| 1101 |
Santa Ana · Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
72 |
288 |
11
|
72 |
15.4% |
— |
11.1 |
— |
52 |
8 |
| 1102 |
Lakeside · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
36 |
164 |
11
|
17 |
66.7% |
75.0% |
— |
— |
6 |
4 |
| 1103 |
Delano · Public Sharp downturn
|
Kern |
316 |
1,221 |
11
|
38 |
29.4% |
11.4% |
9.2 |
0.9 |
119 |
35 |
| 1104 |
Riverside · Public
|
Riverside |
379 |
1,804 |
11
|
48 |
23.1% |
9.5% |
11.1 |
2.6 |
182 |
42 |
| 1105 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
136 |
797 |
11
|
67 |
16.5% |
20.0% |
8.1 |
— |
91 |
15 |
| 1106 |
Fresno · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
509 |
2,095 |
11
|
36 |
30.9% |
17.9% |
8.1 |
1.4 |
181 |
56 |
| 1107 |
Norwalk · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
491 |
2,075 |
11
|
64 |
17.2% |
18.5% |
10.4 |
0.6 |
314 |
54 |
| 1108 |
Yuba City · Public Compounding decline
|
Sutter |
391 |
1,695 |
11
|
47 |
23.2% |
20.9% |
6.7 |
1.8 |
185 |
43 |
| 1109 |
Vallejo · Public Both ends slipping
|
Solano |
337 |
1,418 |
11
|
45 |
24.7% |
24.3% |
7.1 |
2.1 |
150 |
37 |
| 1110 |
Hollywood · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
155 |
703 |
11
|
52 |
21.0% |
— |
6.5 |
— |
81 |
17 |
| 1111 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
64 |
472 |
11
|
89 |
12.3% |
— |
4.7 |
— |
57 |
7 |
| 1112 |
Orangevale · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
265 |
1,150 |
11
|
45 |
24.6% |
17.2% |
5.3 |
— |
118 |
29 |
| 1113 |
Clovis · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
723 |
3,113 |
11
|
36 |
30.0% |
25.3% |
7.9 |
0.8 |
263 |
79 |
| 1114 |
Woodland · Private
|
Yolo |
55 |
805 |
11
|
60 |
18.2% |
66.7% |
— |
— |
33 |
6 |
| 1115 |
San Lorenzo · Public Compounding decline
|
Alameda |
312 |
1,029 |
11
|
46 |
23.9% |
41.2% |
6.7 |
1.0 |
142 |
34 |
| 1116 |
Tehachapi · Public Material decline
|
Kern |
321 |
1,260 |
11
|
22 |
50.7% |
17.1% |
8.7 |
1.9 |
69 |
35 |
| 1117 |
Inglewood · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
202 |
757 |
11
|
63 |
17.2% |
— |
7.4 |
1.5 |
128 |
22 |
| 1118 |
Watsonville · Public Both ends slipping
|
Santa Cruz |
331 |
1,293 |
11
|
45 |
24.0% |
— |
7.8 |
2.4 |
150 |
36 |
| 1119 |
Anaheim · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
389 |
1,466 |
11
|
51 |
21.0% |
16.7% |
10.0 |
1.3 |
200 |
42 |
| 1120 |
Canoga Park · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
325 |
1,389 |
11
|
65 |
16.7% |
25.7% |
9.2 |
1.9 |
210 |
35 |
| 1121 |
Pacoima · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
56 |
220 |
11
|
109 |
9.8% |
— |
10.7 |
— |
61 |
6 |
| 1122 |
Stockton · Public Best in class
|
San Joaquin |
28 |
199 |
11
|
157 |
6.8% |
— |
— |
— |
44 |
3 |
| 1123 |
Hollister · Public Strong demand
|
San Benito |
888 |
3,316 |
11
|
40 |
26.7% |
25.3% |
6.9 |
1.1 |
356 |
95 |
| 1124 |
Mira Loma · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
430 |
1,693 |
11
|
34 |
31.7% |
6.5% |
10.0 |
1.4 |
145 |
46 |
| 1125 |
Alta Loma · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
582 |
2,386 |
11
|
