| 901 |
Brawley · Public Strong demand
|
Imperial |
393 |
1,863 |
12
|
32 |
36.8% |
23.9% |
10.2 |
1.0 |
125 |
46 |
| 902 |
Modesto · Public Demand hides churn
|
Stanislaus |
488 |
2,083 |
12
|
42 |
28.1% |
28.1% |
7.6 |
1.6 |
203 |
57 |
| 903 |
Firebaugh · Public Weak at the gate
|
Fresno |
163 |
673 |
12
|
48 |
24.4% |
42.1% |
7.4 |
— |
78 |
19 |
| 904 |
Menifee · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
549 |
2,487 |
12
|
40 |
28.8% |
40.6% |
10.9 |
1.5 |
222 |
64 |
| 905 |
Arvin · Public Best in class
|
Kern |
627 |
2,653 |
12
|
39 |
30.0% |
16.4% |
8.4 |
1.6 |
243 |
73 |
| 906 |
San Jacinto · Public Both ends slipping
|
Riverside |
524 |
2,388 |
12
|
44 |
26.4% |
31.1% |
10.9 |
1.9 |
231 |
61 |
| 907 |
Soledad · Public Demand problem
|
Monterey |
387 |
1,546 |
12
|
43 |
26.8% |
26.7% |
7.5 |
1.3 |
168 |
45 |
| 908 |
Orange · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
439 |
1,795 |
12
|
57 |
20.2% |
35.3% |
8.9 |
1.4 |
252 |
51 |
| 909 |
Modesto · Public Holding share
|
Stanislaus |
413 |
1,609 |
12
|
39 |
29.6% |
27.1% |
8.0 |
0.7 |
162 |
48 |
| 910 |
Salinas · Public Strong demand
|
Monterey |
526 |
2,106 |
12
|
48 |
24.0% |
14.8% |
7.8 |
2.1 |
254 |
61 |
| 911 |
Riverside · Public Tracking
|
Riverside |
449 |
1,920 |
12
|
42 |
27.5% |
19.2% |
10.0 |
1.6 |
189 |
52 |
| 912 |
Greenfield · Public Strong demand
|
Monterey |
285 |
1,274 |
12
|
56 |
20.8% |
12.1% |
8.4 |
— |
159 |
33 |
| 913 |
Yuba City · Public Demand hides churn
|
Sutter |
415 |
1,678 |
12
|
39 |
29.6% |
29.2% |
6.8 |
1.7 |
162 |
48 |
| 914 |
Redwood City · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
52 |
224 |
12
|
40 |
28.6% |
— |
— |
— |
21 |
6 |
| 915 |
Albany · Private
|
Alameda |
52 |
160 |
12
|
108 |
10.7% |
— |
5.8 |
— |
56 |
6 |
| 916 |
Indio · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
417 |
1,650 |
12
|
32 |
36.1% |
31.2% |
9.6 |
0.7 |
133 |
48 |
| 917 |
Bakersfield · Public Both ends slipping
|
Kern |
469 |
2,107 |
12
|
60 |
19.1% |
22.2% |
8.7 |
1.3 |
282 |
54 |
| 918 |
Lompoc · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
409 |
1,593 |
11
|
45 |
25.7% |
12.8% |
9.1 |
2.0 |
183 |
47 |
| 919 |
Lower Lake · Public Watch — engagement
|
Lake |
174 |
966 |
11
|
34 |
33.9% |
20.0% |
5.8 |
— |
59 |
20 |
| 920 |
San Rafael · Public Strong demand
|
Marin |
367 |
1,332 |
11
|
74 |
15.4% |
38.1% |
7.9 |
3.3 |
273 |
42 |
| 921 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
Ventura |
70 |
221 |
11
|
89 |
12.9% |
— |
4.3 |
— |
62 |
8 |
| 922 |
El Segundo · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
132 |
536 |
11
|
87 |
13.0% |
— |
7.6 |
— |
115 |
15 |
| 923 |
Bishop · Public Strong demand
|
Inyo |
141 |
608 |
11
|
39 |
29.1% |
18.8% |
8.5 |
— |
55 |
16 |
| 924 |
Anaheim · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
592 |
2,326 |
11
|
56 |
20.2% |
23.9% |
10.1 |
1.0 |
331 |
67 |
| 925 |
Redlands · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
433 |
1,845 |
11
|
49 |
22.9% |
26.5% |
10.4 |
1.6 |
214 |
49 |
| 926 |
