| 301 |
Los Angeles · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
498 |
2,055 |
31
|
120 |
25.6% |
15.0% |
25.5 |
8.6 |
598 |
153 |
| 302 |
Downey · Private
|
Los Angeles |
111 |
591 |
31
|
153 |
20.0% |
— |
27.0 |
6.3 |
170 |
34 |
| 303 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
180 |
694 |
31
|
94 |
32.4% |
16.4% |
24.4 |
6.7 |
170 |
55 |
| 304 |
Cypress · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
682 |
2,685 |
30
|
145 |
21.0% |
33.6% |
25.2 |
4.2 |
991 |
208 |
| 305 |
Kentfield · Private
|
Marin |
191 |
718 |
30
|
185 |
16.4% |
27.6% |
20.4 |
5.2 |
354 |
58 |
| 306 |
Los Angeles · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
392 |
1,497 |
30
|
172 |
17.7% |
29.4% |
25.8 |
6.1 |
674 |
119 |
| 307 |
San Jose · Public Demand problem
|
Santa Clara |
379 |
1,543 |
30
|
123 |
24.6% |
30.4% |
22.2 |
5.0 |
468 |
115 |
| 308 |
Chula Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
578 |
2,289 |
30
|
129 |
23.4% |
29.1% |
25.4 |
3.1 |
748 |
175 |
| 309 |
Morgan Hill · Public Tracking
|
Santa Clara |
377 |
1,511 |
30
|
142 |
21.3% |
33.3% |
22.0 |
3.7 |
536 |
114 |
| 310 |
Atherton · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
571 |
2,158 |
30
|
180 |
16.8% |
25.6% |
21.5 |
6.7 |
1,025 |
172 |
| 311 |
Los Angeles · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
127 |
546 |
30
|
123 |
24.4% |
— |
27.6 |
5.5 |
156 |
38 |
| 312 |
San Anselmo · Public Best in class
|
Marin |
288 |
1,141 |
30
|
175 |
17.0% |
32.6% |
19.8 |
5.9 |
505 |
86 |
| 313 |
Pleasant Hill · Public Demand problem
|
Contra Costa |
477 |
1,948 |
30
|
127 |
23.5% |
29.6% |
19.7 |
4.0 |
605 |
142 |
| 314 |
San Lorenzo · Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
373 |
1,499 |
30
|
118 |
25.3% |
34.2% |
19.3 |
4.0 |
439 |
111 |
| 315 |
Sacramento · Private
|
Sacramento |
236 |
1,132 |
30
|
134 |
22.1% |
31.4% |
19.9 |
5.1 |
316 |
70 |
| 316 |
Half Moon Bay · Public Tracking
|
San Mateo |
233 |
911 |
30
|
112 |
26.4% |
18.8% |
21.5 |
5.2 |
261 |
69 |
| 317 |
Antioch · Public Holding share
|
Contra Costa |
156 |
681 |
29
|
96 |
30.7% |
17.4% |
17.9 |
7.0 |
150 |
46 |
| 318 |
Chula Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
489 |
1,960 |
29
|
114 |
25.8% |
34.7% |
25.1 |
5.1 |
558 |
144 |
| 319 |
Reseda · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
333 |
1,339 |
29
|
92 |
31.9% |
22.4% |
24.0 |
5.4 |
307 |
98 |
| 320 |
Lawndale · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
415 |
1,403 |
29
|
97 |
30.2% |
27.1% |
26.8 |
5.1 |
404 |
122 |
| 321 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
143 |
629 |
29
|
126 |
23.3% |
38.1% |
14.7 |
7.7 |
180 |
42 |
| 322 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
167 |
589 |
29
|
102 |
28.8% |
16.3% |
23.9 |
7.2 |
170 |
49 |
| 323 |
La Canada · Private
|
Los Angeles |
150 |
623 |
29
|
209 |
14.1% |
22.7% |
22.7 |
7.3 |
313 |
44 |
| 324 |
Lake Balboa · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
713 |
3,162 |
29
|
130 |
22.6% |
27.3% |
22.7 |
5.6 |
925 |
209 |
| 325 |
Chino Hills · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
744 |
2,748 |
29
|
131 |
22.4% |
32.6% |
23.2 |
4.3 |
972 |
218 |
| 326 |
Coronado · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Diego |
