| 401 |
Petaluma · Public Material decline
|
Sonoma |
296 |
1,193 |
22
|
102 |
21.1% |
23.4% |
16.6 |
2.4 |
303 |
64 |
| 402 |
Ojai · Public Material decline
|
Ventura |
153 |
576 |
22
|
95 |
22.6% |
18.2% |
15.0 |
— |
146 |
33 |
| 403 |
Templeton · Public Holding share
|
San Luis Obispo |
204 |
725 |
22
|
74 |
29.3% |
11.4% |
13.7 |
1.5 |
150 |
44 |
| 404 |
Long Beach · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
823 |
3,408 |
22
|
117 |
18.4% |
23.7% |
17.2 |
5.6 |
960 |
177 |
| 405 |
Palmdale · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
251 |
2,259 |
22
|
78 |
27.6% |
29.6% |
19.1 |
4.0 |
196 |
54 |
| 406 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
294 |
1,318 |
21
|
78 |
27.6% |
31.8% |
20.1 |
7.1 |
228 |
63 |
| 407 |
Palm Springs · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
393 |
1,497 |
21
|
74 |
29.0% |
26.2% |
18.8 |
2.3 |
290 |
84 |
| 408 |
Chula Vista · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
712 |
2,557 |
21
|
127 |
16.8% |
32.9% |
19.4 |
3.5 |
904 |
152 |
| 409 |
· Public Best in class
|
Orange |
550 |
2,049 |
21
|
83 |
25.6% |
25.6% |
17.4 |
3.3 |
457 |
117 |
| 410 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
395 |
491 |
21
|
90 |
23.7% |
29.8% |
19.8 |
4.6 |
354 |
84 |
| 411 |
Redwood City · Public Tracking
|
San Mateo |
475 |
1,854 |
21
|
118 |
18.0% |
16.8% |
14.9 |
5.0 |
560 |
101 |
| 412 |
Los Angeles · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
273 |
1,284 |
21
|
119 |
17.8% |
22.4% |
16.5 |
4.4 |
326 |
58 |
| 413 |
Roseville · Public Strong demand
|
Placer |
440 |
2,079 |
21
|
95 |
22.3% |
22.6% |
13.6 |
2.5 |
417 |
93 |
| 414 |
· Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
336 |
1,273 |
21
|
117 |
18.1% |
25.4% |
13.7 |
2.7 |
393 |
71 |
| 415 |
Westminster · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
644 |
2,529 |
21
|
95 |
22.2% |
28.7% |
19.1 |
3.7 |
613 |
136 |
| 416 |
Carson · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
320 |
1,407 |
21
|
91 |
22.9% |
25.4% |
18.1 |
5.3 |
292 |
67 |
| 417 |
Fullerton · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
441 |
1,880 |
21
|
59 |
35.1% |
20.6% |
16.6 |
3.2 |
262 |
92 |
| 418 |
Chula Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
446 |
1,771 |
21
|
62 |
33.6% |
32.3% |
17.3 |
3.1 |
277 |
93 |
| 419 |
Ventura · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
457 |
1,939 |
21
|
79 |
26.4% |
16.8% |
15.3 |
4.4 |
360 |
95 |
| 420 |
San Bernardino · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Bernardino |
255 |
1,246 |
21
|
71 |
29.3% |
15.1% |
16.1 |
2.8 |
181 |
53 |
| 421 |
Los Angeles · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
145 |
533 |
21
|
115 |
18.0% |
— |
16.6 |
4.8 |
167 |
30 |
| 422 |
Carpinteria · Public Weak at the gate
|
Santa Barbara |
145 |
593 |
21
|
71 |
29.1% |
23.3% |
16.6 |
3.5 |
103 |
30 |
| 423 |
Ventura · Public Best in class
|
Ventura |
232 |
951 |
21
|
134 |
15.5% |
