| 301 |
Hawthorne · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
131 |
552 |
27
|
178 |
15.4% |
11.1% |
19.9 |
5.3 |
233 |
36 |
| 302 |
San Jose · Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
539 |
2,134 |
27
|
123 |
22.4% |
24.3% |
20.2 |
4.3 |
661 |
148 |
| 303 |
Rancho Cucamonga · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
698 |
2,759 |
27
|
129 |
21.2% |
27.8% |
22.5 |
4.6 |
899 |
191 |
| 304 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
136 |
797 |
27
|
215 |
12.6% |
35.1% |
24.3 |
4.4 |
293 |
37 |
| 305 |
Pasadena · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
339 |
1,303 |
27
|
130 |
20.9% |
15.2% |
21.5 |
7.7 |
440 |
92 |
| 306 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
258 |
1,001 |
27
|
90 |
30.0% |
21.4% |
20.2 |
5.0 |
233 |
70 |
| 307 |
Garden Grove · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
425 |
1,701 |
27
|
117 |
23.1% |
34.8% |
24.2 |
4.5 |
497 |
115 |
| 308 |
Porterville · Public Sharp downturn
|
Tulare |
115 |
509 |
27
|
74 |
36.5% |
— |
20.0 |
4.3 |
85 |
31 |
| 309 |
La Mesa · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
621 |
2,554 |
27
|
127 |
21.1% |
31.7% |
19.6 |
3.4 |
791 |
167 |
| 310 |
Benicia · Public Sharp downturn
|
Solano |
317 |
1,335 |
27
|
117 |
22.9% |
28.2% |
17.7 |
4.1 |
371 |
85 |
| 311 |
Elk Grove · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
675 |
2,650 |
27
|
129 |
20.8% |
38.7% |
17.0 |
3.7 |
870 |
181 |
| 312 |
Huntington Beach · Public Tracking
|
Orange |
698 |
2,645 |
27
|
119 |
22.4% |
34.2% |
22.4 |
5.3 |
834 |
187 |
| 313 |
Oakland · Public Strong demand
|
Alameda |
112 |
828 |
27
|
133 |
20.1% |
— |
17.0 |
5.4 |
149 |
30 |
| 314 |
Panorama City · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
492 |
27
|
180 |
14.8% |
10.0% |
21.4 |
2.7 |
202 |
30 |
| 315 |
Rocklin · Public Holding share
|
Placer |
449 |
2,041 |
27
|
118 |
22.7% |
30.8% |
18.0 |
4.0 |
529 |
120 |
| 316 |
Newbury Park · Public Weak at the gate
|
Ventura |
539 |
2,047 |
27
|
111 |
24.2% |
24.3% |
21.1 |
4.6 |
596 |
144 |
| 317 |
Long Beach · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
992 |
3,890 |
27
|
101 |
26.5% |
24.1% |
22.1 |
6.2 |
1,000 |
265 |
| 318 |
Livermore · Public Best in class
|
Alameda |
568 |
2,156 |
27
|
123 |
21.7% |
26.5% |
20.4 |
4.0 |
697 |
151 |
| 319 |
La Verne · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
467 |
1,911 |
27
|
87 |
30.6% |
27.4% |
22.3 |
4.3 |
405 |
124 |
| 320 |
Danville · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
510 |
2,036 |
26
|
137 |
19.3% |
33.3% |
19.6 |
7.2 |
700 |
135 |
| 321 |
Venice · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
110 |
335 |
26
|
130 |
20.3% |
— |
22.7 |
9.1 |
143 |
29 |
| 322 |
Carlsbad · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
573 |
2,336 |
26
|
94 |
27.9% |
26.5% |
20.4 |
4.2 |
541 |
151 |
| 323 |
San Bernardino · Private
|
San Bernardino |
137 |
645 |
26
|
130 |
20.2% |
25.0% |
23.4 |
2.2 |
178 |
36 |
| 324 |
Colfax · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
138 |
611 |
26
|
60 |
43.4% |
11.1% |
18.8 |
6.5 |
83 |
36 |
| 325 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
265 |
1,240 |
26
|
129 |
20.1% |
21.7% |
16.6 |
4.5 |