50 |
21.2% |
12.9% |
9.8 |
1.4 |
292 |
62 |
| 1126 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
216 |
853 |
11
|
50 |
21.5% |
— |
8.8 |
4.2 |
107 |
23 |
| 1127 |
Fairfield · Public Best in class
|
Solano |
47 |
745 |
11
|
53 |
20.0% |
100.0% |
— |
— |
25 |
5 |
| 1128 |
Bakersfield · Public Best in class
|
Kern |
594 |
2,369 |
11
|
48 |
21.9% |
20.6% |
7.9 |
1.9 |
288 |
63 |
| 1129 |
Lancaster · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
369 |
1,498 |
11
|
30 |
35.8% |
7.7% |
9.2 |
1.6 |
109 |
39 |
| 1130 |
San Diego · Public Tracking
|
San Diego |
76 |
360 |
11
|
103 |
10.3% |
37.5% |
10.5 |
— |
78 |
8 |
| 1131 |
Rialto · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
617 |
2,623 |
11
|
46 |
23.1% |
21.5% |
8.3 |
1.6 |
281 |
65 |
| 1132 |
Valley Center · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Diego |
266 |
1,075 |
11
|
45 |
23.1% |
28.6% |
7.5 |
— |
121 |
28 |
| 1133 |
Long Beach · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
390 |
1,652 |
11
|
56 |
18.9% |
9.8% |
9.0 |
1.0 |
217 |
41 |
| 1134 |
Northridge · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
210 |
832 |
10
|
68 |
15.4% |
— |
8.1 |
— |
143 |
22 |
| 1135 |
Compton · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
277 |
1,438 |
10
|
64 |
16.4% |
20.7% |
9.4 |
1.4 |
177 |
29 |
| 1136 |
Compton · Public
|
Los Angeles |
277 |
1,438 |
10
|
64 |
16.4% |
20.7% |
9.4 |
1.4 |
177 |
29 |
| 1137 |
San Jose · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Clara |
335 |
1,350 |
10
|
50 |
21.1% |
8.6% |
7.2 |
0.9 |
166 |
35 |
| 1138 |
Lake Forest · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
469 |
1,902 |
10
|
88 |
11.8% |
38.8% |
8.7 |
1.3 |
415 |
49 |
| 1139 |
Oceanside · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
623 |
2,463 |
10
|
54 |
19.5% |
30.8% |
8.5 |
0.8 |
334 |
65 |
| 1140 |
Porterville · Public Demand problem
|
Tulare |
499 |
2,125 |
10
|
29 |
36.4% |
19.2% |
7.6 |
1.4 |
143 |
52 |
| 1141 |
Napa · Public Strong demand
|
Napa |
77 |
365 |
10
|
56 |
18.6% |
50.0% |
— |
— |
43 |
8 |
| 1142 |
Palmdale · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
569 |
2,208 |
10
|
40 |
26.0% |
5.1% |
8.8 |
1.4 |
227 |
59 |
| 1143 |
Auburn · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
347 |
1,265 |
10
|
28 |
36.7% |
27.8% |
6.6 |
— |
98 |
36 |
| 1144 |
Los Angeles · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
145 |
503 |
10
|
69 |
15.0% |
— |
6.9 |
2.1 |
100 |
15 |
| 1145 |
Moorpark · Public Sharp downturn
|
Ventura |
29 |
121 |
10
|
224 |
4.6% |
— |
— |
— |
65 |
3 |
| 1146 |
Perris · Public Compounding decline
|
Riverside |
504 |
2,096 |
10
|
41 |
25.0% |
5.8% |
8.5 |
1.6 |
208 |
52 |
| 1147 |
Menlo Park · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Mateo |
68 |
212 |
10
|
129 |
8.0% |
— |
4.4 |
— |
88 |
7 |
| 1148 |
Redlands · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
39 |
262 |
10
|
113 |
9.1% |
— |
10.3 |
— |
44 |
4 |
| 1149 |
Ontario · Private
|
San Bernardino |
117 |
469 |
10
|
97 |
10.6% |
— |
10.3 |
— |
113 |
12 |
| 1150 |
