| 401 |
Oceanside · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
398 |
1,670 |
28
|
130 |
21.5% |
35.1% |
20.6 |
3.3 |
517 |
111 |
| 402 |
Placentia · Public Tracking
|
Orange |
618 |
2,411 |
28
|
132 |
21.0% |
27.3% |
20.7 |
4.0 |
818 |
172 |
| 403 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
36 |
320 |
28
|
275 |
10.1% |
— |
11.1 |
— |
99 |
10 |
| 404 |
· Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
235 |
974 |
28
|
159 |
17.4% |
23.1% |
21.3 |
7.7 |
373 |
65 |
| 405 |
Soquel · Public Best in class
|
Santa Cruz |
264 |
1,074 |
28
|
123 |
22.5% |
20.6% |
19.7 |
4.5 |
325 |
73 |
| 406 |
Santa Ana · Private
|
Orange |
87 |
839 |
28
|
89 |
31.2% |
12.5% |
18.4 |
3.5 |
77 |
24 |
| 407 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
596 |
2,569 |
28
|
89 |
30.9% |
27.4% |
19.3 |
3.9 |
531 |
164 |
| 408 |
Hawthorne · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
131 |
552 |
27
|
178 |
15.4% |
11.1% |
19.9 |
5.3 |
233 |
36 |
| 409 |
San Jose · Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
539 |
2,134 |
27
|
123 |
22.4% |
24.3% |
20.2 |
4.3 |
661 |
148 |
| 410 |
Oakland · Public Demand problem
|
Alameda |
62 |
436 |
27
|
111 |
24.6% |
23.5% |
16.1 |
6.5 |
69 |
17 |
| 411 |
Rancho Cucamonga · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
698 |
2,759 |
27
|
129 |
21.2% |
27.8% |
22.5 |
4.6 |
899 |
191 |
| 412 |
Oakland · Private
|
Alameda |
77 |
334 |
27
|
195 |
14.0% |
19.1% |
14.3 |
6.5 |
150 |
21 |
| 413 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
136 |
797 |
27
|
215 |
12.6% |
35.1% |
24.3 |
4.4 |
293 |
37 |
| 414 |
Pasadena · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
339 |
1,303 |
27
|
130 |
20.9% |
15.2% |
21.5 |
7.7 |
440 |
92 |
| 415 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
258 |
1,001 |
27
|
90 |
30.0% |
21.4% |
20.2 |
5.0 |
233 |
70 |
| 416 |
Oak Park · Public Demand hides churn
|
Ventura |
48 |
145 |
27
|
83 |
32.5% |
23.1% |
27.1 |
8.3 |
40 |
13 |
| 417 |
Garden Grove · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
425 |
1,701 |
27
|
117 |
23.1% |
34.8% |
24.2 |
4.5 |
497 |
115 |
| 418 |
Porterville · Public Sharp downturn
|
Tulare |
115 |
509 |
27
|
74 |
36.5% |
— |
20.0 |
4.3 |
85 |
31 |
| 419 |
La Mesa · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
621 |
2,554 |
27
|
127 |
21.1% |
31.7% |
19.6 |
3.4 |
791 |
167 |
| 420 |
Benicia · Public Sharp downturn
|
Solano |
317 |
1,335 |
27
|
117 |
22.9% |
28.2% |
17.7 |
4.1 |
371 |
85 |
| 421 |
Elk Grove · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
675 |
2,650 |
27
|
129 |
20.8% |
38.7% |
17.0 |
3.7 |
870 |
181 |
| 422 |
Huntington Beach · Public Tracking
|
Orange |
698 |
2,645 |
27
|
119 |
22.4% |
34.2% |
22.4 |
5.3 |
834 |
187 |
| 423 |
Oakland · Public Demand hides churn
|
Alameda |
56 |
199 |
27
|
129 |
20.8% |
— |
17.9 |
— |
72 |
15 |
| 424 |
Oakland · Public Strong demand
|
Alameda |
112 |
828 |
27
|
133 |
20.1% |
— |
17.0 |
5.4 |
149 |
30 |
| 425 |
Panorama City · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
492 |
27
|
180 |
14.8% |
10.0% |
21.4 |
2.7 |
202 |
30 |
| 426 |
Rocklin · Public Holding share