343 |
69 |
| 326 |
Modesto · Public Weak at the gate
|
Stanislaus |
591 |
2,304 |
26
|
81 |
32.1% |
22.9% |
17.9 |
3.0 |
477 |
153 |
| 327 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
480 |
1,602 |
26
|
102 |
25.2% |
33.1% |
20.6 |
4.4 |
492 |
124 |
| 328 |
Van Nuys · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
426 |
1,774 |
26
|
94 |
27.4% |
23.6% |
21.6 |
4.5 |
402 |
110 |
| 329 |
Fort Bragg · Public Sharp downturn
|
Mendocino |
132 |
569 |
26
|
81 |
31.8% |
11.8% |
20.4 |
— |
107 |
34 |
| 330 |
Morro Bay · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Luis Obispo |
171 |
751 |
26
|
91 |
28.2% |
6.8% |
19.3 |
3.5 |
156 |
44 |
| 331 |
Fowler · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
199 |
807 |
26
|
73 |
35.2% |
17.6% |
18.1 |
6.5 |
145 |
51 |
| 332 |
· Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
582 |
2,373 |
26
|
122 |
21.0% |
29.5% |
20.1 |
3.4 |
709 |
149 |
| 333 |
El Segundo · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
141 |
550 |
26
|
131 |
19.5% |
8.3% |
19.1 |
6.4 |
185 |
36 |
| 334 |
Newport Beach · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
526 |
2,084 |
25
|
94 |
27.2% |
29.9% |
21.9 |
3.8 |
493 |
134 |
| 335 |
Pasadena · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
138 |
1,053 |
25
|
115 |
22.0% |
25.7% |
18.1 |
5.1 |
159 |
35 |
| 336 |
Bakersfield · Public Weak at the gate
|
Kern |
576 |
2,398 |
25
|
91 |
27.9% |
24.7% |
20.7 |
3.1 |
523 |
146 |
| 337 |
Agoura Hills · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
442 |
1,709 |
25
|
130 |
19.5% |
26.8% |
19.7 |
5.2 |
574 |
112 |
| 338 |
San Juan Capistrano · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
703 |
2,641 |
25
|
111 |
22.9% |
25.3% |
19.4 |
2.6 |
777 |
178 |
| 339 |
Delhi · Public Material decline
|
Merced |
162 |
710 |
25
|
90 |
28.1% |
17.1% |
16.1 |
1.9 |
146 |
41 |
| 340 |
Temecula · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
733 |
2,946 |
25
|
125 |
20.2% |
33.5% |
21.0 |
3.1 |
916 |
185 |
| 341 |
San Leandro · Public Demand problem
|
Alameda |
599 |
2,510 |
25
|
95 |
26.4% |
32.5% |
15.7 |
2.0 |
571 |
151 |
| 342 |
Daly City · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
322 |
1,278 |
25
|
119 |
21.1% |
39.5% |
15.5 |
3.7 |
384 |
81 |
| 343 |
Cathedral City · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
346 |
1,334 |
25
|
76 |
33.1% |
21.8% |
20.8 |
4.3 |
263 |
87 |
| 344 |
Novato · Public Both ends slipping
|
Marin |
350 |
1,287 |
25
|
105 |
23.9% |
26.1% |
18.6 |
5.4 |
368 |
88 |
| 345 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
611 |
2,286 |
25
|
128 |
19.6% |
31.4% |
19.6 |
5.1 |
781 |
153 |
| 346 |
Camarillo · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
416 |
1,969 |
25
|
91 |
27.4% |
26.9% |
19.0 |
1.9 |
380 |
104 |
| 347 |
Temecula · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
683 |
2,739 |
25
|
102 |
24.5% |
29.4% |
21.4 |
3.4 |
695 |
170 |
| 348 |
Newark · Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
345 |
1,367 |
25
|
103 |
24.0% |
27.1% |
15.9 |
4.9 |
354 |
85 |
| 349 |
· Public Best in class
|
Orange |
536 |
2,126 |
25
|
108 |
22.8% |
26.5% |
18.3 |
4.5 |
580 |
132 |
| 350 |
Anaheim · Private
|
Orange |
187 |
767 |
