| 301 |
Bakersfield · Private
|
Kern |
164 |
663 |
34
|
101 |
33.9% |
5.4% |
25.0 |
3.0 |
165 |
56 |
| 302 |
Delano · Public Best in class
|
Kern |
135 |
1,845 |
34
|
129 |
26.4% |
26.1% |
22.2 |
3.0 |
174 |
46 |
| 303 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
538 |
2,210 |
34
|
150 |
22.7% |
33.9% |
28.6 |
2.4 |
807 |
183 |
| 304 |
Fremont · Public Demand problem
|
Alameda |
492 |
1,957 |
34
|
175 |
19.4% |
26.9% |
24.4 |
5.5 |
859 |
167 |
| 305 |
Garden Grove · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
529 |
2,148 |
34
|
114 |
29.6% |
32.0% |
30.8 |
4.7 |
602 |
178 |
| 306 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
Santa Barbara |
434 |
1,926 |
34
|
111 |
30.3% |
26.0% |
24.4 |
6.5 |
482 |
146 |
| 307 |
San Jose · Public Tracking
|
Santa Clara |
447 |
1,612 |
34
|
107 |
31.4% |
24.7% |
24.2 |
6.0 |
478 |
150 |
| 308 |
Oakland · Public Strong demand
|
Alameda |
352 |
1,579 |
34
|
136 |
24.6% |
30.5% |
22.4 |
5.4 |
479 |
118 |
| 309 |
Solana Beach · Private
|
San Diego |
114 |
1,095 |
33
|
129 |
25.9% |
7.9% |
26.3 |
5.3 |
147 |
38 |
| 310 |
Valencia · Private
|
Los Angeles |
57 |
670 |
33
|
126 |
26.4% |
15.8% |
26.3 |
7.0 |
72 |
19 |
| 311 |
San Diego · Private
|
San Diego |
181 |
722 |
33
|
179 |
18.5% |
11.7% |
23.2 |
6.6 |
324 |
60 |
| 312 |
San Gabriel · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
471 |
1,761 |
33
|
145 |
22.8% |
37.2% |
24.8 |
4.2 |
685 |
156 |
| 313 |
San Jose · Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
481 |
1,820 |
33
|
178 |
18.6% |
25.8% |
25.8 |
5.4 |
854 |
159 |
| 314 |
San Mateo · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
394 |
1,557 |
33
|
197 |
16.7% |
23.1% |
24.6 |
7.4 |
777 |
130 |
| 315 |
San Diego · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
388 |
1,465 |
33
|
177 |
18.7% |
28.1% |
25.0 |
4.6 |
686 |
128 |
| 316 |
Granada Hills · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
1,154 |
5,927 |
33
|
173 |
19.0% |
29.2% |
26.5 |
6.3 |
2,000 |
380 |
| 317 |
Live Oak · Public Strong demand
|
Sutter |
143 |
603 |
33
|
147 |
22.4% |
29.8% |
21.7 |
9.1 |
210 |
47 |
| 318 |
San Diego · Private
|
San Diego |
399 |
1,661 |
33
|
153 |
21.4% |
24.4% |
24.6 |
6.5 |
611 |
131 |
| 319 |
San Juan Capistrano · Private
|
Orange |
320 |
1,282 |
33
|
142 |
23.1% |
20.0% |
26.9 |
7.5 |
455 |
105 |
| 320 |
Los Alamitos · Public Weak at the gate
|
Orange |
756 |
2,915 |
33
|
132 |
24.8% |
25.4% |
27.1 |
5.6 |
1,001 |
248 |
| 321 |
Panorama City · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
330 |
1,316 |
33
|
122 |
26.9% |
27.8% |
25.4 |
6.4 |
401 |
108 |
| 322 |
Brea · Public Holding share
|
Orange |
444 |
1,676 |
33
|
139 |
23.6% |
18.6% |
26.1 |
5.2 |
615 |
145 |
| 323 |
Orcutt · Public Best in class
|
Santa Barbara |
157 |
812 |
32
|
80 |
40.5% |
11.8% |
26.1 |
8.9 |
126 |
51 |
| 324 |
San Rafael · Public Demand problem
|
Marin |
330 |
1,248 |
32
|
155 |
20.9% |
26.2% |
22.7 |
5.5 |
513 |
107 |
| 325 |
San Francisco · Public
|
San Francisco |
145 |
522 |
32
|
152 |
21.3% |
36.2% |
20.0 |
8.3 |
221 |
47 |
| 326 |
