satisfaction, and priorities as they relate to services, facilities, and policies provided by the City. As such, the findings of this study can provide the City with inform ation needed to make sound, stra tegic decisions in a variety of areas including performance management, planning, establishing budget priorities, and commu- nity engagement.
Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we attempt to ‘see the forest through the trees’ and note how the survey results answer key questions that motivated th e research. The followin g conclusions are based on True North’s interpretations of the results, as well as the firm’s experience conducting similar studies for government agencies throughout the State.
How well is the City per-
forming in meeting the
needs of Alhambra resi-
dents?
Alhambra residents continue to be satisfied with the City’s efforts to pro- vide services, as well as the quality of life in their city. More than three- quarters (77%) of residents surveyed in 2025 indicated they were satis- fied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services (see Overall Satisfaction on page 11). Although overall satisfaction remained consistent with 2022, the intensity of satisfaction trended pos- itive during this period (+4% very satisfied).
The high level of satisfaction expr essed with the City’s performance in general was also mirrored in residents’ assessments of the City’s perfor- mance in providing most specific se rvices, with the highest satisfaction scores assigned to the City’s efforts to provide library services (94% very or somewhat satisfied), fire protec tion and emergency medical services (90%), recreation programs for all ag es (89%), local transportation ser- vices like Alhambra Community Transit and Alhambra Senior Ride (88%), and parks, recreation areas, and green spaces (87%) (see Specific Ser- vices on page 13).
For all but four (4) of the 18 service areas tested, the City is meeting or exceeding the needs and expectations of at least two-thirds of its resi- dents—and for the majority of service s the City is meeting the needs of at least eight-in-ten residents (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 18).
The City’s performance providing mu nicipal services has also contrib- uted to a high quality of life for residents. More than seven-in-ten resi- dents surveyed in 2025 provided exce llent or good ratings to Alhambra as a place to live (78%), the overall quality of life in the City (77%), and as a place to raise a family (71%). This sentiment was also widespread, with the percentage who rated the quality of life in Alhambra as excellent or good exceeding two-thirds across nearly all demographic subgroups (see Quality of Life on page 8).
Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 5City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How is the City per-
ceived with respect to
governance?
Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, as with other progressive cities Alhambra recognizes there is more to good local governance than simply providing satisfactory services. Do residents perceive that the City is responsive to their needs? Do resident s feel that staff serves their needs in a professional manner? How well do residents trust the City, and do they view the City as fiscally re sponsible? Answers to questions like these are as important as service or policy-related questions in measur- ing the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs.
Ratings for City of Alhambra staff were very positive. Among those who had interacted with staff during the 12 months prior to the survey, nine- in-ten rated staff as professional (94%), responsive (90%), and helpful (90%). Regarding perceptions of local government, the City was rated highest with regard to resident trust (81% of those with an opinion agreed with the statement ‘I trust the City of Alhambra’), managing its finances (70%), and being responsive to residents’ needs (68%). Addition- ally, residents who reported being ve ry attentive to the issues, decisions and activities of city government generally held the most positive assess- ments of the City with respect to fiscal responsibility, transparency, and responsiveness (see Customer Service & Local Governance on page 23).
Where should the City
focus its efforts in the
future?
In addition to measuring the City’s current performance, a goal of this study is to look forward and identify opportunit ies to adjust services and/or refine communications strate gies to best meet the community’s evolving needs and expectations. Although residents are generally satis- fied with the City’s performance, there is always room for improvement.
Below we note areas that present the best opportunities in this respect.
Considering respondents’ verbatim answers regarding what city govern- ment could do to make Alhambra a better place to live (see Changes to Improve Alhambra on page 9), the list of services and their respective priority status for future attention (see Performance Needs & Priorities on page 18), and the manner in which residents prioritize among poten- tial strategic goals (see Strategic Priorities on page 21), the topics of public safety, facilitating the development of affordable housing, manag- ing traffic congestion, improving sustainability, addressing homeless- ness, and maintaining and repairing city streets stood out as key areas of opportunity and interest for residents.
With the recommendation that the City focus on these areas, it is equally important to stress that when it come s to improving satisfaction in ser- vice areas, the appropriate strategy is often a combination of better com- munication and actual service improvements. It may be, for example, that many residents are simply not aware of the City’s current plans to facilitate affordable housing in Alhambra, or the limits of what a city can do to address homelessness. Choosi ng the appropriate balance of ser- Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 6City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vice improvements and efforts to ra ise awareness on these matters will be a key to maintaining and improving the community’s overall satisfac- tion in the short- and long-term.
It is also important to keep in mind that although these areas represent opportunities to improve resident satisfaction, the City should not over- steer. Indeed, the primary takeaway fr om this study is the vast majority of residents were pleased with the City’s efforts to provide services, pro- grams, and facilities and have a favo rable opinion of the City’s perfor- mance in most areas. The top priority for the City should thus be to do what it takes to maintain the high quality of services that it currently pro- vides.
What were the most
notable changes in the
survey results between
2022 and 2025?
The vast majority of assessments in 2025 remained consistent with the results of the most recent prior study (2022), including ratings of the overall quality of life in the City, th e City’s overall performance rating, city staff ratings, website use, perc eptions of city government, satisfac- tion with city-resident communication, as well as the importance and sat- isfaction ratings for the overwhelming majority of specific services.
Among specific services, statistically significant changes were found for the importance ratings assigned to ju st one (1) of the 17 services pre- sented to residents in both studies, and among two (2) of the services when assessing satisfaction. Specif ically, residents assigned a higher level of importance to preparing the City for emergencies (+8%) in 2025 and improvements in satisfaction we re recorded for addressing home- lessness (+9%) and providing recreation programs for all ages (+7%).
Additionally, it appears that the City has made strides in managing growth and development since the last survey. Cited as the number one way for city government to improve the quality of life in Alhambra in both the 2021 and 2022 surveys (top-of-mind for 22%-26% of respon- dents), limiting growth and developme nt dropped to the sixth most fre- quently mentioned response (7%) in 2025.
How well is the City com-
municating with Alham-
bra residents?
The importance of city communication with residents cannot be over- stated. Much of a city’s success is sh aped by the qualit y of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. Th is study is just one example of Alhambra’s efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the community’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Alhambra’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, its website, and social media posts.
Keeping up with the challenge of communicating with residents has been difficult for many public agencies in recent years. Against this backdrop of declining satisfaction with public agency communications in general, Key Findings
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 7City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
the survey results indicate that the City of Alhambra is doing a solid job communicating with its residents, and has kept its levels consistent since the first survey in 2021. Seven-in-ten residents (70%) said they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate through newslet- ters, the Internet, social media, and other means in 2025 and 65% of res- idents visited the City’s website over the past year. Residents also indicated that email, social media, and direct mail were their preferred methods of receiving city information in 2025 (see Communication on page 28).
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 8
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UALITY OF L IFE
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind per- ceptions about the quality of life in the City of Alhambra, as well as ideas on changes city govern- ment could implement to make the community a better place to live, now and in the future.
OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the survey, residents were asked to rate the City of Alhambra on a number of key dimensions including overall quality of life, as a place to raise a family, and as a place to work, using a fi ve-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, respondents generally shared favorable opinions of Alhambra as a place to live (78% excellent or good), the overall quality of life in the City (77%), as a place to raise a family (71%), and as a place to shop and dine (67%).
Opinions were more evenly split regarding Alhamb ra as a place to retire, with 54% saying it is excellent or good, 24% saying it is fair, and 11% ci ting it as poor or very poor, with another 11% unsure. Residents also provided mixed ratings for Alhambra as a place to work with 39% rating it excellent or good, 21% fair, 9% poor or very poor, and 31% unsure or unwilling to answer the question.
Table 1 displays the percentage of respondents who rated each dimension as excellent or good by study year, and shows that there were no statistically significant changes from 2022 to 2025.
Question 2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
FIGURE 1 RATING CITY OF ALHAMBRA
TABLE 1 RATING CITY OF ALHAMBRA BY STUDY YEAR
25.4 20.0
22.7 20.3
19.0 10.3
52.7 57.2
48.7 46.5
34.9 28.9
18.6 20.2
18.6 21.0
23.9 24.8
2 2
2 6.0
8.4 6.8
1 0
1 2
2 3
1 30.7
6.6 0
11.3 0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Alhambra as a place to live
The overall quality of life in Alhambra
Alhambra as a place to raise a family
Alhambra as a place to shop and dine
Alhambra as a place to retire
Alhambra as a place to work
Q2bQ2aQ2cQ2fQ2dQ2e
% Respondents
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor Not sure
2025 2022 2021
Alhambra as a place to retire 53.9 52.0 55.4 +1.9
Alhambra as a place to live 78.0 77.2 75.1 +0.8
Alhambra as a place to shop and dine 66.8 66.0 64.3 +0.8 The overall quality of life in Alhambra 77.1 76.7 78.6 +0.4 Alhambra as a place to work 39.1 38.7 37.4 +0.4
Alhambra as a place to raise a family 71.3 71.6 68.3 -0.3 Change in
% Excellent + Good
2022 to 2025
Study Year
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 9City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For the interested reader, tabl es 2-4 show how ratings of excellent or good for each dimension varied by years in Alhambra, the language in which the survey was administered, ethnicity, home ownership status, age, Council District, and presence of a child in the home.
TABLE 2 RATING CITY OF ALHAMBRA BY YEARS IN ALHAMBRA & SURVEY LANGUAGE TABLE 3 RATING CITY OF ALHAMBRA BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS TABLE 4 RATING CITY OF ALHAMBRA BY AGE
TABLE 5 RATING CITY OF ALHAMBRA BY COUNCIL DISTRICT & CHILD IN HSLD CHANGES TO IMPROVE ALHAMBRA The next question in this series asked residents to indicate the one thing that city government could change to make Alhambra a better place to live. Question 3 was presented in an open-ended manner, allowing residents to mention any aspect or attribute that came to mind without being prompted by, or restricted to, a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the cat- egories shown in Figure 2 on the next page.
Approximately one-in-five respondents could not think of a desired change (15%) or stated flatly that no changes are needed (7%). Among the specific changes desired to make Alhambra a better place to live, improving public safety/security was the most commonly mentioned (8%), followed by reducing traffic congestion (7%), improving maintenance and landscaping in Alhambra (7%), addressing parking issues (7%), and limiting growth and development (7%).