263 |
999 |
29
|
144 |
20.4% |
23.4% |
19.0 |
5.7 |
378 |
77 |
| 327 |
Milpitas · Public Weak at the gate
|
Santa Clara |
694 |
2,926 |
29
|
193 |
15.2% |
34.0% |
20.6 |
5.2 |
1,338 |
203 |
| 328 |
Huntington Park · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
113 |
565 |
29
|
151 |
19.3% |
15.2% |
29.2 |
8.0 |
171 |
33 |
| 329 |
Carson · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
120 |
474 |
29
|
113 |
25.7% |
22.9% |
26.7 |
8.3 |
136 |
35 |
| 330 |
Santa Ana · Public Sharp downturn
|
Orange |
415 |
1,687 |
29
|
101 |
28.8% |
28.1% |
23.6 |
3.6 |
420 |
121 |
| 331 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
127 |
1,850 |
29
|
111 |
26.2% |
37.8% |
18.9 |
3.1 |
141 |
37 |
| 332 |
Palm Desert · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
468 |
2,079 |
29
|
96 |
30.2% |
19.1% |
23.7 |
4.3 |
450 |
136 |
| 333 |
Salinas · Public Strong demand
|
Monterey |
369 |
1,600 |
29
|
92 |
31.4% |
14.9% |
21.4 |
7.3 |
341 |
107 |
| 334 |
Chatsworth · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
429 |
1,743 |
29
|
97 |
29.7% |
20.2% |
22.1 |
5.8 |
418 |
124 |
| 335 |
Anaheim · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
520 |
2,183 |
29
|
179 |
16.1% |
34.0% |
25.0 |
4.8 |
931 |
150 |
| 336 |
Torrance · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
430 |
1,812 |
29
|
108 |
26.7% |
27.4% |
22.6 |
4.7 |
465 |
124 |
| 337 |
Torrance · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
452 |
1,879 |
29
|
124 |
23.3% |
33.9% |
22.6 |
4.4 |
559 |
130 |
| 338 |
Tracy · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Joaquin |
400 |
1,587 |
29
|
106 |
27.1% |
27.8% |
18.0 |
2.8 |
425 |
115 |
| 339 |
Campbell · Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
407 |
1,682 |
29
|
162 |
17.7% |
30.8% |
21.9 |
3.0 |
661 |
117 |
| 340 |
Van Nuys · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
515 |
1,969 |
29
|
115 |
25.1% |
29.1% |
23.9 |
6.6 |
590 |
148 |
| 341 |
Carson · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
105 |
438 |
29
|
96 |
29.7% |
10.0% |
20.9 |
2.9 |
101 |
30 |
| 342 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
508 |
2,194 |
29
|
95 |
30.0% |
26.9% |
17.9 |
4.1 |
484 |
145 |
| 343 |
Santa Rosa · Public Best in class
|
Sonoma |
372 |
1,584 |
28
|
99 |
28.7% |
15.1% |
21.0 |
3.8 |
369 |
106 |
| 344 |
Laguna Hills · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
330 |
1,317 |
28
|
99 |
28.8% |
18.1% |
24.2 |
4.5 |
327 |
94 |
| 345 |
Aptos · Public Demand problem
|
Santa Cruz |
292 |
1,274 |
28
|
114 |
25.0% |
33.7% |
19.2 |
4.5 |
332 |
83 |
| 346 |
Los Angeles · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
268 |
1,130 |
28
|
127 |
22.4% |
30.3% |
22.8 |
4.5 |
340 |
76 |
| 347 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
113 |
484 |
28
|
198 |
14.3% |
9.4% |
20.4 |
8.0 |
224 |
32 |
| 348 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
378 |
1,495 |
28
|
105 |
26.9% |
26.2% |
22.2 |
6.3 |
397 |
107 |
| 349 |
Fountain Valley · Public Weak at the gate
|
Orange |
803 |
3,171 |
28
|
143 |
19.8% |
36.1% |
23.4 |
4.2 |
1,145 |
227 |
| 350 |
La Puente · Private
|
Los Angeles |
223 |
977 |
28
|
120 |
23.5% |
22.2% |