San Mateo · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
411 |
1,585 |
32
|
163 |
19.7% |
23.5% |
22.9 |
5.8 |
670 |
132 |
| 327 |
Hacienda Heights · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
355 |
1,456 |
32
|
170 |
18.7% |
31.0% |
23.1 |
6.5 |
603 |
113 |
| 328 |
Woodside · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
435 |
1,660 |
32
|
151 |
21.0% |
27.5% |
24.8 |
6.4 |
656 |
138 |
| 329 |
Rohnert Park · Public Best in class
|
Sonoma |
79 |
343 |
32
|
161 |
19.7% |
— |
20.2 |
3.8 |
127 |
25 |
| 330 |
Rancho San Margarit · Public Sharp downturn
|
Orange |
552 |
2,030 |
32
|
158 |
20.0% |
32.2% |
24.5 |
3.8 |
870 |
174 |
| 331 |
El Dorado Hills · Public Weak at the gate
|
El Dorado |
635 |
2,346 |
32
|
137 |
23.0% |
29.0% |
21.9 |
4.4 |
868 |
200 |
| 332 |
San Gabriel · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
378 |
1,438 |
31
|
179 |
17.6% |
34.5% |
23.0 |
6.9 |
678 |
119 |
| 333 |
Claremont · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
535 |
2,065 |
31
|
136 |
23.1% |
26.2% |
25.2 |
5.4 |
727 |
168 |
| 334 |
Walnut · Private
|
Los Angeles |
32 |
431 |
31
|
244 |
12.8% |
— |
18.8 |
— |
78 |
10 |
| 335 |
Bellflower · Private
|
Los Angeles |
183 |
869 |
31
|
168 |
18.5% |
12.3% |
25.7 |
6.6 |
308 |
57 |
| 336 |
Emeryville · Public Demand hides churn
|
Alameda |
45 |
162 |
31
|
156 |
20.0% |
50.0% |
15.6 |
15.6 |
70 |
14 |
| 337 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
264 |
1,025 |
31
|
121 |
25.6% |
23.2% |
26.5 |
8.0 |
320 |
82 |
| 338 |
San Jose · Public Weak at the gate
|
Santa Clara |
494 |
1,918 |
31
|
185 |
16.8% |
30.1% |
23.3 |
5.5 |
912 |
153 |
| 339 |
Pomona · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
117 |
458 |
31
|
197 |
15.6% |
25.0% |
24.8 |
4.3 |
231 |
36 |
| 340 |
San Marcos · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
680 |
2,751 |
31
|
104 |
29.6% |
30.6% |
25.0 |
2.8 |
706 |
209 |
| 341 |
Los Angeles · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
498 |
2,055 |
31
|
120 |
25.6% |
15.0% |
25.5 |
8.6 |
598 |
153 |
| 342 |
Downey · Private
|
Los Angeles |
111 |
591 |
31
|
153 |
20.0% |
— |
27.0 |
6.3 |
170 |
34 |
| 343 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
180 |
694 |
31
|
94 |
32.4% |
16.4% |
24.4 |
6.7 |
170 |
55 |
| 344 |
Cypress · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
682 |
2,685 |
30
|
145 |
21.0% |
33.6% |
25.2 |
4.2 |
991 |
208 |
| 345 |
Encinitas · Private
|
San Diego |
23 |
157 |
30
|
209 |
14.6% |
— |
30.4 |
17.4 |
48 |
7 |
| 346 |
Kentfield · Private
|
Marin |
191 |
718 |
30
|
185 |
16.4% |
27.6% |
20.4 |
5.2 |
354 |
58 |
| 347 |
Los Angeles · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
392 |
1,497 |
30
|
172 |
17.7% |
29.4% |
25.8 |
6.1 |
674 |
119 |
| 348 |
San Jose · Public Watch — engagement
|
Santa Clara |
379 |
1,543 |
30
|
123 |
24.6% |
30.4% |
22.2 |
5.0 |
468 |
115 |
| 349 |
Lakewood · Private
|
Los Angeles |
122 |
557 |
30
|
97 |
31.4% |
21.6% |
27.1 |
5.7 |
118 |
37 |
| 350 |
Chula Vista · Public Demand problem
|
San Diego |
578 |
2,289 |
30
|
129 |
23.4% |
29.1% |
25.4 |
3.1 |