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Chinese Spanish Alhambra as a place to live 88.7 75.3 82.1 73.5 79.5 69.6 80.4 The overall quality of life in Alhambra 87.6 76.5 80.3 72.2 78.2 74.5 70.2 Alhambra as a place to raise a family 72.6 68.3 73.4 71.4 71.9 65.1 79.1 Alhambra as a place to shop and dine 75.1 66.0 69.9 62.8 64.7 77.3 67.6 Alhambra as a place to retire 50.7 54.4 57.8 54.0 52.4 60.8 55.2 Alhambra as a place to work 31.8 40.2 48.3 39.5 36.4 45.8 55.9 Years in Alhambra (Q1) Survey Language
Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Af Amer /
Black
Other /
Mixed Own Rent
Alhambra as a place to live 82.6 74.2 79.7 83.5 64.9 75.7 81.8 The overall quality of life in Alhambra 80.0 75.2 77.0 72.1 86.0 72.9 81.7 Alhambra as a place to raise a family 79.9 66.1 66.0 56.9 58.7 68.1 73.9 Alhambra as a place to shop and dine 61.2 74.5 58.4 57.4 72.7 62.3 70.4 Alhambra as a place to retire 55.1 56.6 33.7 48.9 57.0 54.6 53.3 Alhambra as a place to work 38.1 42.0 35.0 22.5 50.9 35.5 40.6 Ethnicity (QD6) Home Ownership
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Alhambra as a place to live 72.4 81.4 75.3 75.2 76.0 83.2 The overall quality of life in Alhambra 74.1 82.2 77.3 71.8 75.4 79.4 Alhambra as a place to raise a family 78.8 73.5 69.6 68.0 68.2 74.2 Alhambra as a place to shop and dine 69.3 71.4 65.4 55.7 59.0 75.8 Alhambra as a place to retire 54.4 51.7 48.1 36.8 51.3 71.4 Alhambra as a place to work 44.6 37.8 31.8 31.8 39.9 47.8 Age (QD1)
One Two Three Four Five Yes No
Alhambra as a place to live 79.6 75.6 81.4 72.2 81.4 80.2 78.5 The overall quality of life in Alhambra 77.9 73.1 81.6 74.4 78.7 78.2 77.6 Alhambra as a place to raise a family 71.4 67.7 71.0 73.9 72.7 79.0 69.6 Alhambra as a place to shop and dine 70.3 67.9 71.6 61.5 62.6 65.5 68.0 Alhambra as a place to retire 48.3 61.4 49.8 55.4 54.5 51.5 56.0 Alhambra as a place to work 36.2 37.3 38.8 44.1 39.3 43.8 38.3 Council District Child in Hsld (QD3)
Quality of Life
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 10City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other desired changes mentioned by at least 5% of respondents inclu ded enforcing traffic laws (6%), providing more shopping and upscale dining opportunities (6%), rent control (5%), and pro- viding more affordable housing (5%).
Question 3 If the city government could change one thing to make Alhambra a better place to live, what change would you like to see?
FIGURE 2 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY
Table 6 shows the top five responses to Question 3 by study year and reveals that, although the order shifted somewhat, four of the top five desired changes have remained consistent from 2022 to 2025. Improving city maintenance and landscaping (previously in seventh place) moved into the top group in 2025, replacing limiting growth and development (now tied for sixth).
TABLE 6 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY BY STUDY YEAR
15.4 8.1
7.2 7.0
6.9 6.8
6.8 6.4
6.4 5.2
4.4 3.5
3.4 3.3
3.1 2.7
2.7 2.4
2.3 2.0
1.7 1.6
5.4 4.2
0 5 10 15 20
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Improve public safety, security
No changes needed / Everything is okay
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve City maintenance, landscape
Address parking issues
Limit growth, development
Enforce traffic laws
Provide more shopping, upscale dining options
Rent control
Provide more affordable housing
Improve, provide more bike lanes, walking paths
Improve infrastructure, streets, roads
Improve, provide more community programs, activities
Address homeless issues
Improve Main Street (empty buildings, cleaner, more business) Improve, provide more rec facilities, parks
Provide more police officers, patrols
Improve public transportation
Improve City-resident communication, transparency
Improve schools, education
Reduce cost of living, utilities
Lower taxes, fees
Address water issues
% Respondents
2025 2022 2021
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Limit growth,
development
Limit growth,
development
Improve public
safety, security
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
Not sure / Cannot
think of anything
No changes needed
/ Everything is okay
Provide more
affordable housing
Reduce traffic
congestion
Reduce traffic
congestion
Improve public
safety, security
Improve
infrastructure,
streets, roads
Improve City
maintenance,
landscape
Reduce traffic
congestion
Provide more
affordable housing
Study Year
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 11
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C ITY S ERVICES
After measuring respondents’ perceptions of th e quality of life in Alhambra, the survey next turned to assessing their opinions about the City’s performance in providing various municipal services.
OVERALL SATISFACTION The first question in this seri es asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Alhambra is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent co nsider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.
As shown in Figure 3, more than three-quarters (77%) of Alhambra residents indicated they were either very (26%) or somewhat (51%) satisfied wi th the City’s efforts to provide municipal ser- vices. Approximately 19% were very or somewhat dissatisfied, whereas 5% were unsure or unwill- ing to share their opinion. Overall satisfaction with the City’s effort s to provide municipal services in 2025 tracked closely with the 2022 findings, with no statistically significant changes.
That said, the intensity of satisfaction increased (+4% very satisfied) over the past three years.
Question 4 Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Alhambra. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Alhambra is doing to provide city services?
FIGURE 3 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY STUDY YEAR
The next three figures display how residents’ op inions about the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services varied by a number of demographic characteri stics, with satisfac- tion ranging from a low of 68% to a high of 86% across subgroups. When compared to their respective counterparts, satisfaction was high est among residents who have lived in Alhambra less than 15 years, renters, those who took the survey in English or Spanish, residents under 45
22.2 23.2
54.8 52.4
13.5 13.1 12.2
5.0 3.9 4.7
5.3 7.0
25.7 50.9
4.3 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2025 2022 2021
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 12City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
years of age or 65 and older, male respondents, those in Council District 3, Caucasians, and self- employed residents.
FIGURE 4 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN ALHAMBRA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD & SURVEY
LANGUAGE
FIGURE 5 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY AGE, GENDER & COUNCIL DISTRICT
22.8 29.5 24.7 27.1 27.2 22.1 15.6
47.6 52.3
52.5 50.4 50.0
49.4 65.2
Ver y
satisfied
30.3 23.1
31.9 23.0
Smwt
satisfied
51.9 55.9
49.3 49.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Yes No English Chinese Spanish Years in Alhambra (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Child in Hsld (QD3) Survey Language
% Respondents
22.6 32.5 28.7 24.2
32.5 16.7
33.1 22.5 23.6
51.2 44.3 50.5
50.2 35.9 60.7
52.0 50.1
56.1 Ver y
satisfied
22.2 27.7 23.1 22.2
Smwt
satisfied
57.3 50.0 57.9
47.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Male Female One Two Three Four Five
Age (QD1) Gender (QD5) Council District
% Respondents
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 13City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS SPECIFIC SERVICES Whereas Question 4 addressed the City’s overall performance, the next two-question series asked resp ondents to rate the importance of specific services offered by the City, as well as their level of satisfaction with efforts to provi de these services. For each service, respondents were first asked if they th ought the service was extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important. Respondents were then asked about their satisfaction with these same services. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.
Figure 7 presents the services sorted in order of importance according to the percentage of respondents who rated a service as at least very important. In general, Alhambra residents rated public safety and public works as the most important service areas. More specifically, providing fire protection and emergency medical services (96% extremely or very important), preparing the City for emergencies (96%), maintaining and repairing city streets (94%), providing police and crime prevention services (90%), and providing pa rks, recreation areas, and green spaces (87%) received the highest overall importance ratings from residents.
At the other end of the spectrum, providing cultural and performing arts (53%), providing special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations (54%), and provid- ing bike lanes and walking paths (58%) were viewed as less important overall. It is also notewor- thy that although facilitating th e development of affordable ho using appears fourth from the bottom of the list, it was rated as extremely important by 43% of Alhambra residents.
As shown in Table 7 on the next page, there was a statistically significant increase in the impor- tance assigned to preparing the City for emergencies from 2022 to 2025 (+8%).
15.7 25.4 31.3 31.1
23.1 28.7
15.3 55.3
51.9 41.6
54.9 56.5 50.2
52.2 Ver y
satisfied
28.5 23.1
34.6 12.8
Smwt
satisfied
48.1 52.9
47.6 64.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Af Amer /
Black
Other /
Mixed
Full time Part time Self-
employed
Student Retired Other
Ethnicity (QD6) Employment Status (QD4)
% Respondents
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 14City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 5 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.
FIGURE 7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES
TABLE 7 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
73.4 72.0
59.7 66.7
52.2 53.6
55.5 44.1
51.6 42.6
35.7 41.0
39.3 35.1
43.3 26.6
26.0 24.6
23.0 23.9
34.2 23.1
35.0 31.2
29.2 40.5
32.9 41.3
40.4 34.0
34.8 34.6
24.7 31.5
27.7 28.5
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Providing fire protection and emergency medical services Preparing the City for emergencies
Maintaining and repairing city streets
Providing police and crime prevention services
Providing parks, recreation areas, and green spaces
Addressing homelessness
Managing traffic congestion in the City
Maintaining public landscapes, trees, and street medians Protecting the environment
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Promoting economic development for a healthy business community Providing library services
Providing local transportation services like Alhambra Community Transit, Alhambra Senior Ride
Providing recreation programs for all ages
Facilitating the development of affordable housing
Providing bike lanes and walking paths
Providing special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations
Providing cultural and performing arts
Q5bQ5cQ5eQ5aQ5pQ5lQ5dQ5gQ5oQ5fQ5jQ5qQ5rQ5hQ5mQ5nQ5kQ5i
% Respondents
Extremely important Very important
2025 2022 2021
Preparing the City for emergencies 95.9 88.0 90.0 +7.9† Promoting economic development for a healthy business community 76.1 73.3 76.1 +2.8 Maintaining public landscapes, trees, and street medians 84.6 81.8 79.5 +2.8 Maintaining and repairing city streets 93.9 91.3 92.9 +2.6 Providing parks, recreation areas, and green spaces 87.2 84.8 86.0 +2.5 Providing fire protection and emergency medical services 96.4 94.0 94.2 +2.5 Providing police and crime prevention services 89.8 88.5 87.8 +1.4 Addressing homelessness 84.8 83.7 81.4 +1.2
Protecting the environment 84.5 83.5 82.7 +1.0
Managing traffic congestion in the City 84.7 84.0 86.9 +0.6 Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 83.8 83.3 82.7 +0.6 Providing recreation programs for all ages 69.7 70.2 67.5 -0.4 Providing cultural and performing arts 53.1 54.7 54.3 -1.6 Providing special community events 53.6 55.3 47.8 -1.7
Providing bike lanes and walking paths 58.1 60.6 57.7 -2.5 Providing library services 75.0 77.6 73.9 -2.6
Facilitating the development of affordable housing 68.0 72.5 62.3 -4.5 Providing local transportation services like ACT, ASR 74.1 N/A N/A N/A Change in
% Excellent + Good
2022 to 2025
Study Year
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 15City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turning to the satisfaction component, Figure 8 sorts the same list of services according to the percentage of respondents who said they were either very or so mewhat satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service. For comparison pu rposes between the services, only respondents who held an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) are included in the figure. Those who did not have an opinion were removed from this analysis. The percentage of respondents who provided an opinion (satisfied or dissatisfied) is presented in brackets beside the service label in the figure, while the bars represent the answers of those with an opinion.