Dinuba · Public Best in class
|
Tulare |
434 |
2,115 |
11
|
35 |
32.5% |
6.1% |
6.9 |
0.7 |
151 |
49 |
| 927 |
Concord · Public Compounding decline
|
Contra Costa |
275 |
1,137 |
11
|
43 |
26.5% |
45.2% |
7.3 |
2.9 |
117 |
31 |
| 928 |
Spring Valley · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
417 |
1,539 |
11
|
51 |
22.0% |
21.3% |
9.8 |
2.4 |
214 |
47 |
| 929 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
Sacramento |
321 |
1,417 |
11
|
55 |
20.2% |
27.8% |
4.7 |
— |
178 |
36 |
| 930 |
Colton · Public Material decline
|
San Bernardino |
448 |
1,729 |
11
|
55 |
20.3% |
16.0% |
9.4 |
1.1 |
246 |
50 |
| 931 |
Ceres · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
512 |
2,317 |
11
|
43 |
26.1% |
24.6% |
8.0 |
1.8 |
218 |
57 |
| 932 |
Oakley · Public Demand problem
|
Contra Costa |
602 |
2,460 |
11
|
44 |
25.5% |
37.3% |
7.0 |
1.5 |
263 |
67 |
| 933 |
Fresno · Public Compounding decline
|
Fresno |
342 |
1,867 |
11
|
33 |
33.9% |
7.9% |
8.5 |
2.0 |
112 |
38 |
| 934 |
Santa Ana · Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
72 |
288 |
11
|
72 |
15.4% |
— |
11.1 |
— |
52 |
8 |
| 935 |
Lakeside · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
36 |
164 |
11
|
17 |
66.7% |
75.0% |
— |
— |
6 |
4 |
| 936 |
Delano · Public Sharp downturn
|
Kern |
316 |
1,221 |
11
|
38 |
29.4% |
11.4% |
9.2 |
0.9 |
119 |
35 |
| 937 |
Riverside · Public
|
Riverside |
379 |
1,804 |
11
|
48 |
23.1% |
9.5% |
11.1 |
2.6 |
182 |
42 |
| 938 |
Fresno · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
509 |
2,095 |
11
|
36 |
30.9% |
17.9% |
8.1 |
1.4 |
181 |
56 |
| 939 |
Norwalk · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
491 |
2,075 |
11
|
64 |
17.2% |
18.5% |
10.4 |
0.6 |
314 |
54 |
| 940 |
Yuba City · Public Both ends slipping
|
Sutter |
391 |
1,695 |
11
|
47 |
23.2% |
20.9% |
6.7 |
1.8 |
185 |
43 |
| 941 |
Vallejo · Public Both ends slipping
|
Solano |
337 |
1,418 |
11
|
45 |
24.7% |
24.3% |
7.1 |
2.1 |
150 |
37 |
| 942 |
Hollywood · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
155 |
703 |
11
|
52 |
21.0% |
— |
6.5 |
— |
81 |
17 |
| 943 |
Orangevale · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
265 |
1,150 |
11
|
45 |
24.6% |
17.2% |
5.3 |
— |
118 |
29 |
| 944 |
Clovis · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
723 |
3,113 |
11
|
36 |
30.0% |
25.3% |
7.9 |
0.8 |
263 |
79 |
| 945 |
Woodland · Private
|
Yolo |
55 |
805 |
11
|
60 |
18.2% |
66.7% |
— |
— |
33 |
6 |
| 946 |
San Lorenzo · Public Compounding decline
|
Alameda |
312 |
1,029 |
11
|
46 |
23.9% |
41.2% |
6.7 |
1.0 |
142 |
34 |
| 947 |
Tehachapi · Public Material decline
|
Kern |
321 |
1,260 |
11
|
22 |
50.7% |
17.1% |
8.7 |
1.9 |
69 |
35 |
| 948 |
Inglewood · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
202 |
757 |
11
|
63 |
17.2% |
— |
7.4 |
1.5 |
128 |
22 |
| 949 |
Watsonville · Public Both ends slipping
|
Santa Cruz |
331 |
1,293 |
11
|
45 |
24.0% |
— |
7.8 |
2.4 |
150 |
36 |
| 950 |
Anaheim · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
389 |
1,466 |
11
|
51 |
21.0% |