748 |
175 |
| 351 |
Morgan Hill · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Clara |
377 |
1,511 |
30
|
142 |
21.3% |
33.3% |
22.0 |
3.7 |
536 |
114 |
| 352 |
Oakland · Public Best in class
|
Alameda |
83 |
386 |
30
|
270 |
11.2% |
24.0% |
14.5 |
4.8 |
224 |
25 |
| 353 |
Atherton · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
571 |
2,158 |
30
|
180 |
16.8% |
25.6% |
21.5 |
6.7 |
1,025 |
172 |
| 354 |
Berkeley · Private
|
Alameda |
30 |
111 |
30
|
223 |
13.4% |
— |
— |
— |
67 |
9 |
| 355 |
San Anselmo · Public Best in class
|
Marin |
288 |
1,141 |
30
|
175 |
17.0% |
32.6% |
19.8 |
5.9 |
505 |
86 |
| 356 |
Pleasant Hill · Public Tracking
|
Contra Costa |
477 |
1,948 |
30
|
127 |
23.5% |
29.6% |
19.7 |
4.0 |
605 |
142 |
| 357 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
373 |
1,499 |
30
|
118 |
25.3% |
34.2% |
19.3 |
4.0 |
439 |
111 |
| 358 |
Sacramento · Private
|
Sacramento |
236 |
1,132 |
30
|
134 |
22.1% |
31.4% |
19.9 |
5.1 |
316 |
70 |
| 359 |
Half Moon Bay · Public Tracking
|
San Mateo |
233 |
911 |
30
|
112 |
26.4% |
18.8% |
21.5 |
5.2 |
261 |
69 |
| 360 |
Antioch · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
156 |
681 |
29
|
96 |
30.7% |
17.4% |
17.9 |
7.0 |
150 |
46 |
| 361 |
Chula Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
489 |
1,960 |
29
|
114 |
25.8% |
34.7% |
25.1 |
5.1 |
558 |
144 |
| 362 |
Lawndale · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
415 |
1,403 |
29
|
97 |
30.2% |
27.1% |
26.8 |
5.1 |
404 |
122 |
| 363 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
143 |
629 |
29
|
126 |
23.3% |
38.1% |
14.7 |
7.7 |
180 |
42 |
| 364 |
La Canada · Private
|
Los Angeles |
150 |
623 |
29
|
209 |
14.1% |
22.7% |
22.7 |
7.3 |
313 |
44 |
| 365 |
· Public Tracking
|
Los Angeles |
713 |
3,162 |
29
|
130 |
22.6% |
27.3% |
22.7 |
5.6 |
925 |
209 |
| 366 |
Chino Hills · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
744 |
2,748 |
29
|
131 |
22.4% |
32.6% |
23.2 |
4.3 |
972 |
218 |
| 367 |
Coronado · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Diego |
263 |
999 |
29
|
144 |
20.4% |
23.4% |
19.0 |
5.7 |
378 |
77 |
| 368 |
Milpitas · Public Weak at the gate
|
Santa Clara |
694 |
2,926 |
29
|
193 |
15.2% |
34.0% |
20.6 |
5.2 |
1,338 |
203 |
| 369 |
· Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
127 |
1,850 |
29
|
111 |
26.2% |
37.8% |
18.9 |
3.1 |
141 |
37 |
| 370 |
Palm Desert · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
468 |
2,079 |
29
|
96 |
30.2% |
19.1% |
23.7 |
4.3 |
450 |
136 |
| 371 |
Salinas · Public Strong demand
|
Monterey |
369 |
1,600 |
29
|
92 |
31.4% |
14.9% |
21.4 |
7.3 |
341 |
107 |
| 372 |
· Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
429 |
1,743 |
29
|
97 |
29.7% |
20.2% |
22.1 |
5.8 |
418 |
124 |
| 373 |
San Marcos · Public
|
San Diego |
90 |
409 |
29
|
154 |
18.7% |
— |
22.2 |
— |
139 |
26 |
| 374 |
Anaheim · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
520 |
2,183 |
29
|
179 |
16.1% |
34.0% |
25.0 |
4.8 |
931 |
150 |
| 375 |
· Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
430 |
1,812 |
29
|
108 |
26.7% |