At the top of the list, respondents were most sa tisfied with the City’s efforts to provide library services (94% very or somewhat satisfied), follo wed by provide fire pr otection and emergency medical services (90%), provide recreation programs for all ages (89%), provide local transporta- tion services like Alhambra Community Transit and Alhambra Senior Ride (88%), and provide parks, recreation areas, and green spaces (87%) . At the other end of th e spectrum, respondents were somewhat less satisfied with the City’s efforts to facilitate the development of affordable housing (48%), manage traffic congestion (58%), and address homelessness (63%).
Question 6 For the same list of services I just read, please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service. Are you satisfied or diss atisfied with the City's efforts to: ____, or do you not have an opinion?
FIGURE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES
49.3 41.2
31.4 35.2
36.7 34.1
34.6 29.6
28.2 24.7
32.4 26.0
22.1 23.9
20.3 25.7
16.7 13.4
44.9 48.3
57.5 52.4
49.9 50.1
49.6 54.5
54.0 56.0
47.1 51.9
52.0 45.2
46.0 36.8
41.1 34.9
5.1 7.8
9.3 9.8
10.5 12.7
11.0 12.6
13.3 19.3
20.8 22.9
23.7 27.1
29.3 3.1
3.3 4.6
5.2 5.2
3.8 6.6
10.2 10.7
13.8 15.0
22.3 18.3
15.3 14.1
4.8 2.9
1.8 3
1 2.6
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Provide library services [88%]
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services [85%] Prov ide recreation programs for all ages [78%]
Provide local transportation services like ACT, ASR [77%] Provide parks, recreation areas, and green spaces [93%] Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive [94%] Provide special community events [81%]
Provide cultural and performing arts [75%]
Maintain public landscapes, trees, and street medians [95%] Protect the environment [79%]
Provide police and crime prevention services [89%]
Prepare the City for emergencies [74%]
Promote economic development for a healthy business community [73%] Maintain and repair city streets [95%]
Provide bike lanes and walking paths [81%]
Address homelessness [80%]
Manage traffic congestion in the City [93%]
Facilitate the development of affordable housing [73%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 16City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
When compared with the 2022 survey results (Table 8), two services experienced statistically sig- nificant increases in resident satisfaction—addressi ng homelessness (+9%) and providing recre- ation programs for all ages (+7%).
TABLE 8 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY STUDY YEAR
† Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
DIFFERENTIATORS OF OPINION For the interested reader, Table 9 on the next page displays how the level of satisfaction with ea ch specific service test ed in Question 6 varied according to residents’ overall performance ratings for the City (see Overall Satisfaction on page 11). The table divides residents who were satisfied with the City’s overall performance into one group and those dissatisfied into a second group. Also displayed is the difference between the two groups in terms of the percentage who indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide each service tested in Qu estion 6 (far right column). For convenience, the services are sorted by that difference, with the greatest differentiators of opinion near the top of the table.
When compared with their counterparts, those satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing city services were also more likely to express satisfaction with the City’s efforts to pro- vide each of the specific services tested in Question 6. With that said, the greatest specific differ- entiators of opinion between sati sfied and dissatisfied residents we re found with respect to the City’s efforts to maintain and repair city streets, prepare the City for emergencies, promote eco- nomic development for a healthy business commu nity, and provide police and crime prevention services.
At the other end of the spectrum, there was much less difference between the two resident groups regarding their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide library services and provide special community events like summer concerts in the park and holiday celebrations. 2025 2022 2021
Address homelessness 62.5 53.3 55.3 +9.2†
Provide recreation programs for all ages 88.9 81.7 81.0 +7.1† Provide bike lanes and walking paths 66.3 61.2 59.7 +5.1 Provide cultural and performing arts 84.1 79.8 75.0 +4.3 Protect the environment 80.7 76.5 70.9 +4.2
Maintain public landscapes, trees, and street medians 82.1 79.2 79.8 +2.9 Manage traffic congestion in the City 57.9 55.7 56.8 +2.2 Provide library services 94.2 94.2 92.4 +0.0
Provide special community events 84.2 83.3 75.6 +0.8
Provide police and crime prevention services 79.5 78.8 81.8 +0.7 Facilitate the development of affordable housing 48.3 48.0 54.1 +0.3 Provide parks, recreation areas, and green spaces 86.6 86.7 83.7 -0.0 Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 84.2 84.4 81.2 -0.2 Promote economic development for a healthy business community 74.1 74.5 72.8 -0.4 Prepare the City for emergencies 77.9 79.7 79.3 -1.8
Maintain and repair city streets 69.1 71.4 67.8 -2.3
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services 89.5 92.7 91.4 -3.2 Providing local transportation services like ACT, ASR 87.6 N/A N/A N/A Change in
Satisfaction 2022
to 2025
Study Year
City Services
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 17City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 9 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES BY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY Very or somewhat
satisfied
Very or somewhat
dissatisfied
Maintain and repair city streets 78.5 30.9 47.6
Prepare the City for emergencies 86.8 40.1 46.7
Promote economic development for a healthy business community 82.3 36.9 45.4 Provide police and crime prevention services 88.3 45.8 42.6 Manage traffic congestion in the City 64.8 26.7 38.1
Address homelessness 69.5 32.3 37.2
Providing local transportation services like ACT, ASR 92.6 59.7 32.9 Keep public buildings and facilities clean and attractive 90.5 57.8 32.7 Provide parks, recreation areas, and green spaces 92.5 60.0 32.5 Maintain public landscapes, trees, and street medians 88.1 56.4 31.7 Provide recreation programs for all ages 93.8 62.1 31.6 Provide cultural and performing arts 89.8 59.0 30.9
Provide fire protection and emergency medical services 95.2 65.1 30.1 Provide bike lanes and walking paths 71.8 42.2 29.6
Facilitate the development of affordable housing 53.8 24.6 29.2 Protect the environment 86.1 59.0 27.1
Provide special community events 88.7 66.7 22.0
Provide library services 96.3 85.5 10.8
Satisfaction With
City's Overall Performance (Q4) Difference Between
Groups For Each
Service
% Respondents Satisfied With Each Service
Performance Needs & Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 18
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P ERFORMANCE N EEDS & P RIORITIES
With a measure of the importance of a service to residents as well as a measure of satisfaction with the City’s efforts to prov ide the service, True North is able to examine the relationship between these two dimensions and identify areas where the City has the greatest opportunities to improve resident satisfaction—and identify fo r which services the City is meeting, and even exceeding, the majority of residents’ needs.
Rather than rely on averages to conduct this analysis, True North has developed an individual- ized approach to identifying priorities. This appr oach is built on the recognition that opinions will vary from resident to resident and that understanding this variation is required for assessing how well the City is meeting residents’ needs.2 Table 10 on the next page presents a grid based on the importance and satisfacti on scales. The horizontal ax is corresponds to the four impor- tance options, and the vertical sc ale corresponds to the four satisfaction options. The 16 cells within the grid are grouped into one of six categories based on how well the City is meeting, or not meeting, a resident’s needs for a particular service. The six groups are as follows:
Exceeding Needs The City is exceeding a respondent’s needs if a respondent is satisfied and the level of expressed satisfaction is higher than the importance that the respondent assigned to the service.
Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately meeting a re spondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied and the level of satisfaction is commensurate with the level of importance assigned to the service.
Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally meeting a respondent’s needs if the respondent is satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but their level of satisfaction is lower than the level of importance assigned to the service.
Not Meeting Needs,
Marginally
The City is marginally not meeting a respondent’s needs if the respon- dent is somewhat dissatisfied, but the service is also viewed as just somewhat or not at all important.
Not Meeting Needs,
Moderately
The City is moderately not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respon- dent is very dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide the service, but the service is viewed somewhat or not at all important, or B) a respon- dent is somewhat dissatisfied and the service is very important.
Not Meeting Needs,
Severely
The City is severely not meeting a respondent’s needs if A) a respondent is dissatisfied and the service is view ed as extremely important, or B) a respondent is very dissatisfied and the service is viewed as very impor- tant.
2. Any tool that relies on the opinions of the average respondent will provide a limited and occasionally dis- torted picture of how well an agency is performing. The simple fact is that a city is not comprised of average residents—it is comprised of unique individuals who vary substantially in their opinions of the City’s perfor- mance in different service areas. Thus, although the arithmetic average of these individuals’ opinions is a useful statistic, it does not capture the variation in opinions that occurs among residents, and it is this varia- tion that is critical for truly assessing how well the City is meeting the needs of its residents.
Performance Needs & Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 19City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 10 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS & PRIORITIES MATRIX
Using this framework, True North categorized respondents individually for each of the 18 ser- vices tested in the study. Thus, for example, a respondent who indicated that facilitating the development of affordable hous ing was somewhat important and they were very satisfied with the City’s efforts in this service area would be categorized in the exceeding needs group for this service. The same respondent may be grouped in the marginally not meeting needs group for another service (e.g., managing traffic congestion in the City) if they were somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to pr ovide the service, but the service was viewed as only somewhat important.