18.8% |
12.9 |
3.5 |
310 |
48 |
| 424 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
257 |
1,183 |
21
|
100 |
20.5% |
28.3% |
16.3 |
2.7 |
258 |
53 |
| 425 |
· Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
457 |
1,664 |
21
|
77 |
26.8% |
30.9% |
18.6 |
3.9 |
351 |
94 |
| 426 |
Villa Park · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
467 |
2,023 |
21
|
92 |
22.4% |
29.2% |
15.8 |
3.0 |
428 |
96 |
| 427 |
· Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
404 |
1,563 |
21
|
83 |
24.8% |
27.7% |
17.1 |
1.5 |
335 |
83 |
| 428 |
Modesto · Public Best in class
|
Stanislaus |
565 |
2,346 |
21
|
59 |
34.6% |
21.6% |
13.1 |
2.3 |
335 |
116 |
| 429 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
377 |
1,591 |
20
|
73 |
27.9% |
33.8% |
18.0 |
2.6 |
276 |
77 |
| 430 |
Garden Grove · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
373 |
1,439 |
20
|
81 |
25.2% |
26.3% |
17.4 |
2.7 |
301 |
76 |
| 431 |
Perris · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
615 |
2,396 |
20
|
86 |
23.6% |
18.4% |
17.6 |
3.2 |
529 |
125 |
| 432 |
Rocklin · Public Sharp downturn
|
Placer |
532 |
1,936 |
20
|
92 |
22.0% |
33.3% |
14.7 |
2.6 |
490 |
108 |
| 433 |
Livermore · Public Weak at the gate
|
Alameda |
434 |
1,827 |
20
|
102 |
19.8% |
27.3% |
13.6 |
3.5 |
444 |
88 |
| 434 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
227 |
908 |
20
|
82 |
24.9% |
15.2% |
16.3 |
3.5 |
185 |
46 |
| 435 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
247 |
978 |
20
|
83 |
24.5% |
6.0% |
17.4 |
4.9 |
204 |
50 |
| 436 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
622 |
2,457 |
20
|
107 |
18.8% |
25.6% |
15.8 |
4.3 |
665 |
125 |
| 437 |
Burbank · Public
|
Los Angeles |
622 |
2,457 |
20
|
107 |
18.8% |
25.6% |
15.8 |
4.3 |
665 |
125 |
| 438 |
Salinas · Public Demand problem
|
Monterey |
662 |
2,742 |
20
|
78 |
25.7% |
27.8% |
12.8 |
2.4 |
517 |
133 |
| 439 |
Simi Valley · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
478 |
1,835 |
20
|
64 |
31.6% |
24.0% |
16.1 |
4.4 |
304 |
96 |
| 440 |
Santa Ana · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
595 |
2,376 |
20
|
75 |
26.7% |
27.7% |
16.6 |
3.2 |
445 |
119 |
| 441 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Merced |
461 |
1,793 |
20
|
53 |
37.7% |
23.9% |
12.6 |
3.7 |
244 |
92 |
| 442 |
Avenal · Public Demand problem
|
Kings |
156 |
762 |
20
|
45 |
44.3% |
16.1% |
16.0 |
2.6 |
70 |
31 |
| 443 |
Santa Paula · Public Strong demand
|
Ventura |
353 |
1,494 |
20
|
72 |
27.6% |
5.7% |
14.2 |
2.5 |
254 |
70 |
| 444 |
Pico Rivera · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
505 |
1,995 |
20
|
88 |
22.5% |
23.0% |
15.6 |
3.8 |
445 |
100 |
| 445 |
Lindsay · Public Best in class
|
Tulare |
283 |
1,132 |
20
|
54 |
36.8% |
17.9% |
16.6 |
4.2 |
152 |
56 |
| 446 |
San Clemente · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
745 |
2,740 |
20
|
83 |
23.8% |
26.5% |
15.3 |
2.7 |
618 |
147 |
| 447 |