|
Placer |
449 |
2,041 |
27
|
118 |
22.7% |
30.8% |
18.0 |
4.0 |
529 |
120 |
| 427 |
Newbury Park · Public Weak at the gate
|
Ventura |
539 |
2,047 |
27
|
111 |
24.2% |
24.3% |
21.1 |
4.6 |
596 |
144 |
| 428 |
Long Beach · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
992 |
3,890 |
27
|
101 |
26.5% |
24.1% |
22.1 |
6.2 |
1,000 |
265 |
| 429 |
Livermore · Public Best in class
|
Alameda |
568 |
2,156 |
27
|
123 |
21.7% |
26.5% |
20.4 |
4.0 |
697 |
151 |
| 430 |
La Verne · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
467 |
1,911 |
27
|
87 |
30.6% |
27.4% |
22.3 |
4.3 |
405 |
124 |
| 431 |
Danville · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
510 |
2,036 |
26
|
137 |
19.3% |
33.3% |
19.6 |
7.2 |
700 |
135 |
| 432 |
Venice · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
110 |
335 |
26
|
130 |
20.3% |
— |
22.7 |
9.1 |
143 |
29 |
| 433 |
Carlsbad · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
573 |
2,336 |
26
|
94 |
27.9% |
26.5% |
20.4 |
4.2 |
541 |
151 |
| 434 |
East Palo Alto · Private
|
San Mateo |
57 |
251 |
26
|
142 |
18.5% |
33.3% |
12.3 |
— |
81 |
15 |
| 435 |
San Bernardino · Private
|
San Bernardino |
137 |
645 |
26
|
130 |
20.2% |
25.0% |
23.4 |
2.2 |
178 |
36 |
| 436 |
Colfax · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
138 |
611 |
26
|
60 |
43.4% |
11.1% |
18.8 |
6.5 |
83 |
36 |
| 437 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
265 |
1,240 |
26
|
129 |
20.1% |
21.7% |
16.6 |
4.5 |
343 |
69 |
| 438 |
Hemet · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
77 |
762 |
26
|
166 |
15.6% |
15.0% |
15.6 |
— |
128 |
20 |
| 439 |
Modesto · Public Weak at the gate
|
Stanislaus |
591 |
2,304 |
26
|
81 |
32.1% |
22.9% |
17.9 |
3.0 |
477 |
153 |
| 440 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
480 |
1,602 |
26
|
102 |
25.2% |
33.1% |
20.6 |
4.4 |
492 |
124 |
| 441 |
Van Nuys · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
426 |
1,774 |
26
|
94 |
27.4% |
23.6% |
21.6 |
4.5 |
402 |
110 |
| 442 |
Fort Bragg · Public Sharp downturn
|
Mendocino |
132 |
569 |
26
|
81 |
31.8% |
11.8% |
20.4 |
— |
107 |
34 |
| 443 |
Morro Bay · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Luis Obispo |
171 |
751 |
26
|
91 |
28.2% |
6.8% |
19.3 |
3.5 |
156 |
44 |
| 444 |
Fowler · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
199 |
807 |
26
|
73 |
35.2% |
17.6% |
18.1 |
6.5 |
145 |
51 |
| 445 |
· Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
582 |
2,373 |
26
|
122 |
21.0% |
29.5% |
20.1 |
3.4 |
709 |
149 |
| 446 |
El Segundo · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
141 |
550 |
26
|
131 |
19.5% |
8.3% |
19.1 |
6.4 |
185 |
36 |
| 447 |
Newport Beach · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
526 |
2,084 |
25
|
94 |
27.2% |
29.9% |
21.9 |
3.8 |
493 |
134 |
| 448 |
Pasadena · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
138 |
1,053 |
25
|
115 |
22.0% |
25.7% |
18.1 |
5.1 |
159 |
35 |
| 449 |
Bakersfield · Public Weak at the gate
|
Kern |
576 |
2,398 |
25
|
91 |
27.9% |
24.7% |
20.7 |
3.1 |
523 |
146 |
| 450 |
Agoura Hills · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