Figure 9 on the next page presents the 18 servic es tested, along with the percentage of respon- dents who were grouped into each of the six possible categories. For ease of interpretation, the color-coding in Figure 9 is consistent with that presented in Table 10. Thus, for example, in the service area of facilitating the development of affordable housing, the City is exceeding the needs of 4% of respondents, mo derately meeting the needs of 21% of respondents, marginally meeting the needs of 23% of respondents, marg inally not meeting the needs of 4% of respon- dents, moderately not meeting the needs of 10% of responde nts, and severely not meeting the needs of 37% of respondents.
As shown in the figure, the City is meeting the needs of at least three-quarters of residents for 12 of the 18 services tested. Operating from the management philosophy that, all other things being equal, the City should focus on improving those services that have the highest percentage of residents for which the City is currently not meeting their needs, the services have been sorted by order of priority. Thus, facilitating the develo pment of affordable housing is the top priority, followed by managing traffic congestion in th e City, addressing homelessness, providing bike lanes and walking paths, and maintaining and repairing city streets.
Not at all
important
Somewhat
important Very important
Extremely
important
Very satisfied Exceeding needs Exceeding needs Meeting needs, moderately
Meeting needs,
moderately
Somewhat satisfied Exceeding needs Meeting needs,
moderately
Meeting needs,
marginally
Meeting needs,
marginally
Somewhat dissatisfied Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs, marginally
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Very dissatisfied
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs,
moderately
Not meeting
needs, severely
Not meeting
needs, severely
Importance
Satisfaction
Performance Needs & Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 20City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 9 RESIDENT SERVICE NEEDS
5 0
6 5
3 13
5 13
4 4
2 0
4 1
12 3
4 4
57 42
39 44
40 45
36 41
32 28
33 28
30 24
29 28
20 21
32 48
44 39
44 27
43 30
47 49
45 50
41 44
26 31
34 23
2 5
2 2
4 2
3 5
5 5
4 6
4 6
8 6
9 7
8 10
7 7
9 7
11 13
14 16
14 22
20 28
32 37
0 2
4 0
2 2
4 1
2 4
2 3
3 2
2 3
8 6
3 8
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Providing library services
Providing fire protection and emergency medical services Providing recreation programs for all ages
Providing local transportation services like ACT, ASR
Providing parks, recreation areas, and green spaces
Providing special community events
Keeping public buildings and facilities clean and attractive Providing cultural and performing arts
Maintaining public landscapes, trees, and street medians Protecting the environment
Providing police and crime prevention services
Preparing the City for emergencies
Promoting economic development
Maintaining and repairing city streets
Providing bike lanes and walking paths
Addressing homelessness
Managing traffic congestion in the city
Facilitating the development of affordable housing
% Respondents who Provided Opinion
Exceeding needs
Meeting needs
mo de rately
Meeting needs
marginallyNot m eeting needs
marginallyNot m eeting needs
mo de rately
Not m eeting needs
severely
Strategic Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 21
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S TRATEGIC P RIORITIES
The City of Alhambra is in the process of updating its Strategic Plan, which will guide the City's future decisions on a variety of topics that affect the quality of life in the City including economic development, public safety, parks and recreation , and transportation. To help inform the Strate- gic Plan, the 2025 survey included a question series examining proposed priorities for the future of Alhambra.
The format of Question 7 was straightforward: respondents were asked whether each project shown in Figure 10 should be a high, medium, or low priority for Alhambra to accomplish in the next year. To encourage a sense of competition, respondents were instructed that not all of the projects could be high priorities. The projects are sorted from high to low in the figure based on the percentage of respondents who indicated that a project was at least a medium priority.
Question 7 The City of Alhambra is in the process of updating its Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan will guide the City's future decisions on a variety of topics that affect the quality of life in the city and set priorities for the next year. As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the item should be a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for Alhambra to accomplish in the next year. If you feel the item should not be a priority, just say so.
Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.
FIGURE 10 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES
55.8 71.6
59.0 54.6
47.2 37.9
42.5 34.2
48.7 31.5
25.6 16.7
35.5 18.7
28.6 29.5
36.5 43.6
36.7 39.4
21.8 38.7
37.9 32.1
0 1 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0
Improve the maintenance of City streets, parks, facilities and infrastructure
Improve public safety incl police, fire protection, response times, emergency services
Reduce traffic and increase safe mobility options throughout the City for driving, walking, running, and biking
Move toward a sustainable environment to protect resources and reduce waste, pollution, and emissions
Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial areas and address empty storefronts throughout the city Improve residents’ access to city services using technology and the internet
Increase the City’s engagement and communication with the community
Increase the amount of green space throughout the City
Facilitate development of more affordable housing for low-income families
Protect historic resources, preserve places with unique cultural, social, architectural value
Expand recreation opportunities for residents of all ages Improve the network of bike lanes, which may require adjustments to select roads incl removal of a vehicle lane or parking spaces Q7jQ7fQ7eQ7gQ7bQ7hQ7iQ7cQ7aQ7kQ7dQ7l
% Respondents
High priority Medium priority
Strategic Priorities
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 22City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Among the projects tested, improving the maintenance of city streets, parks, facilities, and infra- structure was viewed as the highest priority (91% high or medium priori ty), followed by improv- ing public safety including police, fire protection, response times, and emergency services (90%), and reducing traffic and increasi ng safe mobility options throughout the city for driving, walk- ing, running, and biking (88%). At the other en d of the spectrum, improving the network of bike lanes, which may require adjustments to select roads including the removal of a vehicle lane or parking spaces was a lowest priority overall (49%). Although facilitating the development of more affordable housing for low-income families ranked fourth from last in Figure 10, it is important to point out that nearly half (49%) of all residents viewed it as a high priority.
For the interested reader, tables 11 through 14 show how the percentage of respondents that assigned high priority status to the projects varied across subgroups of residents. For ease of comparison, the top three ratings within each subgroup are highlighted green.
TABLE 11 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY YEARS IN ALHAMBRA & SURVEY LANGUAGE TABLE 12 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY ETHNICITY & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS TABLE 13 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY AGE & OVERALL SATISFACTION TABLE 14 STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITIES BY COUNCIL & CHILD IN HSLD Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more English Chinese Spanish Improve public safety incl police, fire protection, response times, emergency services 63.1 69.8 71.8 75.7 68.4 81.1 87.2 Reduce traffic and increase safe mobility options throughout the City for driving, walking, running, and biking 57.9 47.3 58.4 63.4 60.6 46.7 68.3 Improve the maintenance of City streets, parks, facilities and infrastructure 52.0 51.2 46.0 61.6 57.0 40.7 76.6 Move toward a sustainable environment to protect resources and reduce waste, pollution, and emissions 65.3 56.0 40.3 54.3 54.0 50.0 72 .3 Facilitate development of more affordable housing for low-income families 50.3 55.1 60.9 42.6 50.8 34.4 56.5 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial areas, address empty storefronts throughout city 50.5 46.3 45.1 46.6 48.9 33.5 58.6 Increase the City’s engagement and communication with the community 37.5 40.3 45.1 44.5 42.6 34.8 59.5 Improve residents’ access to city services using technology and the internet 40.1 39.3 30.9 38.4 37.9 33.1 49.6 Increase the amount of green space throughout the City 41.8 33.4 26.6 33.5 35.1 23.3 48.6 Protect historic resources, preserve places with unique cultural, social, architectural value 39.5 30.7 26.1 29.8 34.3 12.3 42.3 Expand recreation opportunities for residents of all ages 19.1 26.4 33.8 25.4 24.8 20.3 46.7 Improve network of bike lanes, which may require adj to select roads incl removal of a vehicle lane, parking spaces 25.3 8.8 22.6 1 4.0 17.7 7.3 26.4 Years in Alhambra (Q1) Survey Language
Latino/
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian /
White
Af Amer /
Black
Other /
Mixed Own Rent
Improve public safety incl police, fire protection, response times, emergency services 71.8 74.2 62.9 65.1 50.7 75.4 68.6 Reduce traffic and increase safe mobility options throughout the City for driving, walking, running, and biking 68.2 53.6 37.8 69.1 41.1 62.7 57.5 Improve the maintenance of City streets, parks, facilities and infrastructure 64.5 49.7 47.4 61.0 32.3 60.2 52.7 Move toward a sustainable environment to protect resources and reduce waste, pollution, and emissions 56.3 54.2 53.4 60.6 20.0 47.8 59 .4 Facilitate development of more affordable housing for low-income families 55.2 41.5 50.4 70.9 49.0 27.7 63.6 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial areas, address empty storefronts throughout city 53.7 40.4 59.4 54.6 12.3 50.1 45.7 Increase the City’s engagement and communication with the community 52.7 35.6 25.2 60.4 21.2 40.3 44.1 Improve residents’ access to city services using technology and the internet 43.3 35.9 16.3 41.8 41.1 29.9 41.9 Increase the amount of green space throughout the City 39.2 28.8 36.5 46.0 27.3 37.9 33.0 Protect historic resources, preserve places with unique cultural, social, architectural value 40.2 23.4 35.3 28.5 21.2 25.9 35.0 Expand recreation opportunities for residents of all ages 30.3 22.3 15.6 34.4 27.3 21.9 28.3 Improve network of bike lanes, which may require adj to select roads incl removal of a vehicle lane, parking spaces 20.1 13.6 13.6 25.5 20.0 11.7 21.0 Ethnicity (QD6) Home Ownership
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Satisfied Dissatisfied Improve public safety incl police, fire protection, response times, emergency services 68.4 54.6 73.2 69.9 85.9 79.0 71.7 70.6 Reduce traffic and increase safe mobility options throughout the City for driving, walking, running, and biking 47.5 61.8 56.4 50.3 57.5 66.7 58.9 62.3 Improve the maintenance of City streets, parks, facilities and infrastructure 46.5 49.3 57.8 61.6 59.3 55.2 56.2 56.9 Move toward a sustainable environment to protect resources and reduce waste, pollution, and emissions 71.3 59.6 50.8 51.6 42.1 56.7 59 .8 35.0 Facilitate development of more affordable housing for low-income families 69.9 60.3 50.4 46.7 38.6 37.1 53.1 30.9 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial areas, address empty storefronts throughout city 15.6 53.7 53.8 50.5 55.4 41.1 47.7 46.1 I n c r e a s e t h e C i t y ’ s e n g a g e m e n t a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h t h e c o m m u n i t y 3 7 . 63 7 . 13 8 . 94 3 . 64 5 . 34 5 . 94 3 . 93 7 . 4 Improve residents’ access to city services using technology and the internet 49.4 43.8 35.3 31.8 44.4 32.1 40.0 29.8 Increase the amount of green space throughout the City 27.8 42.7 40.1 34.4 30.2 28.0 34.2 36.3 P r o t e c t h i s t o r i c r e s o u r c e s , p r e s e r v e p l a c e s w i t h u n i q u e c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l , a r c h i t e c t u r a l v a l u e 2 1 . 03 5 . 83 4 . 03 3 . 33 7 . 52 6 . 63 2 . 32 8 . 5 Expand recreation opportunities for residents of all ages 27.0 24.7 31.2 29.3 29.7 18.8 27.1 19.8 Improve network of bike lanes, which may require adj to select roads incl removal of a vehicle lane, parking spaces 12.0 25.3 18.8 17.9 17.7 10.3 18.7 10.6 Age (QD1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