25
|
157 |
15.7% |
6.5% |
18.2 |
2.1 |
294 |
46 |
| 351 |
Hercules · Public Material decline
|
Contra Costa |
163 |
767 |
25
|
179 |
13.8% |
37.5% |
15.9 |
7.4 |
291 |
40 |
| 352 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
400 |
1,724 |
24
|
133 |
18.5% |
33.7% |
17.8 |
3.8 |
531 |
98 |
| 353 |
San Marcos · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
777 |
3,067 |
24
|
116 |
21.1% |
29.5% |
19.6 |
3.2 |
901 |
190 |
| 354 |
San Jose · Public
|
Santa Clara |
107 |
421 |
24
|
94 |
25.7% |
15.4% |
19.6 |
7.5 |
101 |
26 |
| 355 |
Salinas · Public Material decline
|
Monterey |
611 |
2,380 |
24
|
63 |
38.6% |
22.3% |
18.3 |
2.6 |
383 |
148 |
| 356 |
Sonoma · Public Material decline
|
Sonoma |
256 |
1,071 |
24
|
73 |
33.0% |
14.5% |
15.6 |
5.9 |
188 |
62 |
| 357 |
· Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
572 |
2,060 |
24
|
156 |
15.4% |
28.3% |
19.6 |
3.5 |
895 |
138 |
| 358 |
Long Beach · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
299 |
1,260 |
24
|
105 |
22.9% |
62.5% |
20.7 |
4.3 |
315 |
72 |
| 359 |
Lynwood · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
378 |
1,633 |
24
|
82 |
29.4% |
19.8% |
21.2 |
3.4 |
309 |
91 |
| 360 |
Ukiah · Public Strong demand
|
Mendocino |
378 |
1,767 |
24
|
59 |
40.6% |
18.7% |
16.7 |
2.9 |
224 |
91 |
| 361 |
Rowland Heights · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
463 |
2,016 |
24
|
125 |
19.1% |
30.6% |
18.4 |
4.1 |
580 |
111 |
| 362 |
Huntington Beach · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
507 |
1,997 |
24
|
94 |
25.3% |
25.0% |
19.3 |
4.3 |
475 |
120 |
| 363 |
Thermal · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
433 |
1,875 |
24
|
67 |
35.2% |
20.6% |
19.6 |
3.2 |
290 |
102 |
| 364 |
Huntington Park · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
382 |
1,479 |
24
|
94 |
25.0% |
32.2% |
19.6 |
4.2 |
360 |
90 |
| 365 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
316 |
1,263 |
23
|
68 |
34.4% |
16.2% |
19.6 |
7.0 |
215 |
74 |
| 366 |
Novato · Public Demand problem
|
Marin |
305 |
1,250 |
23
|
135 |
17.2% |
15.5% |
16.1 |
3.3 |
412 |
71 |
| 367 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
537 |
1,941 |
23
|
80 |
29.2% |
22.4% |
19.6 |
4.5 |
428 |
125 |
| 368 |
Mission Viejo · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
597 |
2,475 |
23
|
101 |
23.1% |
29.5% |
18.4 |
3.5 |
601 |
139 |
| 369 |
Baldwin Park · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
393 |
1,650 |
23
|
75 |
30.9% |
19.8% |
21.6 |
4.1 |
295 |
91 |
| 370 |
Santa Rosa · Private
|
Sonoma |
108 |
567 |
23
|
150 |
15.4% |
— |
17.6 |
2.8 |
162 |
25 |
| 371 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
402 |
1,549 |
23
|
90 |
25.7% |
24.7% |
19.6 |
3.5 |
362 |
93 |
| 372 |
Gonzales · Public Sharp downturn
|
Monterey |
204 |
751 |
23
|
56 |
41.2% |
14.9% |
15.7 |
4.4 |
114 |
47 |
| 373 |
Concord · Private
|
Contra Costa |
252 |
1,025 |
23
|
132 |
17.5% |
25.9% |
17.9 |
6.8 |
332 |
58 |
| 374 |
Nuevo · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
170 |
667 |
23
|
74 |
31.2% |
15.4% |
20.6 |
1.8 |
125 |
39 |
| 375 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
384 |
1,582 |
23
|
118 |
19.4% |
20.4% |
19.8 |
5.0 |
453 |
88 |