Mammoth Lakes · Public Strong demand
|
Mono |
88 |
330 |
10
|
68 |
15.0% |
— |
3.4 |
— |
60 |
9 |
| 1151 |
Temecula · Private
|
Riverside |
88 |
788 |
10
|
83 |
12.3% |
— |
6.8 |
— |
73 |
9 |
| 1152 |
California City · Public Both ends slipping
|
Kern |
147 |
604 |
10
|
35 |
28.9% |
26.7% |
8.2 |
— |
52 |
15 |
| 1153 |
Imperial · Public Best in class
|
Imperial |
343 |
1,439 |
10
|
28 |
36.1% |
28.6% |
10.2 |
0.9 |
97 |
35 |
| 1154 |
Fresno · Public Both ends slipping
|
Fresno |
452 |
2,175 |
10
|
52 |
19.5% |
6.5% |
7.7 |
1.8 |
236 |
46 |
| 1155 |
Turlock · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
619 |
2,479 |
10
|
34 |
30.0% |
28.6% |
7.0 |
1.1 |
210 |
63 |
| 1156 |
Pacifica · Public Material decline
|
San Mateo |
178 |
740 |
10
|
91 |
11.1% |
22.2% |
5.6 |
— |
162 |
18 |
| 1157 |
Oxnard · Public Demand hides churn
|
Ventura |
476 |
1,951 |
10
|
37 |
27.3% |
14.6% |
8.4 |
1.7 |
176 |
48 |
| 1158 |
Wildomar · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
447 |
1,927 |
10
|
31 |
32.9% |
35.6% |
8.7 |
1.3 |
137 |
45 |
| 1159 |
Sacramento · Public Watch — engagement
|
Sacramento |
418 |
1,485 |
10
|
45 |
22.1% |
19.1% |
6.0 |
— |
190 |
42 |
| 1160 |
Sacramento · Public Strong demand
|
Sacramento |
299 |
1,157 |
10
|
46 |
21.7% |
30.0% |
6.0 |
1.3 |
138 |
30 |
| 1161 |
Ontario · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
750 |
3,127 |
10
|
37 |
27.2% |
26.7% |
9.2 |
1.6 |
276 |
75 |
| 1162 |
Oakland · Private
|
Alameda |
30 |
129 |
10
|
153 |
6.5% |
— |
— |
— |
46 |
3 |
| 1163 |
Orland · Public Strong demand
|
Glenn |
150 |
725 |
10
|
41 |
24.2% |
33.3% |
4.0 |
— |
62 |
15 |
| 1164 |
Palmdale · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
210 |
989 |
10
|
71 |
14.0% |
— |
7.6 |
— |
150 |
21 |
| 1165 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
40 |
412 |
10
|
90 |
11.1% |
— |
— |
— |
36 |
4 |
| 1166 |
Stockton · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
80 |
358 |
10
|
86 |
11.6% |
50.0% |
3.8 |
— |
69 |
8 |
| 1167 |
Hemet · Public Demand hides churn
|
Riverside |
421 |
1,761 |
10
|
36 |
28.0% |
9.5% |
8.6 |
0.7 |
150 |
42 |
| 1168 |
Lakewood · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
381 |
2,422 |
10
|
50 |
19.8% |
34.2% |
8.9 |
1.1 |
192 |
38 |
| 1169 |
Chino · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
372 |
1,256 |
10
|
37 |
26.6% |
27.0% |
8.9 |
0.8 |
139 |
37 |
| 1170 |
Tulare · Public Best in class
|
Tulare |
342 |
1,678 |
10
|
29 |
34.3% |
— |
7.9 |
1.8 |
99 |
34 |
| 1171 |
Red Bluff · Public Holding share
|
Tehama |
353 |
1,586 |
10
|
25 |
40.2% |
40.0% |
5.7 |
0.8 |
87 |
35 |
| 1172 |
Winters · Public Strong demand
|
Yolo |
111 |
479 |
10
|
48 |
20.8% |
— |
6.3 |
— |
53 |
11 |
| 1173 |
Atwater · Public Strong demand
|
Merced |
479 |
2,029 |
10
|
42 |
23.3% |
6.4% |
7.1 |
1.0 |
202 |
47 |
| 1174 |
Brentwood · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
683 |
2,836 |
10
|
52 |
19.0% |
23.9% |
5.7 |
1.5 |
352 |
67 |
| 1175 |
Palmdale · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
684 |
2,706 |
10
|
39 |