One Two Three Four Five Yes No
Improve public safety incl police, fire protection, response times, emergency services 69.3 77.1 70.0 68.6 73.1 73.1 70.4 Reduce traffic and increase safe mobility options throughout the City for driving, walking, running, and biking 56.4 63.7 56.5 55.3 63.1 56.5 59.7 Improve the maintenance of City streets, parks, facilities and infrastructure 49.9 54.5 51.8 57.6 65.2 57.5 55.2 Move toward a sustainable environment to protect resources and reduce waste, pollution, and emissions 53.0 60.2 51.8 52.7 55.3 50.6 56 .8 Facilitate development of more affordable housing for low-income families 53.5 43.7 59.4 42.4 44.5 49.5 49.0 Work with property owners to revitalize older, outdated commercial areas, address empty storefronts throughout city 54.4 42.7 44.5 44.6 49.9 57.8 44.6 Increase the City’s engagement and communication with the community 40.9 49.2 39.1 38.5 45.1 43.9 41.9 Improve residents’ access to city services using technology and the internet 41.8 43.3 37.4 34.3 32.8 43.7 35.8 Increase the amount of green space throughout the City 37.4 34.3 28.9 28.2 42.4 36.6 33.8 Protect historic resources, preserve places with unique cultural, social, architectural value 32.8 28.8 27.6 30.2 38.0 32.5 31.7 Expand recreation opportunities for residents of all ages 26.5 24.5 27.7 26.0 23.2 35.8 23.4 Improve network of bike lanes, which may require adj to select roads incl removal of a vehicle lane, parking spaces 19.7 17.7 15.6 11.2 19.5 16.3 17.4 Council District Child in Hsld (QD3)
Customer Service & Local Governance
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 23
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C USTOMER S ERVICE & L OCAL
G OVERNANCE
Although much of the survey focused on residents’ satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide specific services, Alhambra—like other progressi ve cities—recognizes there is more to good local governance than simply providing satisfacto ry services. Do residents perceive that the City is responsive to their needs? Do residents feel that staff serves their needs in a professional man- ner? How well do residents trust the City, and do they view the City as fiscally responsible? Answers to questions like these are as importan t as service-related questions in measuring the City’s performance in meeting residents’ needs. Accordingly, they were the focus of the next section of the interview.
CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF Residents were first asked if they had been in contact with City of Alhambra staff in the past 12 months. Figure 11 provides the findings of this question and shows that 39% of residents had contact with staff in the year prior to the interview, which was consistent with the percentage recorded in 2022 and 2021.
Question 8 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of Alhambra staff? FIGURE 11 CONTACT CITY STAFF BY STUDY YEAR
When compared with their respecti ve counterparts, residents dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance, those of Caucasian or African Amer ican/Black ethnicities, residents who are self- employed, home owners, those with at least one child in the home, residents at least 25 years of age, and new (less than five years) and longtime (15+ years) residents were the most likely to report having contact with city staff in the past year (see figures 12-14 on next page).
36.0 37.8
57.9 56.7
4.1 4.6 4.3
38.6 56.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2021
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
No contact
with staff in
past 12
months
Yes, co ntact
with staff in
past 12
months
Customer Service & Local Governance
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 24City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 12 CONTACT CITY STAFF BY YEARS IN ALHAMBRA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD & SURVEY
LANGUAGE
FIGURE 13 CONTACT CITY STAFF BY AGE, GENDER & COUNCIL DISTRICT FIGURE 14 CONTACT CITY STAFF BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS
45.5 36.5
45.3 36.5 38.5 39.7 37.0
40.7 35.6
30.9 40.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Yes No English Chinese Spanish Years in Alhambra (Q1) Home Ownership Status
(QD2)
Child in Hsld (QD3) Survey Language
% Respondents That Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months
39.1 43.4
37.6 39.9 41.0
36.1 39.2
33.8 43.0
17.3 37.1 37.3
41.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Male Female One Two Three Four Five
Age (QD1) Gender (QD5) Council District
% Respondents That Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months
56.2 54.1
12.3 39.2 41.3
49.8 0.0
42.5 33.034.7
39.4 58.3
35.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 Satisfied Dissatisfied Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Af Amer /
Black
Other /
Mixed
Full time Part time Self-
em ployed
Student Retired Other
Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Ethnicity (QD6) Employment Status (QD4)
% Respondents That Interacted With
City Staff in Past 12 Months
Customer Service & Local Governance
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 25City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ASSESSMENT OF CITY STAFF Respondents who had contact with city staff in the past 12 months were subsequently asked to rate city staff on three dimensions: professionalism, helpful- ness, and responsiveness. As displayed in Figure 15, Alhambra residents rated staff high on all three dimensions tested, with nine-in-ten residents rating staff as very or somewhat professional (94%), responsive (90%), and helpful (90%). Ta ble 15 shows the percentage of residents (among those who had interacted with city staff and provided an opinion) who rated staff as very profes- sional, helpful, and responsive by study year . Ratings remained consistent from 2022 to 2025 (see Table 15).
Question 9 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____.
FIGURE 15 PERCEPTION OF CITY STAFF
TABLE 15 PERCEPTION OF CITY STAFF BY STUDY YEAR
PERCEPTIONS OF CITY GOVERNMENT The final question in this series was designed to profile respondents’ perceptions of city government on a variety of dimensions, including fis- cal responsibility and transparency. For each of the five statements shown along the bottom of Figure 16 on the next page, respondents were as ked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement, or if they had no opinion. The per centages shown in the colored bars are among those who provided an opinion, and the percentage who provided an opinion is shown in brack- ets following the dimension label.
Eight-in-ten respondents (81%) with an opinion said they trust the City of Alhambra and seven-in- ten (70%) agreed that the City manages its fina nces well. Approximately two-thirds agreed that the City is responsive to residents’ needs (68%). Respondents were somewhat less in agreement that the City listens to residents when making important decisions (63%) and is transparent in
45.1 48.0
45.1 41.8
5.9 9.8 10.1
57.9 36.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Professional Responsive Helpful
Q9 Perception of City Staff …
% Respondents Who Interacted With City Staff
in Past 12 Months and Provided Opinion
Not at all
Som ewhat
Very
2025 2022 2021
Responsive 90.2 89.3 87.6 +1.0
H e l p f u l 8 9 . 99 0 . 08 4 . 0 -0.2
Professional 94.1 95.2 90.5 -1.1
Change in
% Very or Smwt
2022 to 2025
Study Year
Customer Service & Local Governance
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 26City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
how it operates (63%). The 2025 study results tracked very closely with the 2022 survey, with no statistically significant changes (see Table 16).
Question 10 Next, I'm going to read you a series of statements about the City of Alhambra. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or di sagree with the statement. Here is the (first/ next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? FIGURE 16 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS
TABLE 16 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY STUDY YEAR
As one might expect, perceptions of city governme nt were strongly related to resident satisfac- tion with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services. Those who were gener- ally satisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services were much more likely to agree with each of th e statements tested in Question 10 (see Figure 17 on the next page).
25.4 20.8 19.3 18.1 17.6
56.0 49.6 48.6 45.2 44.9
20.6 24.0 23.6
12.8 13.9
18.7 12.9
11.45.8 10.9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
I trust the City of
Alhambra [86%]
The City manage s
its finances well
[52%]
The City is
responsive to
residents’ needs
[75%]
The City is
transparent in how
it operates [67%]
The City listens to
residents when
making impo rtant
decisions [64%]
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Strongly
agree
Som ewhat
disagree
Som ewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
2025 2022
I trust the City of Alhambra 81.4 77.8 +3.6
The City is transparent in how it operates 63.3 61.3 +2.0 The City is responsive to residents’ needs 68.0 67.7 +0.3 The City manages its finances well 70.4 70.4 -0.0
The City listens to residents when making important decisions 62.5 65.9 -3.4 Study Year Change in
% Strongly or Smwt
2022 to 2025
Customer Service & Local Governance
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 27City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 17 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY OVERALL SATISFACTION Figure 18 shows agreement with ea ch statement by respondents’ level of attention paid to the issues, decisions, and activities of the Alhambra city government. Notably, trust in the City of Alhambra was relatively consistent by respondent s’ reported level of attention paid to city gov- ernment (81% to 83%). However, agreement with each of the four other statements was higher among those who reported being very attentive to city governme nt, with the widest gaps evi- denced for fiscal responsibility (76% agreement among those very attentive vs. 64% slightly or not at all attentive) and transparency (70% vs. 59%).
FIGURE 18 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY ATTENTIVENESS TO CITY GOVERNMENT 91 42
85 24
80 24
75 25
78 17
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
and Agree With Statement
I trust the City of
Alhambra
The City manage s its
finances well
The City is
responsive to
residents’ needs
The City is
transparent in how it
operates
The City listens to
residents when
making impo rtant
decisions
81 81 83
76 72
64 71
66 6970
64 59
68 60
63 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Very Smwt Slight, not at all
Attentiveness to City Government (Q14)
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
and Agree With Statement
I trust the City of
Alhambra
The City manage s its
finances well
The City is
responsive to
residents’ needs
The City is
transparent in how it
operates
The City listens to
residents when
making impo rtant
decisions
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 28
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C OMMUNICATION
The importance of a City’s communication with its residents cannot be overstated. Much of a city’s success is shaped by the quality of information that is exchanged in both directions, from the City to the community and from the community to the City. This study is just one example of Alhambra’ efforts to enhance the information flow to the City to better understand the commu- nity’s concerns, perceptions, and needs. Some of Alhambra’s many efforts to communicate with its residents include its newsletters, timely press releases, and its website. The following section presents the results of several communication-related questions.
SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION Question 11 asked Alhambra residents to report their satisfaction with city-resident communication. Overall, 70% of respondents in 2025 indicated they were satisfied with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents through news- letters, the Internet, social media, and other me ans. The remaining respondents were either dis- satisfied with the City’s efforts in this respect (20%) or unsure of their opinion or declined to state (10%). Satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents was statistical con- sistent from 2022 to 2025.
Question 11 Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the City's efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? FIGURE 19 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY STUDY YEAR The next three figures display how satisfaction with the City’s efforts to communicate with resi- dents varied across a number of demographic subgroups. Satisfaction with the City’s communi- cation efforts was widespread, with the vast majority of nearly all subgroups indicating they were satisfied. As one might expect, residents dissati sfied with the City’s overall performance also tended to be less satisfied with the City’s communication efforts when compared with those sat- isfied with the City (37% vs. 79%).
23.1 19.4
50.1 50.9
15.1 14.8 14.1
5.3 5.0 5.3
6.7 8.9
22.5 47.2
8.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2025 2022 2021
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not sure
Very
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
dissatisfied
Som ewhat
satisfied
Very satisfied
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 29City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 20 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY YEARS IN ALHAMBRA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD,
SURVEY LANGUAGE & VISITED CITY WEBSITE IN PAST YEAR
FIGURE 21 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY AGE, GENDER & COUNCIL DISTRICT FIGURE 22 SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT STATUS
16.4 27.5 25.5 21.8 24.2 19.7
9.8 23.7 20.3
48.4 46.5 50.1
47.1 45.7 50.7
57.1 48.1 47.2
Ver y
satisfied
28.5 25.1 24.2 18.7
Smwt
satisfied
47.2 40.8
55.9 47.0
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or
mo re
Own Rent Yes No English Chinese Spanish Yes,
visited
website
Did not
visit
website
Years in Alhambra (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Child in Hsld (QD3) Survey Language Visited City Website in Past Yr (Q13)
% Respondents
17.2 17.5
25.2 20.8 25.4 19.2 25.1 23.6 19.4
53.7 51.0
46.3 49.1 37.9 54.5 43.8 48.1 52.0
16.422.1
32.6 Ver y
satisfied
31.4 49.6
48.0 40.3
Smwt
satisfied
44.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Male Female One Two Three Four Five
Age (QD1) Gender (QD5) Council District
% Respondents
20.3 23.5 25.3 31.9
16.5 20.5 16.5 24.3
41.8 47.0
61.5 41.9
44.5 68.5 57.1
54.1 47.5
18.9 27.7
7.0 Ver y
satisfied
27.2 52.741.8
30.3 Smwt
satisfied
51.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Af Amer /
Black
Other /
Mixed
Full time Part time Self-
employed
Student Retired Other
Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Ethnicity (QD6) Employment Status (QD4)
% Respondents
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 30City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PREFERRED COMMUNICATION METHOD Alhambra residents were next asked to identify their preferred way of receiving City of Alhambra information. As shown in Figure 23, email (21%) was the most preferred method, follo wed closely by social media (19%) and direct mail (19%). Other methods cited by at least 9% of re sidents included text messages (13%), elec- tronic newsletters (11%), and the City’s website (9%).
Question 12 What is your preferred way to receive City of Alhambra information? FIGURE 23 PREFERRED METHOD OF COMMUNICATION
For the interested reader, tables 17 and 18 sh ow how the percentage of respondents that pre- ferred each communication method varied across subgroups of residents. For ease of compari- son, the top three choices within each subgroup are highlighted green.
TABLE 17 PREFERRED METHOD OF COMMUNICATION BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, SATISFACTION WITH
COMMUNICATION & SURVEY LANGUAGE
20.9 19.1
19.0 13.2
10.8 9.3
2.9 1.8
1.6 0.7
0.8 0 5 10 15 20 25
Email
Social media like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and
Nextdoor
Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to my home
Text messages
Electronic newsletter
City’s website
Not sure
Local news media
Other
Prefer not to answer
Townhall meetings
% Respondents
Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dis-satisfied English Chinese Spanish E m a i l 2 0 . 82 0 . 31 7 . 62 7 . 41 9 . 73 2 . 6 7 . 4 S o c i a l m e d i a 2 0 . 61 0 . 62 0 . 41 6 . 22 1 . 2 8 . 9 1 7 . 5 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to home 18.9 21.4 19.5 19.5 19.4 15.1 23.6 Text messages 11.7 20.7 15.0 10.3 12.5 13.5 21.3
Electronic newsletter 10.7 11.6 10.5 10.8 11.2 11.8 3.9 City’s website 10.7 4.7 10.5 7.1 9.2 11.3 5.8
Not sure 2.3 3.3 2.0 1.6 3.2 1.6 2.5
Local news media 2.1 0.9 2.2 1.1 0.7 3.7 10.4
O t h e r 1 . 62 . 11 . 71 . 61 . 60 . 54 . 9
Prefer not to answer 0.1 2.7 0.5 1.6 0.5 1.1 2.5
Townhall meetings 0.4 1.8 0.0 2.7 0.8 0.0 0.0
Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Satisfaction With
Communication (Q11) Survey Language
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 31City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 18 PREFERRED METHOD OF COMMUNICATION BY AGE
CITY’S WEBSITE The next question of the survey asked if, in the 12 months prior to the interview, the respondent had visited the City of Alhambra’s website. Approximately two-thirds (65%) of residents surveyed in 2025 indicated that they had visited the site during this period.
Although higher than the 60% recorded in both 2021 and 2022, the increase fell short of statisti- cal significance (Figure 24).
Question 13 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City of Alhambra's website? FIGURE 24 VISITED CITY WEBSITE IN PAST YEAR BY STUDY YEAR Figures 25 through 27 display how use of the City’s website varied across demographic sub- groups. Those most likely to have visited the we bsite in the past 12 months were residents with a child in the home, home owners, respondents who took the survey in English or Spanish, those generally dissatisfied with the City’s communication efforts, residents 25 to 64 years of age, res- idents of Council District 1, 3, and 5, and re spondents employed part-time. Additionally, a con- sistent positive correlation exists between leng th of residence and w ebsite visitation (lowest among newer residents and gradually increasing with resident tenure). 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older E m a i l 1 6 . 41 9 . 11 9 . 41 9 . 31 9 . 32 5 . 2
S o c i a l m e d i a 2 9 . 42 7 . 92 5 . 91 9 . 6 8 . 6 8 . 1 Postcards, letters and newsletters mailed to home 23.1 10.8 17.4 10.6 17.1 32.5 Text messages 12.3 17.2 9.6 20.0 18.4 6.3
Electronic newsletter 8.7 7.8 8.4 12.6 17.9 10.9
City’s website 5.8 7.8 9.8 9.6 11.9 9.3
Not sure 0.0 6.9 4.2 3.7 1.4 0.0
Local news media 0.0 0.7 1.3 1.3 0.7 4.8
Other 2.1 1.0 3.4 2.4 0.0 1.4
Prefer not to answer 2.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0
Townhall meetings 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.4
Age (QD1)
60.3 60.1
36.5 34.8
3.6 3.2 5.1
64.7 31.7
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
2025 2022 2021
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Not sure /
Prefer not to
answerDid not visit
City website
in past year
Visited City
website in
past year
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 32City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 25 VISITED CITY WEBSITE IN PAST YEAR BY YEARS IN ALHAMBRA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD,
SURVEY LANGUAGE & SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION
FIGURE 26 VISITED CITY WEBSITE IN PAST YEAR BY AGE, GENDER & COUNCIL DISTRICT FIGURE 27 VISITED CITY WEBSITE IN PAST YEAR BY OVERALL SATISFACTION, ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT
73.3 61.5
77.1 61.7
66.5 53.5
70.0 66.6
71.7 59.1 60.7 63.8
68.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Yes No English Chinese Spanish Satisfied Dissatisfied Years in Alhambra (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Child in Hsld (QD3) Survey Language Satisfaction With
Communication
(Q11)
% Respondents Who Visited City
Website in Past Year
69.2 58.3
64.7 65.9 67.9
57.5 66.8
60.4 71.070.571.768.5
42.1 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Male Female One Two Three Four Five
Age (QD1) Gender (QD5) Council District
% Respondents Who Visited City
Website in Past Year
68.3 66.6
57.5 66.9
75.7 66.4
31.7 63.3
68.5 62.466.664.866.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Satisfied Dissatisfied Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Af Amer /
Black
Other /
Mixed
Full time Part time Self-
employed
Student Retired Other
Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Ethnicity (QD6) Employment Status (QD4)
% Respondents Who Visited City
Website in Past Year
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 33City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ATTENTION PAID TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT The next question in this section asked respondents to rate how attentive they are to the issues, decisions, and activities of the Alham- bra city government using a scale of very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive. Overall, 18% of respondents said they are very attentive to matters of city govern- ment, 41% somewhat attentive, and 28% slightly attentive (statistically lower than 2022). Another 11% of respondents confided that they do not pay any attention to the activities of their city gov- ernment, and 2% declined to state (see Figure 28).
Although the percentage of residents who reported being at least somewhat attentive to matters of city government was higher in 2025 than 2022 (+5%), the magnitude of the change was not statistically significant. For the interested reader, figures 29 to 31 display how attentiveness to local government differed across a variety of demographic subgroups.
Question 14 How much attention do you pay to the is sues, decisions and activities of the Alhambra City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
FIGURE 28 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF ALHAMBRA CITY GOVERNMENT BY STUDY YEAR † Statistically significant change (p < 0.05) between the 2022 and 2025 studies.