22.4 |
4.9 |
268 |
63 |
| 351 |
Santa Cruz · Public Tracking
|
Santa Cruz |
223 |
1,013 |
28
|
84 |
33.5% |
12.7% |
21.1 |
4.5 |
188 |
63 |
| 352 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
117 |
598 |
28
|
128 |
22.0% |
27.3% |
24.8 |
8.6 |
150 |
33 |
| 353 |
San Jose · Public Sharp downturn
|
Santa Clara |
536 |
2,139 |
28
|
150 |
18.8% |
30.5% |
19.2 |
5.0 |
803 |
151 |
| 354 |
Los Angeles · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
531 |
2,237 |
28
|
118 |
23.8% |
28.9% |
25.2 |
5.1 |
627 |
149 |
| 355 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
139 |
515 |
28
|
161 |
17.4% |
7.7% |
19.4 |
7.2 |
224 |
39 |
| 356 |
Fullerton · Private
|
Orange |
107 |
462 |
28
|
124 |
22.6% |
10.0% |
20.6 |
— |
133 |
30 |
| 357 |
Poway · Public Holding share
|
San Diego |
550 |
2,101 |
28
|
102 |
27.5% |
31.8% |
20.7 |
2.7 |
560 |
154 |
| 358 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
418 |
1,842 |
28
|
155 |
18.0% |
25.6% |
23.4 |
6.5 |
649 |
117 |
| 359 |
Oceanside · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
398 |
1,670 |
28
|
130 |
21.5% |
35.1% |
20.6 |
3.3 |
517 |
111 |
| 360 |
Reseda · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
567 |
2,719 |
28
|
122 |
22.8% |
24.7% |
19.4 |
5.8 |
693 |
158 |
| 361 |
Placentia · Public Tracking
|
Orange |
618 |
2,411 |
28
|
132 |
21.0% |
27.3% |
20.7 |
4.0 |
818 |
172 |
| 362 |
South Gate · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
101 |
867 |
28
|
95 |
29.2% |
10.7% |
27.7 |
6.9 |
96 |
28 |
| 363 |
Soquel · Public Best in class
|
Santa Cruz |
264 |
1,074 |
28
|
123 |
22.5% |
20.6% |
19.7 |
4.5 |
325 |
73 |
| 364 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
596 |
2,569 |
28
|
89 |
30.9% |
27.4% |
19.3 |
3.9 |
531 |
164 |
| 365 |
Hawthorne · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
131 |
552 |
27
|
178 |
15.4% |
11.1% |
19.9 |
5.3 |
233 |
36 |
| 366 |
Santa Barbara · Public Material decline
|
Santa Barbara |
557 |
1,924 |
27
|
113 |
24.4% |
26.1% |
18.9 |
4.5 |
628 |
153 |
| 367 |
San Jose · Public Holding share
|
Santa Clara |
539 |
2,134 |
27
|
123 |
22.4% |
24.3% |
20.2 |
4.3 |
661 |
148 |
| 368 |
Alameda · Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
230 |
1,280 |
27
|
155 |
17.7% |
23.8% |
17.4 |
4.3 |
356 |
63 |
| 369 |
Rancho Cucamonga · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
698 |
2,759 |
27
|
129 |
21.2% |
27.8% |
22.5 |
4.6 |
899 |
191 |
| 370 |
Los Angeles · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
117 |
512 |
27
|
115 |
23.7% |
9.4% |
19.7 |
2.6 |
135 |
32 |
| 371 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
601 |
2,485 |
27
|
128 |
21.3% |
26.8% |
20.1 |
2.8 |
771 |
164 |
| 372 |
Pasadena · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
339 |
1,303 |
27
|
130 |
20.9% |
15.2% |
21.5 |
7.7 |
440 |
92 |
| 373 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
258 |
1,001 |
27
|
90 |
30.0% |
21.4% |
20.2 |
5.0 |
233 |
70 |
| 374 |
Sun Valley · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
118 |
1,100 |
27
|
140 |
19.4% |
12.5% |
21.2 |
4.2 |
165 |
32 |
| 375 |
Inglewood · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
144 |
588 |
27
|
165 |
16.4% |
20.5% |
18.1 |