| 376 |
Bell · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
441 |
2,088 |
23
|
101 |
22.8% |
22.8% |
19.7 |
4.1 |
444 |
101 |
| 377 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
425 |
1,891 |
23
|
97 |
23.4% |
32.0% |
13.9 |
3.3 |
414 |
97 |
| 378 |
Union City · Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
832 |
3,096 |
23
|
120 |
19.0% |
34.4% |
15.4 |
3.7 |
995 |
189 |
| 379 |
Los Angeles · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
106 |
431 |
23
|
108 |
20.9% |
25.0% |
16.0 |
3.8 |
115 |
24 |
| 380 |
· Public Demand problem
|
Riverside |
673 |
2,712 |
23
|
86 |
26.3% |
23.0% |
20.1 |
4.5 |
578 |
152 |
| 381 |
South San Francisco · Public Demand problem
|
San Mateo |
271 |
1,053 |
23
|
126 |
17.8% |
29.5% |
14.0 |
3.3 |
342 |
61 |
| 382 |
Moreno Valley · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
476 |
2,101 |
22
|
87 |
26.0% |
29.0% |
18.7 |
1.9 |
412 |
107 |
| 383 |
El Monte · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
423 |
1,638 |
22
|
84 |
26.6% |
30.5% |
20.3 |
4.0 |
357 |
95 |
| 384 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
512 |
2,152 |
22
|
87 |
26.0% |
21.7% |
17.8 |
3.3 |
443 |
115 |
| 385 |
La Verne · Private
|
Los Angeles |
156 |
696 |
22
|
154 |
14.5% |
17.1% |
16.0 |
1.9 |
241 |
35 |
| 386 |
South Gate · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
499 |
1,990 |
22
|
109 |
20.7% |
29.5% |
17.4 |
3.2 |
542 |
112 |
| 387 |
Placentia · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
433 |
1,998 |
22
|
103 |
21.8% |
25.8% |
18.7 |
3.7 |
446 |
97 |
| 388 |
· Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
256 |
1,000 |
22
|
102 |
21.8% |
19.3% |
16.4 |
4.3 |
261 |
57 |
| 389 |
Perris · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
405 |
1,630 |
22
|
79 |
28.2% |
22.2% |
19.3 |
1.5 |
319 |
90 |
| 390 |
Felton · Public Material decline
|
Santa Cruz |
163 |
578 |
22
|
72 |
30.5% |
8.3% |
17.8 |
4.9 |
118 |
36 |
| 391 |
San Diego · Public Strong demand
|
San Diego |
557 |
2,187 |
22
|
99 |
22.2% |
30.9% |
19.6 |
4.5 |
554 |
123 |
| 392 |
Chula Vista · Public Holding share
|
San Diego |
654 |
2,440 |
22
|
109 |
20.2% |
30.6% |
18.6 |
3.2 |
711 |
144 |
| 393 |
Fresno · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
518 |
2,339 |
22
|
62 |
35.3% |
23.7% |
15.6 |
5.2 |
323 |
114 |
| 394 |
Rancho Cucamonga · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
769 |
3,221 |
22
|
94 |
23.5% |
30.2% |
17.6 |
3.5 |
719 |
169 |
| 395 |
Arcata · Public Demand problem
|
Humboldt |
264 |
1,007 |
22
|
69 |
31.7% |
24.1% |
16.7 |
3.4 |
183 |
58 |
| 396 |
Fillmore · Public Strong demand
|
Ventura |
247 |
1,007 |
22
|
55 |
39.4% |
9.3% |
19.4 |
4.9 |
137 |
54 |
| 397 |
Elk Grove · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
613 |
2,536 |
22
|
99 |
22.0% |
37.3% |
13.4 |
1.6 |
608 |
134 |
| 398 |
Castroville · Public Watch — engagement
|
Monterey |
316 |
1,250 |
22
|
62 |
35.4% |
13.0% |
15.5 |
2.9 |
195 |
69 |
| 399 |
Covina · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
252 |
1,056 |
22
|
89 |
24.6% |
9.1% |
17.9 |
2.4 |
224 |
55 |
| 400 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
423 |
1,568 |
22
|
82 |
26.4% |
37.0% |
19.4 |
2.6 |
348 |
92 |