14.5 38.8
35.0 11.0 10.2
1.5 17.6
40.7 28.3†
2.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
2025 2022
Study Y ear
% Respondents
Prefer not to
answer
Not at all
attentive
Slightly
attentive
Som ewhat
attentive
Very
attentive
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 34City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 29 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF ALHAMBRA CITY GOVERNMENT BY YEARS IN
ALHAMBRA, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS, CHILD IN HSLD, SURVEY LANGUAGE & SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION FIGURE 30 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF ALHAMBRA CITY GOVERNMENT BY AGE, GENDER &
COUNCIL DISTRICT
17.2 17.9 23.7
15.7 19.0
8.7 20.8 19.8 15.8
46.2 37.6
39.3 41.9 37.8 54.4
42.9 42.6
39.1 17.117.017.5
Very
attentive
19.4 45.4
37.535.8
Smwt
attentive
35.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 or more Own Rent Yes No English Chinese Spanish Satisfied Dissatisfied Years in Alhambra (Q1) Home Ownership
Status (QD2)
Child in Hsld (QD3) Survey Language Satisfaction With
Communi c ati on (Q11)
% Respondents
13.5 20.8 19.3 16.7
23.0 18.6 12.9 13.1
20.1 46.3
42.9 36.4 44.0 34.7 45.9
43.8 35.9
43.2 Ver y
attentive
6.8 21.3 15.4 19.8
Smwt
attentive
37.6 32.8
37.8 41.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Male Female One Two Three Four Five
Age (QD1) Gender (QD5) Council District
% Respondents
Communication
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 35City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FIGURE 31 ATTENTIVENESS TO ISSUES, DECISIONS, ACTIVITIES OF ALHAMBRA CITY GOVERNMENT BY OVERALL
SATISFACTION, ETHNICITY & EMPLOYMENT
Respondents who indicated that they are not very attentive to matters of Alhambra city govern- ment were next asked to reveal what they considered the main reason keeping them from being more civically engaged and attending public meetings. As shown in Figure 32, being too busy/ not having enough time was the main barrier to engagement repo rted by this subgroup (30%), followed by a need for more information before feeling comfortable to contribute/engage (16%), work schedule conflicts (13%), and lack of interest (12%).
Question 15 What would you say is the main reason keeping you from being more civically engaged and attending public meetings?
FIGURE 32 MAIN REASON FOR NOT BEING MORE CIVICALLY ENGAGED, ATTENDING PUBLIC MEETINGS
16.7 10.1 9.5
17.3 27.0
14.2 3.2
17.1 21.5
41.8 57.6
41.3 41.2
34.3 34.3
32.4 47.1 40.9
11.8 24.820.9
Very
attentive
17.7 47.0
32.438.7
Smwt
attentive
41.5 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Satisfied Dissatisfied Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
Caucasian
/ White
Af Amer /
Black
Other /
Mixed
F ul l ti me Part ti me S el f-
employed
Student Retired Other
Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Ethnicity (QD6) Employment Status (QD4)
% Respondents
30.0 15.9
13.2 11.9
7.5 7.1
4.2 2.5
2.0 1.6
1.2 0.5
0.2 1.7
0.8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Too busy/not enough time
Need more information before I can contribute/engage
Conflicts with work schedule
Not interested in attending city meetings
Other
I’m satisfied with City/No need to attend meetings
I don’t trust the City/City isn’t transparent
Not sure
Language barrier
Prefer not to answer
Information isn’t easy to understand
Lack of technology/I can’t attend virtual meetings
I have difficulty attending in person/physical mobility issue
Lack of childcare
Lack of transportation/cost of transportation
% Respondents Who Are Not Very Attentive to City Government (Q14) Background & Demographics
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 36
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS
TABLE 19 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE BY STUDY YEAR
Table 19 presents the key demographic informa-
tion collected during the survey by study year.
Although the primary motivation for collecting
the background and demographic information
was to provide a better insight into how the
results of the substantiv e questions of the sur-
vey vary by demographic characteristics, it was
also a means to ensure that the resulting sample
matched the profile of Alhambra’s adult resident
population on key characteristics within each
study year.
2025 2022 2021
Total Respondents 635 662 718
Years in City of Alhambra (Q1)
Less than 5 21.2 20.3 16.3
5 to 9 14.7 16.3 15.8
10 to 14 14.0 10.5 11.5
15 or more 49.5 51.8 56.1
Prefer not to answer 0.6 1.0 0.3
Age (QD1)
18 to 24 7.6 7.7 12.3
25 to 34 22.0 23.2 17.9
35 to 44 15.2 18.8 12.7
45 to 54 16.4 12.4 15.2
55 to 64 11.6 14.9 14.5
65 or more 23.2 19.5 19.9
Prefer not to answer 3.9 3.4 7.4
Home Ownership Status (QD2)
Own 37.3 39.9 47.8
Rent 55.0 53.6 49.6
Prefer not to answer 7.6 6.5 2.5
Child in Hsld (QD3)
Yes 22.2 24.6 23.7
No 73.2 72.8 75.8
Prefer not to answer 4.6 2.6 0.6
Employment Status (QD4)
Full time 50.6 53.0 45.9
Part time 7.8 8.7 6.6
Self-employed 8.7 7.1 6.5
Student 5.2 3.8 5.4
Retired 19.5 20.7 22.7
Other 3.8 2.3 7.0
Prefer not to answer 4.4 4.4 5.9
Gender (QD5)
Male 47.4 50.6 50.7
Female 48.4 46.4 48.8
Non-binary 1.9 1.6 0.4
Prefer not to answer 2.3 1.4 0.1
Ethnicity (QD6)
Latino / Hispanic 42.5 39.9 30.4
Asian American 45.7 44.7 52.3
Caucasian / White 6.9 9.3 8.2
African American / Black 3.1 3.1 2.5
Other / Mixed 1.3 2.8 3.5
Prefer not to answer 0.5 0.2 3.1
Survey Language
English 78.1 77.4 78.1
Chinese 15.2 16.7 14.2
Spanish 6.6 5.9 7.7
Study Year
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 37
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.
QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Alhambra to develop a question naire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement erro r, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effect s, scaling effects, and priming. Several ques- tions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a sys- tematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.
Some questions asked in this study were presen ted only to a subset of respondents. For exam- ple, only respondents in contact with city sta ff in the past 12 months (Question 8) were asked about their experiences with staff (Question 9). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 40) identifies the skip patterns used during the survey to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.
PROGRAMMING, PRE-TEST & TRANSLATION Prior to fielding the survey, the ques- tionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interview- ers when conducting the phone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question it ems, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen duri ng the interview. The survey was also pro- grammed into a passcode-pr otected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey. The final ques- tionnaire was also professionally translated into Spanish and Chinese to allow for data collection in English, Spanish, and Chinese according to the preference of the respondent.
SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of house- holds in the City of Alhambra was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in the city had the opportunity to participat e in the survey. Once selected at random, cont act information was appended to each record including email ad dresses and telephone numbers for adult resi- dents. Individuals were subseq uently recruited to participate in the survey through multiple recruiting methods. Using a combination of email and text invitations, sampled residents were initially invited to participate in the survey online at a secure, pa sscode-protected website designed and hosted by True North. Each indi vidual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Alhambra residents who received an in vitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one t ime per passcode. An email reminder notice was also sent to encourage particip ation among those who had yet to take the survey. Following a period of online data collection, True North began placing telephone calls to land lines and cell phone numbers of sampled residents that had yet to participate in the online survey or for whom only telephone contact information was available.
Phone interviews averaged 18 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 8PM). It is standard practice not to call during the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 38City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
hours would bias the sample. A total of 635 completed surveys (503 English, 90 Chinese, and 42 Spanish) were gathered online and by phone between January 10 and January 18, 2025.
MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to esti- mate the opinions of all adult residents in the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 635 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 67,957 adult residents3 had been interviewed.
Figure 33 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the al ternative response. For this survey, the maxi- mum margin of error is ± 3.9% for questions answered by all 635 respondents.
FIGURE 33 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to ce rtain questions varied by demo- graphic characteristics such as length of residence and age of th e respondent. Figure 33 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.
3. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 Americ an Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.
Sam ple of 635
Adult Residents
± 3.9%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Methodology
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 39City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATA PROCESSING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsis- tencies, coding and recoding responses, catego rizing verbatim responses, and preparing fre- quency analyses and cross-tabu lations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample according to Census estimates. Where appropriat e, tests of statistical significance were con- ducted to evaluate whether a change in responses between the 2025 study and most recent prior survey was due to an actual change in opinions or was more likely an artifact of independently drawn, cross-sectional samples.
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole num- ber, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.
These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and tables. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when co mparing tables and figures for a given question.
Due to rounding, some narrative includes numbers that add to more than or less than 100%.
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 40
City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES
Copyright © 2025 True North Research, Inc. Page 1
City of Alhambra
Community Satisfaction Survey
Final Toplines (n=635)
January 2025
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____? Hi, my name is _____ and Im calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Alhambra (Al-HAM-bra). Were conducting a survey about important issues in Alhambra and we would like to get your opinions.
If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. Im NOT trying to sell anything and I wont ask for a donation.
If needed: The survey should take about 14 minutes to complete.
If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If needed: Your responses to the survey will be confidential.
Section 2: Quality of Life
To begin, Id like to ask you a few questions about what it is like to live in Alhambra.
Q1 How long have you lived in the City of Alhambra?
1 Less than 1 year 4%
2 1 to 4 years 18%
3 5 to 9 years 15%
4 10 to 14 years 14%
5 15 years or longer 49%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q2 How would you rate: _____? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? Always ask A first, then randomize B-F
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Not Sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The overall quality of life in Alhambra 20% 57% 20% 2% 0% 0% 0% B Alhambra as a place to live 25% 53% 19% 2% 1% 0% 0%
C Alhambra as a place to raise a family 23% 49% 19% 2% 1% 6% 0% D Alhambra as a place to retire 19% 35% 24% 8% 3% 11% 0% E Alhambra as a place to work 10% 29% 21% 7% 2% 29% 2%
F Alhambra as a place to shop and dine 20% 46% 25% 6% 2% 1% 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 41City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 2
Q3
If the city government could change one thing to make Alhambra a better place to live, what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 15%
Improve public safety, security 8%
Limit growth, development 7%
Reduce traffic congestion 7%
Improve City maintenance, landscape 7%
Address parking issues 7%
No changes needed / Everything is okay 7%
Provide more shopping, upscale dining
options 6%
Enforce traffic laws 6%
Provide more affordable housing 5%
Rent control 5%
Improve infrastructure, streets, roads 4%
Improve, provide more bike lanes, walking
paths 4%
Improve public transportation 3%
Improve, provide more rec facilities, parks 3%
Improve, provide more community
programs, activities 3%
Address homeless issues 3%
Improve Main Street (empty buildings,
cleaner, more business) 3%
Provide more police officers, patrols 3%
Improve City-resident communication,
transparency 2%
Improve schools, education 2%
Lower taxes, fees 2%
Reduce cost of living, utilities 2%
Address water issues 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 42City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 3
Section 3: City Services
Next, I would like to ask a series of questions about services provided by the City of Alhambra.
Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Alhambra is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 26%
2 Somewhat satisfied 51%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 14%
4 Very dissatisfied 5%
98 Not sure 4%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q5 For each of the services I read, please tell me whether the service is extremely important to you, very important, somewhat important, or not at all important.
Randomize.
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not at all
Important
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Providing police and crime prevention
services 67% 23% 6% 2% 1% 1%
B Providing fire protection and emergency
medical services 73% 23% 2% 1% 1% 0%
C Preparing the City for emergencies 72% 24% 3% 0% 1% 0% D Managing traffic congestion in the city 55% 29% 13% 1% 1% 0% E Maintaining and repairing city streets 60% 34% 4% 1% 0% 1% F Keeping public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 43% 41% 15% 1% 1% 0%
G Maintaining public landscapes, trees, and
street medians 44% 41% 13% 2% 1% 0%
H Providing recreation programs for all ages 35% 35% 24% 5% 2% 0% I Providing cultural and performing arts 25% 28% 34% 11% 2% 0% J Promoting economic development for a
healthy business community 36% 40% 20% 2% 1% 0%
K
Providing special community events like
summer concerts in the park and holiday
celebrations
26% 28% 35% 9% 2% 0%
L Addressing homelessness 54% 31% 10% 3% 1% 1%
M Facilitating the development of affordable
housing 43% 25% 18% 10% 2% 2%
N Providing bike lanes and walking paths 27% 31% 30% 11% 1% 0% O Protecting the environment 52% 33% 11% 3% 1% 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 43City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 4
P Providing parks, recreation areas, and
green spaces 52% 35% 10% 2% 1% 0%
Q Providing library services 41% 34% 22% 3% 1% 0%
R
Providing local transportation services like
Alhambra Community Transit and Alhambra
Senior Ride
39% 35% 22% 3% 1% 0%
Q6
For the same list of services I just read, please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City is doing to provide the service.
Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to: _____, or do you not have an opinion? Get answer. If satisfied or dissatisfied, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? Randomize.
Very
Satisfied
Somewhat
Satisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Provide police and crime prevention
services 29% 42% 14% 5% 10% 1%
B Provide fire protection and emergency
medical services 35% 41% 7% 2% 14% 1%
C Prepare the City for emergencies 19% 39% 14% 3% 24% 2% D Manage traffic congestion in the city 16% 38% 25% 14% 5% 2% E Maintain and repair city streets 23% 43% 20% 10% 4% 1% F Keep public buildings and facilities clean
and attractive 32% 47% 12% 3% 5% 1%
G Maintain public landscapes, trees, and
street medians 27% 51% 13% 4% 4% 1%
H Provide recreation programs for all ages 25% 45% 7% 1% 20% 2% I Provide cultural and performing arts 22% 41% 10% 3% 20% 5% J Promote economic development for a
healthy business community 16% 38% 14% 5% 24% 3%
K
Provide special community events like
summer concerts in the park and holiday
celebrations
28% 40% 9% 4% 16% 2%
L Address homelessness 21% 29% 19% 11% 18% 2%
M Facilitate the development of affordable
housing 10% 26% 21% 16% 22% 4%
N Provide bike lanes and walking paths 16% 37% 19% 9% 16% 3% O Protect the environment 19% 44% 11% 4% 19% 2%
P Provide parks, recreation areas, and green
spaces 34% 47% 10% 3% 5% 2%
Q Provide library services 43% 39% 4% 1% 11% 2%
R
Providing local transportation services like
Alhambra Community Transit and Alhambra
Senior Ride
27% 40% 8% 2% 20% 3%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 44City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 5
Section 4: Strategic Priorities
The City of Alhambra is in the process of updating its Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan will guide the Citys future decisions on a variety of topics that affect the quality of life in the city and set priorities for the next year.
Q7
As I read each of the following items, please indicate whether you think the item should be a high priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for Alhambra to accomplish in the next year. If you feel the item should not be a priority, just say so. Please keep in mind that not all of the items can be high priorities.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Should this be a high, medium or low priority to accomplish in the next year or should it not be a priority? Randomize
High
Priority
Medium
Priority
Low
Priority
Should
not be a
priority
Not Sure
Prefer
not to
answer
A
Facilitate the development of more
affordable housing for low-income
families
49% 22% 14% 11% 4% 1%
B
Work with property owners to revitalize
older, outdated commercial areas and
address empty storefronts throughout the
city
47% 36% 12% 2% 2% 0%
C Increase the amount of green space
throughout the city 34% 39% 20% 5% 1% 0%
D Expand recreation opportunities for
residents of all ages 26% 38% 30% 5% 2% 0%
E
Reduce traffic and increase safe mobility
options throughout the city for driving,
walking, running, and biking
59% 29% 10% 1% 1% 0%
F
Improve public safety including police, fire
protection, response times, and emergency
services.
72% 19% 6% 2% 2% 0%
G
Move toward a sustainable environment
to protect resources and reduce waste,
pollution, and emissions
55% 30% 11% 4% 1% 0%
H Improve residents access to city services
using technology and the internet 38% 44% 14% 2% 2% 0%
I Increase the Citys engagement and
communication with the community 43% 37% 15% 3% 2% 0%
J Improve the maintenance of City streets,
parks, facilities and infrastructure 56% 35% 7% 1% 1% 1% K
Protect historic resources and preserve
places with unique cultural, social, and
architectural value
31% 39% 23% 5% 2% 0%
L
Improve the network of bike lanes, which
may require adjustments to select roads
including the removal of a vehicle lane or
parking spaces.
17% 32% 32% 17% 2% 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 45City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 6
Section 5: Customer Service & Local Governance
Q8 In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with City of Alhambra staff? 1 Yes 39% Ask Q9
2 No 56% Skip to Q10
98 Not sure 4% Skip to Q10
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q10
Q9 In your opinion, is the staff at the City very _____, somewhat _____, or not at all _____. (Read one item at a time, continue until all items are read).
Randomize
Very
Somewhat
Not at all
Not sure
Prefer not
to answer
A Helpful 46% 40% 10% 2% 2%
B Professional 56% 35% 6% 2% 2%
C Responsive 43% 43% 9% 1% 3%
Q10
Next, Im going to read you a series of statements about the City of Alhambra. For each, Id like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.
Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A The City is responsive to residents needs 14% 36% 15% 9% 24% 1% B The City manages its finances well 11% 26% 10% 6% 45% 3% C The City listens to residents when making
important decisions 11% 29% 15% 9% 35% 1%
D I trust the City of Alhambra 22% 48% 11% 5% 13% 1%
E The City is transparent in how it operates 12% 30% 16% 9% 32% 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 46City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 7
Section 6: Communication
Q11
Overall, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the Citys efforts to communicate with residents through newsletters, the Internet, social media, and other means? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 23%
2 Somewhat satisfied 47%
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 15%
4 Very dissatisfied 5%
98 Not sure 9%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q12 What is your preferred way to receive City of Alhambra information? 1 Social media like Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter and Nextdoor 19%
2 Citys website 9%
3 Electronic newsletter 11%
4 Postcards, letters and newsletters
mailed to my home 19%
5 Email 21%
6 Text messages 13%
7 Local news media 2%
8 Townhall meetings 1%
9 Other 2%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Q13 In the past 12 months, have you visited the City of Alhambras website? 1 Yes 65%
2 No 32%
98 Not sure 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q14
How much attention do you pay to the issues, decisions and activities of the Alhambra City government? Would you say that you are very attentive, somewhat attentive, slightly attentive, or not at all attentive?
1 Very attentive 18% Skip to D1
2 Somewhat attentive 41% Ask Q15
3 Slightly attentive 28% Ask Q15
4 Not at all attentive 11% Ask Q15
99 Prefer not to answer 2% Skip to D1
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 47City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 8
Q15 What would you say is the main reason keeping you from being more civically engaged and attending public meetings?
1 Im satisfied with City/No need to
attend meetings 7%
2 Too busy/not enough time 30%
3 Not interested in attending city
meetings 12%
4 Lack of transportation/cost of
transportation 0%
5 Lack of childcare 0%
6 Conflicts with work schedule 13%
7 I dont trust the City/City isnt
transparent 4%
8 Information isnt easy to understand 2%
9 Need more information before I can
contribute/engage 16%
10 Lack of technology/I cant attend
virtual meetings 1%
11 Language barrier 2%
12 I have difficulty attending in
person/physical mobility issue 1%
13 Other 7%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Section 10: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.
D1 In what year were you born? Year recoded into age categories shown below. 18 to 24 8%
25 to 34 22%
35 to 44 15%
45 to 54 16%
55 to 64 12%
65 or older 23%
Prefer not to answer 4%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 48City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 9
D2 Do you own or rent your residence in Alhambra?
1 Own 37%
2 Rent 55%
99 Prefer not to answer 8%
D3 Do you currently have any children under the age of 18 living in your home? 1 Yes 22%
2 No 73%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D4
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, self-employed, a student, a homemaker, retired, or are you currently laid-off or furloughed from work?
1 Employed full-time 51%
2 Employed part-time 8%
3 Self-employed 9%
4 Student 5%
5 Homemaker 2%
6 Retired 20%
7 Laid off or furloughed 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 4%
D5 What is your gender?
1 Male 47%
2 Female 48%
3 Non-binary 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 49City of Alhambra
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City of Alhambra Community Survey January 2025
True North Research, Inc. © 2025 Page 10
D6 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Latino/Hispanic 43%
2 Asian American -- Korean, Japanese,
Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino or other
Asian
46%
3 Caucasian/White 7%
4 African-American/Black 3%
5 American Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
6 Pacific Islander 1%
7 Middle Eastern <1%
8 Mixed Heritage <1%
98 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 1%
Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Alhambra.
Post-Interview & Sample Items
S1 Survey Language
English 78%
Chinese 15%
Spanish 7%
S2 Council District
One 20%
Two 20%
Three 20%
Four 20%
Five 20%