16.7% |
10.0 |
1.3 |
200 |
42 |
| 951 |
Canoga Park · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
325 |
1,389 |
11
|
65 |
16.7% |
25.7% |
9.2 |
1.9 |
210 |
35 |
| 952 |
Stockton · Public Best in class
|
San Joaquin |
28 |
199 |
11
|
157 |
6.8% |
— |
— |
— |
44 |
3 |
| 953 |
Hollister · Public Strong demand
|
San Benito |
888 |
3,316 |
11
|
40 |
26.7% |
25.3% |
6.9 |
1.1 |
356 |
95 |
| 954 |
Mira Loma · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
430 |
1,693 |
11
|
34 |
31.7% |
6.5% |
10.0 |
1.4 |
145 |
46 |
| 955 |
Alta Loma · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
582 |
2,386 |
11
|
50 |
21.2% |
12.9% |
9.8 |
1.4 |
292 |
62 |
| 956 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
216 |
853 |
11
|
50 |
21.5% |
— |
8.8 |
4.2 |
107 |
23 |
| 957 |
Fairfield · Public Best in class
|
Solano |
47 |
745 |
11
|
53 |
20.0% |
100.0% |
— |
— |
25 |
5 |
| 958 |
Bakersfield · Public Best in class
|
Kern |
594 |
2,369 |
11
|
48 |
21.9% |
20.6% |
7.9 |
1.9 |
288 |
63 |
| 959 |
Lancaster · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
369 |
1,498 |
11
|
30 |
35.8% |
7.7% |
9.2 |
1.6 |
109 |
39 |
| 960 |
San Diego · Public Tracking
|
San Diego |
76 |
360 |
11
|
103 |
10.3% |
37.5% |
10.5 |
— |
78 |
8 |
| 961 |
Rialto · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
617 |
2,623 |
11
|
46 |
23.1% |
21.5% |
8.3 |
1.6 |
281 |
65 |
| 962 |
Valley Center · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Diego |
266 |
1,075 |
11
|
45 |
23.1% |
28.6% |
7.5 |
— |
121 |
28 |
| 963 |
Northridge · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
210 |
832 |
10
|
68 |
15.4% |
— |
8.1 |
— |
143 |
22 |
| 964 |
· Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
277 |
1,438 |
10
|
64 |
16.4% |
20.7% |
9.4 |
1.4 |
177 |
29 |
| 965 |
Compton · Public
|
Los Angeles |
277 |
1,438 |
10
|
64 |
16.4% |
20.7% |
9.4 |
1.4 |
177 |
29 |
| 966 |
San Jose · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Clara |
335 |
1,350 |
10
|
50 |
21.1% |
8.6% |
7.2 |
0.9 |
166 |
35 |
| 967 |
Lake Forest · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
469 |
1,902 |
10
|
88 |
11.8% |
38.8% |
8.7 |
1.3 |
415 |
49 |
| 968 |
Oceanside · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
623 |
2,463 |
10
|
54 |
19.5% |
30.8% |
8.5 |
0.8 |
334 |
65 |
| 969 |
Porterville · Public Tracking
|
Tulare |
499 |
2,125 |
10
|
29 |
36.4% |
19.2% |
7.6 |
1.4 |
143 |
52 |
| 970 |
Napa · Public Strong demand
|
Napa |
77 |
365 |
10
|
56 |
18.6% |
50.0% |
— |
— |
43 |
8 |
| 971 |
Palmdale · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
569 |
2,208 |
10
|
40 |
26.0% |
5.1% |
8.8 |
1.4 |
227 |
59 |
| 972 |
Auburn · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
347 |
1,265 |
10
|
28 |
36.7% |
27.8% |
6.6 |
— |
98 |
36 |
| 973 |
Perris · Public Compounding decline
|
Riverside |
504 |
2,096 |
10
|
41 |
25.0% |
5.8% |
8.5 |
1.6 |
208 |
52 |
| 974 |
Menlo Park · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Mateo |
68 |
212 |
10
|
129 |
8.0% |
— |
4.4 |
— |
88 |
7 |