442 |
1,709 |
25
|
130 |
19.5% |
26.8% |
19.7 |
5.2 |
574 |
112 |
| 451 |
San Juan Capistrano · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
703 |
2,641 |
25
|
111 |
22.9% |
25.3% |
19.4 |
2.6 |
777 |
178 |
| 452 |
Delhi · Public Material decline
|
Merced |
162 |
710 |
25
|
90 |
28.1% |
17.1% |
16.1 |
1.9 |
146 |
41 |
| 453 |
Temecula · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
733 |
2,946 |
25
|
125 |
20.2% |
33.5% |
21.0 |
3.1 |
916 |
185 |
| 454 |
San Leandro · Public Demand problem
|
Alameda |
599 |
2,510 |
25
|
95 |
26.4% |
32.5% |
15.7 |
2.0 |
571 |
151 |
| 455 |
Daly City · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
322 |
1,278 |
25
|
119 |
21.1% |
39.5% |
15.5 |
3.7 |
384 |
81 |
| 456 |
Cathedral City · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
346 |
1,334 |
25
|
76 |
33.1% |
21.8% |
20.8 |
4.3 |
263 |
87 |
| 457 |
Novato · Public Both ends slipping
|
Marin |
350 |
1,287 |
25
|
105 |
23.9% |
26.1% |
18.6 |
5.4 |
368 |
88 |
| 458 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
611 |
2,286 |
25
|
128 |
19.6% |
31.4% |
19.6 |
5.1 |
781 |
153 |
| 459 |
Camarillo · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
416 |
1,969 |
25
|
91 |
27.4% |
26.9% |
19.0 |
1.9 |
380 |
104 |
| 460 |
Temecula · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
683 |
2,739 |
25
|
102 |
24.5% |
29.4% |
21.4 |
3.4 |
695 |
170 |
| 461 |
Burlingame · Private
|
San Mateo |
81 |
354 |
25
|
210 |
11.8% |
— |
13.6 |
— |
170 |
20 |
| 462 |
Newark · Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
345 |
1,367 |
25
|
103 |
24.0% |
27.1% |
15.9 |
4.9 |
354 |
85 |
| 463 |
· Public Best in class
|
Orange |
536 |
2,126 |
25
|
108 |
22.8% |
26.5% |
18.3 |
4.5 |
580 |
132 |
| 464 |
Ojai · Private
|
Ventura |
65 |
257 |
25
|
215 |
11.4% |
— |
20.0 |
7.7 |
140 |
16 |
| 465 |
Anaheim · Private
|
Orange |
187 |
767 |
25
|
157 |
15.7% |
6.5% |
18.2 |
2.1 |
294 |
46 |
| 466 |
Hercules · Public Material decline
|
Contra Costa |
163 |
767 |
25
|
179 |
13.8% |
37.5% |
15.9 |
7.4 |
291 |
40 |
| 467 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
400 |
1,724 |
24
|
133 |
18.5% |
33.7% |
17.8 |
3.8 |
531 |
98 |
| 468 |
San Marcos · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
777 |
3,067 |
24
|
116 |
21.1% |
29.5% |
19.6 |
3.2 |
901 |
190 |
| 469 |
San Jose · Public
|
Santa Clara |
107 |
421 |
24
|
94 |
25.7% |
15.4% |
19.6 |
7.5 |
101 |
26 |
| 470 |
Salinas · Public Material decline
|
Monterey |
611 |
2,380 |
24
|
63 |
38.6% |
22.3% |
18.3 |
2.6 |
383 |
148 |
| 471 |
Sonoma · Public Material decline
|
Sonoma |
256 |
1,071 |
24
|
73 |
33.0% |
14.5% |
15.6 |
5.9 |
188 |
62 |
| 472 |
· Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
572 |
2,060 |
24
|
156 |
15.4% |
28.3% |
19.6 |
3.5 |
895 |
138 |
| 473 |
Montebello · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
83 |
295 |
24
|
98 |
24.7% |
15.0% |
16.9 |
— |
81 |
20 |
| 474 |
Long Beach · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
299 |
1,260 |
24
|
105 |
22.9% |
62.5% |
20.7 |
4.3 |
315 |
72 |
| 475 |
Lynwood · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