27.4% |
22.6 |
4.7 |
465 |
124 |
| 376 |
Torrance · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
452 |
1,879 |
29
|
124 |
23.3% |
33.9% |
22.6 |
4.4 |
559 |
130 |
| 377 |
Tracy · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
400 |
1,587 |
29
|
106 |
27.1% |
27.8% |
18.0 |
2.8 |
425 |
115 |
| 378 |
Campbell · Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
407 |
1,682 |
29
|
162 |
17.7% |
30.8% |
21.9 |
3.0 |
661 |
117 |
| 379 |
Stockton · Public Best in class
|
San Joaquin |
87 |
772 |
29
|
105 |
27.5% |
— |
19.5 |
8.1 |
91 |
25 |
| 380 |
Van Nuys · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
515 |
1,969 |
29
|
115 |
25.1% |
29.1% |
23.9 |
6.6 |
590 |
148 |
| 381 |
Carson · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
105 |
438 |
29
|
96 |
29.7% |
10.0% |
20.9 |
2.9 |
101 |
30 |
| 382 |
San Gabriel · Private
|
Los Angeles |
35 |
320 |
29
|
131 |
21.7% |
— |
20.0 |
— |
46 |
10 |
| 383 |
Vista · Private
|
San Diego |
63 |
758 |
29
|
129 |
22.2% |
— |
22.2 |
— |
81 |
18 |
| 384 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
508 |
2,194 |
29
|
95 |
30.0% |
26.9% |
17.9 |
4.1 |
484 |
145 |
| 385 |
Santa Rosa · Public Best in class
|
Sonoma |
372 |
1,584 |
28
|
99 |
28.7% |
15.1% |
21.0 |
3.8 |
369 |
106 |
| 386 |
Laguna Hills · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
330 |
1,317 |
28
|
99 |
28.8% |
18.1% |
24.2 |
4.5 |
327 |
94 |
| 387 |
Aptos · Public Demand problem
|
Santa Cruz |
292 |
1,274 |
28
|
114 |
25.0% |
33.7% |
19.2 |
4.5 |
332 |
83 |
| 388 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
113 |
484 |
28
|
198 |
14.3% |
9.4% |
20.4 |
8.0 |
224 |
32 |
| 389 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
378 |
1,495 |
28
|
105 |
26.9% |
26.2% |
22.2 |
6.3 |
397 |
107 |
| 390 |
Fountain Valley · Public Weak at the gate
|
Orange |
803 |
3,171 |
28
|
143 |
19.8% |
36.1% |
23.4 |
4.2 |
1,145 |
227 |
| 391 |
La Puente · Private
|
Los Angeles |
223 |
977 |
28
|
120 |
23.5% |
22.2% |
22.4 |
4.9 |
268 |
63 |
| 392 |
Santa Cruz · Public Tracking
|
Santa Cruz |
223 |
1,013 |
28
|
84 |
33.5% |
12.7% |
21.1 |
4.5 |
188 |
63 |
| 393 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
117 |
598 |
28
|
128 |
22.0% |
27.3% |
24.8 |
8.6 |
150 |
33 |
| 394 |
San Jose · Public Sharp downturn
|
Santa Clara |
536 |
2,139 |
28
|
150 |
18.8% |
30.5% |
19.2 |
5.0 |
803 |
151 |
| 395 |
Los Angeles · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
531 |
2,237 |
28
|
118 |
23.8% |
28.9% |
25.2 |
5.1 |
627 |
149 |
| 396 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
139 |
515 |
28
|
161 |
17.4% |
7.7% |
19.4 |
7.2 |
224 |
39 |
| 397 |
Fullerton · Private
|
Orange |
107 |
462 |
28
|
124 |
22.6% |
10.0% |
20.6 |
— |
133 |
30 |
| 398 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
50 |
200 |
28
|
104 |
26.9% |
— |
12.0 |
— |
52 |
14 |
| 399 |
Poway · Public Holding share
|
San Diego |
550 |
2,101 |
28
|
102 |
27.5% |
31.8% |
20.7 |
2.7 |
560 |
154 |
| 400 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
418 |
1,842 |
28
|
155 |
18.0% |
25.6% |
23.4 |
6.5 |
649 |
117 |