| 975 |
Redlands · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
39 |
262 |
10
|
113 |
9.1% |
— |
10.3 |
— |
44 |
4 |
| 976 |
Ontario · Private
|
San Bernardino |
117 |
469 |
10
|
97 |
10.6% |
— |
10.3 |
— |
113 |
12 |
| 977 |
Mammoth Lakes · Public Strong demand
|
Mono |
88 |
330 |
10
|
68 |
15.0% |
— |
3.4 |
— |
60 |
9 |
| 978 |
Temecula · Private
|
Riverside |
88 |
788 |
10
|
83 |
12.3% |
— |
6.8 |
— |
73 |
9 |
| 979 |
California City · Public Both ends slipping
|
Kern |
147 |
604 |
10
|
35 |
28.9% |
26.7% |
8.2 |
— |
52 |
15 |
| 980 |
Imperial · Public Best in class
|
Imperial |
343 |
1,439 |
10
|
28 |
36.1% |
28.6% |
10.2 |
0.9 |
97 |
35 |
| 981 |
Turlock · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
619 |
2,479 |
10
|
34 |
30.0% |
28.6% |
7.0 |
1.1 |
210 |
63 |
| 982 |
Pacifica · Public Material decline
|
San Mateo |
178 |
740 |
10
|
91 |
11.1% |
22.2% |
5.6 |
— |
162 |
18 |
| 983 |
Oxnard · Public Demand hides churn
|
Ventura |
476 |
1,951 |
10
|
37 |
27.3% |
14.6% |
8.4 |
1.7 |
176 |
48 |
| 984 |
Wildomar · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
447 |
1,927 |
10
|
31 |
32.9% |
35.6% |
8.7 |
1.3 |
137 |
45 |
| 985 |
Sacramento · Public Watch — engagement
|
Sacramento |
418 |
1,485 |
10
|
45 |
22.1% |
19.1% |
6.0 |
— |
190 |
42 |
| 986 |
Sacramento · Public Strong demand
|
Sacramento |
299 |
1,157 |
10
|
46 |
21.7% |
30.0% |
6.0 |
1.3 |
138 |
30 |
| 987 |
Ontario · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
750 |
3,127 |
10
|
37 |
27.2% |
26.7% |
9.2 |
1.6 |
276 |
75 |
| 988 |
Oakland · Private
|
Alameda |
30 |
129 |
10
|
153 |
6.5% |
— |
— |
— |
46 |
3 |
| 989 |
Orland · Public Strong demand
|
Glenn |
150 |
725 |
10
|
41 |
24.2% |
33.3% |
4.0 |
— |
62 |
15 |
| 990 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
210 |
989 |
10
|
71 |
14.0% |
— |
7.6 |
— |
150 |
21 |
| 991 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
40 |
412 |
10
|
90 |
11.1% |
— |
— |
— |
36 |
4 |
| 992 |
Hemet · Public Demand hides churn
|
Riverside |
421 |
1,761 |
10
|
36 |
28.0% |
9.5% |
8.6 |
0.7 |
150 |
42 |
| 993 |
Lakewood · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
381 |
2,422 |
10
|
50 |
19.8% |
34.2% |
8.9 |
1.1 |
192 |
38 |
| 994 |
Chino · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
372 |
1,256 |
10
|
37 |
26.6% |
27.0% |
8.9 |
0.8 |
139 |
37 |
| 995 |
Tulare · Public Best in class
|
Tulare |
342 |
1,678 |
10
|
29 |
34.3% |
— |
7.9 |
1.8 |
99 |
34 |
| 996 |
Red Bluff · Public Holding share
|
Tehama |
353 |
1,586 |
10
|
25 |
40.2% |
40.0% |
5.7 |
0.8 |
87 |
35 |
| 997 |
Winters · Public Strong demand
|
Yolo |
111 |
479 |
10
|
48 |
20.8% |
— |
6.3 |
— |
53 |
11 |
| 998 |
Atwater · Public Strong demand
|
Merced |
479 |
2,029 |
10
|
42 |
23.3% |
6.4% |
7.1 |
1.0 |
202 |
47 |
| 999 |
· Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
683 |
2,836 |
10
|
52 |
19.0% |
23.9% |
5.7 |
1.5 |
352 |
67 |
| 1000 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
684 |
2,706 |
10
|
39 |
25.0% |
22.4% |
8.0 |
1.3 |
268 |
67 |