2.1 |
238 |
39 |
| 376 |
Garden Grove · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
425 |
1,701 |
27
|
117 |
23.1% |
34.8% |
24.2 |
4.5 |
497 |
115 |
| 377 |
Porterville · Public Sharp downturn
|
Tulare |
115 |
509 |
27
|
74 |
36.5% |
— |
20.0 |
4.3 |
85 |
31 |
| 378 |
La Mesa · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
621 |
2,554 |
27
|
127 |
21.1% |
31.7% |
19.6 |
3.4 |
791 |
167 |
| 379 |
Benicia · Public Sharp downturn
|
Solano |
317 |
1,335 |
27
|
117 |
22.9% |
28.2% |
17.7 |
4.1 |
371 |
85 |
| 380 |
Elk Grove · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
675 |
2,650 |
27
|
129 |
20.8% |
38.7% |
17.0 |
3.7 |
870 |
181 |
| 381 |
Huntington Beach · Public Tracking
|
Orange |
698 |
2,645 |
27
|
119 |
22.4% |
34.2% |
22.4 |
5.3 |
834 |
187 |
| 382 |
Oakland · Public Strong demand
|
Alameda |
112 |
828 |
27
|
133 |
20.1% |
— |
17.0 |
5.4 |
149 |
30 |
| 383 |
Panorama City · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
492 |
27
|
180 |
14.8% |
10.0% |
21.4 |
2.7 |
202 |
30 |
| 384 |
Rocklin · Public Holding share
|
Placer |
449 |
2,041 |
27
|
118 |
22.7% |
30.8% |
18.0 |
4.0 |
529 |
120 |
| 385 |
Newbury Park · Public Weak at the gate
|
Ventura |
539 |
2,047 |
27
|
111 |
24.2% |
24.3% |
21.1 |
4.6 |
596 |
144 |
| 386 |
Long Beach · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
992 |
3,890 |
27
|
101 |
26.5% |
24.1% |
22.1 |
6.2 |
1,000 |
265 |
| 387 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
139 |
1,862 |
27
|
110 |
24.2% |
24.3% |
24.5 |
2.9 |
153 |
37 |
| 388 |
Livermore · Public Best in class
|
Alameda |
568 |
2,156 |
27
|
123 |
21.7% |
26.5% |
20.4 |
4.0 |
697 |
151 |
| 389 |
La Verne · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
467 |
1,911 |
27
|
87 |
30.6% |
27.4% |
22.3 |
4.3 |
405 |
124 |
| 390 |
Van Nuys · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
136 |
1,229 |
26
|
99 |
26.7% |
8.3% |
22.8 |
5.2 |
135 |
36 |
| 391 |
Danville · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
510 |
2,036 |
26
|
137 |
19.3% |
33.3% |
19.6 |
7.2 |
700 |
135 |
| 392 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
121 |
494 |
26
|
126 |
20.9% |
15.6% |
21.5 |
7.4 |
153 |
32 |
| 393 |
Venice · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
110 |
335 |
26
|
130 |
20.3% |
— |
22.7 |
9.1 |
143 |
29 |
| 394 |
Carlsbad · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
573 |
2,336 |
26
|
94 |
27.9% |
26.5% |
20.4 |
4.2 |
541 |
151 |
| 395 |
San Bernardino · Private
|
San Bernardino |
137 |
645 |
26
|
130 |
20.2% |
25.0% |
23.4 |
2.2 |
178 |
36 |
| 396 |
Colfax · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
138 |
611 |
26
|
60 |
43.4% |
11.1% |
18.8 |
6.5 |
83 |
36 |
| 397 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
265 |
1,240 |
26
|
129 |
20.1% |
21.7% |
16.6 |
4.5 |
343 |
69 |
| 398 |
Modesto · Public Weak at the gate
|
Stanislaus |
591 |
2,304 |
26
|
81 |
32.1% |
22.9% |
17.9 |
3.0 |
477 |
153 |
| 399 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
480 |
1,602 |
26
|
102 |
25.2% |
33.1% |
20.6 |
4.4 |
492 |
124 |
| 400 |
Van Nuys · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
426 |
1,774 |
26
|
94 |
27.4% |
23.6% |
21.6 |
4.5 |
402 |
110 |