25.0% |
22.4% |
8.0 |
1.3 |
268 |
67 |
| 1176 |
Livingston · Public Weak at the gate
|
Merced |
296 |
1,169 |
10
|
42 |
23.4% |
13.8% |
7.8 |
2.7 |
124 |
29 |
| 1177 |
Oakland · Public Demand hides churn
|
Alameda |
225 |
1,166 |
10
|
56 |
17.3% |
18.2% |
6.2 |
— |
127 |
22 |
| 1178 |
Petaluma · Private
|
Sonoma |
41 |
172 |
10
|
112 |
8.7% |
— |
— |
— |
46 |
4 |
| 1179 |
Gilroy · Public Demand hides churn
|
Santa Clara |
400 |
1,618 |
10
|
40 |
24.2% |
12.8% |
6.5 |
0.8 |
161 |
39 |
| 1180 |
Baldwin Park · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
226 |
1,260 |
10
|
54 |
17.9% |
31.8% |
9.7 |
1.3 |
123 |
22 |
| 1181 |
Ontario · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
452 |
1,994 |
10
|
50 |
19.6% |
9.1% |
9.7 |
1.6 |
225 |
44 |
| 1182 |
Fresno · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
258 |
1,096 |
10
|
28 |
34.2% |
12.0% |
6.2 |
1.2 |
73 |
25 |
| 1183 |
Placerville · Public Sharp downturn
|
El Dorado |
310 |
1,135 |
10
|
34 |
28.3% |
26.7% |
4.5 |
— |
106 |
30 |
| 1184 |
Glendale · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
549 |
2,066 |
10
|
61 |
15.8% |
30.2% |
9.1 |
2.2 |
335 |
53 |
| 1185 |
Sacramento · Public Demand problem
|
Sacramento |
427 |
1,535 |
10
|
48 |
20.0% |
17.1% |
5.4 |
0.9 |
205 |
41 |
| 1186 |
Oakland · Public Compounding decline
|
Alameda |
73 |
270 |
10
|
59 |
16.3% |
— |
— |
— |
43 |
7 |
| 1187 |
Vallejo · Private
|
Solano |
73 |
320 |
10
|
111 |
8.6% |
42.9% |
4.1 |
— |
81 |
7 |
| 1188 |
Rancho Mirage · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
313 |
1,401 |
10
|
59 |
16.3% |
26.7% |
9.6 |
1.0 |
184 |
30 |
| 1189 |
San Jose · Public Mid-year churn
|
Santa Clara |
94 |
405 |
10
|
73 |
13.0% |
— |
3.2 |
— |
69 |
9 |
| 1190 |
El Centro · Public Tracking
|
Imperial |
460 |
2,006 |
10
|
42 |
22.9% |
20.4% |
8.3 |
1.1 |
192 |
44 |
| 1191 |
Perris · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
136 |
1,031 |
10
|
79 |
12.0% |
— |
7.3 |
— |
108 |
13 |
| 1192 |
La Habra · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
471 |
1,881 |
10
|
55 |
17.4% |
— |
7.4 |
1.7 |
258 |
45 |
| 1193 |
Bakersfield · Public Demand problem
|
Kern |
471 |
2,048 |
10
|
33 |
29.2% |
15.6% |
8.1 |
1.3 |
154 |
45 |
| 1194 |
Sylmar · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
42 |
205 |
10
|
133 |
7.1% |
— |
— |
— |
56 |
4 |
| 1195 |
Lake Elsinore · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
403 |
1,687 |
9
|
36 |
25.9% |
23.7% |
8.7 |
— |
147 |
38 |
| 1196 |
Manteca · Public Strong demand
|
San Joaquin |
509 |
1,907 |
9
|
33 |
28.9% |
16.7% |
6.7 |
1.6 |
166 |
48 |
| 1197 |
Visalia · Public Demand hides churn
|
Tulare |
361 |
1,637 |
9
|
34 |
27.4% |
14.7% |
5.5 |
— |
124 |
34 |
| 1198 |
Rio Linda · Public
|
Sacramento |
329 |
1,594 |
9
|
38 |
24.6% |
32.3% |
4.0 |
— |
126 |
31 |
| 1199 |
Escalon · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
213 |
815 |
9
|
32 |
29.4% |
35.0% |
4.2 |
— |
68 |
20 |
| 1200 |
Bakersfield · Public Weak at the gate
|
Kern |
556 |
2,212 |
9
|
44 |
21.5% |
34.6% |
7.5 |
— |
242 |
52 |