378 |
1,633 |
24
|
82 |
29.4% |
19.8% |
21.2 |
3.4 |
309 |
91 |
| 476 |
Ukiah · Public Strong demand
|
Mendocino |
378 |
1,767 |
24
|
59 |
40.6% |
18.7% |
16.7 |
2.9 |
224 |
91 |
| 477 |
Davis · Public Sharp downturn
|
Yolo |
75 |
562 |
24
|
144 |
16.7% |
— |
10.7 |
— |
108 |
18 |
| 478 |
Rowland Heights · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
463 |
2,016 |
24
|
125 |
19.1% |
30.6% |
18.4 |
4.1 |
580 |
111 |
| 479 |
· Public Strong demand
|
San Diego |
46 |
88 |
24
|
143 |
16.7% |
27.3% |
15.2 |
— |
66 |
11 |
| 480 |
Huntington Beach · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
507 |
1,997 |
24
|
94 |
25.3% |
25.0% |
19.3 |
4.3 |
475 |
120 |
| 481 |
Thermal · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
433 |
1,875 |
24
|
67 |
35.2% |
20.6% |
19.6 |
3.2 |
290 |
102 |
| 482 |
Huntington Park · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
382 |
1,479 |
24
|
94 |
25.0% |
32.2% |
19.6 |
4.2 |
360 |
90 |
| 483 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
316 |
1,263 |
23
|
68 |
34.4% |
16.2% |
19.6 |
7.0 |
215 |
74 |
| 484 |
Carlsbad · Private
|
San Diego |
60 |
272 |
23
|
162 |
14.4% |
42.9% |
13.3 |
— |
97 |
14 |
| 485 |
Novato · Public Demand problem
|
Marin |
305 |
1,250 |
23
|
135 |
17.2% |
15.5% |
16.1 |
3.3 |
412 |
71 |
| 486 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
537 |
1,941 |
23
|
80 |
29.2% |
22.4% |
19.6 |
4.5 |
428 |
125 |
| 487 |
Mission Viejo · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
597 |
2,475 |
23
|
101 |
23.1% |
29.5% |
18.4 |
3.5 |
601 |
139 |
| 488 |
Baldwin Park · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
393 |
1,650 |
23
|
75 |
30.9% |
19.8% |
21.6 |
4.1 |
295 |
91 |
| 489 |
Santa Rosa · Private
|
Sonoma |
108 |
567 |
23
|
150 |
15.4% |
— |
17.6 |
2.8 |
162 |
25 |
| 490 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
402 |
1,549 |
23
|
90 |
25.7% |
24.7% |
19.6 |
3.5 |
362 |
93 |
| 491 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
26 |
74 |
23
|
154 |
15.0% |
— |
11.5 |
— |
40 |
6 |
| 492 |
San Gabriel · Private
|
Los Angeles |
26 |
112 |
23
|
169 |
13.6% |
— |
23.1 |
11.5 |
44 |
6 |
| 493 |
Gonzales · Public Sharp downturn
|
Monterey |
204 |
751 |
23
|
56 |
41.2% |
14.9% |
15.7 |
4.4 |
114 |
47 |
| 494 |
Concord · Private
|
Contra Costa |
252 |
1,025 |
23
|
132 |
17.5% |
25.9% |
17.9 |
6.8 |
332 |
58 |
| 495 |
Nuevo · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
170 |
667 |
23
|
74 |
31.2% |
15.4% |
20.6 |
1.8 |
125 |
39 |
| 496 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
384 |
1,582 |
23
|
118 |
19.4% |
20.4% |
19.8 |
5.0 |
453 |
88 |
| 497 |
Bell · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
441 |
2,088 |
23
|
101 |
22.8% |
22.8% |
19.7 |
4.1 |
444 |
101 |
| 498 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
425 |
1,891 |
23
|
97 |
23.4% |
32.0% |
13.9 |
3.3 |
414 |
97 |
| 499 |
Oakland · Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
79 |
295 |
23
|
105 |
21.7% |
— |
10.1 |
— |
83 |
18 |
| 500 |
Salinas · Private
|
Monterey |
88 |
584 |
23
|
141 |
16.1% |
15.0% |
17.1 |
— |
124 |
20 |