Corona · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
832 |
3,577 |
20
|
91 |
21.7% |
28.7% |
17.6 |
3.9 |
756 |
164 |
| 448 |
West Sacramento · Public Demand hides churn
|
Yolo |
551 |
2,168 |
20
|
69 |
28.5% |
38.0% |
11.8 |
1.8 |
379 |
108 |
| 449 |
Escondido · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
450 |
1,846 |
20
|
75 |
26.0% |
27.3% |
15.3 |
2.4 |
338 |
88 |
| 450 |
Riverside · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
399 |
1,780 |
20
|
75 |
26.0% |
29.5% |
18.8 |
2.0 |
300 |
78 |
| 451 |
Santa Ynez · Public Sharp downturn
|
Santa Barbara |
221 |
801 |
19
|
71 |
27.4% |
7.0% |
14.0 |
3.2 |
157 |
43 |
| 452 |
Rosemead · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
499 |
1,691 |
19
|
85 |
23.0% |
27.8% |
15.6 |
4.2 |
422 |
97 |
| 453 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
649 |
2,551 |
19
|
65 |
29.6% |
23.0% |
15.6 |
3.1 |
425 |
126 |
| 454 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
San Diego |
501 |
1,864 |
19
|
69 |
27.9% |
26.8% |
17.8 |
3.4 |
347 |
97 |
| 455 |
Chula Vista · Public
|
San Diego |
501 |
1,864 |
19
|
69 |
27.9% |
26.8% |
17.8 |
3.4 |
347 |
97 |
| 456 |
Thousand Oaks · Public Sharp downturn
|
Ventura |
439 |
1,703 |
19
|
87 |
22.1% |
34.1% |
14.1 |
3.2 |
384 |
85 |
| 457 |
San Fernando · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
367 |
1,608 |
19
|
75 |
25.7% |
21.1% |
16.4 |
4.1 |
276 |
71 |
| 458 |
American Canyon · Public Best in class
|
Napa |
404 |
1,720 |
19
|
88 |
22.0% |
23.1% |
11.6 |
3.5 |
355 |
78 |
| 459 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Yolo |
364 |
1,582 |
19
|
67 |
28.8% |
31.4% |
10.4 |
3.0 |
243 |
70 |
| 460 |
Arroyo Grande · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Luis Obispo |
531 |
2,012 |
19
|
69 |
27.9% |
25.5% |
14.3 |
2.5 |
366 |
102 |
| 461 |
Fairfield · Public Best in class
|
Solano |
521 |
2,111 |
19
|
101 |
18.9% |
41.0% |
11.1 |
2.9 |
528 |
100 |
| 462 |
· Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
616 |
2,537 |
19
|
58 |
32.8% |
28.8% |
17.1 |
1.9 |
360 |
118 |
| 463 |
Pomona · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
356 |
1,542 |
19
|
71 |
26.9% |
33.8% |
15.7 |
1.4 |
253 |
68 |
| 464 |
Panorama City · Private
|
Los Angeles |
126 |
547 |
19
|
122 |
15.6% |
12.5% |
13.5 |
— |
154 |
24 |
| 465 |
Dana Point · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
473 |
1,725 |
19
|
92 |
20.6% |
32.2% |
16.1 |
3.4 |
437 |
90 |
| 466 |
South Lake Tahoe · Public Watch — engagement
|
El Dorado |
242 |
1,076 |
19
|
63 |
30.3% |
6.5% |
12.8 |
3.3 |
152 |
46 |
| 467 |
Lawndale · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
442 |
1,981 |
19
|
98 |
19.3% |
22.6% |
14.5 |
2.3 |
435 |
84 |
| 468 |
Sacramento · Public Strong demand
|
Sacramento |
374 |
1,679 |
19
|
61 |
31.3% |
25.4% |
12.6 |
2.4 |
227 |
71 |
| 469 |
Salinas · Public Material decline
|
Monterey |
475 |
1,978 |
19
|
75 |
25.4% |
17.8% |
12.6 |
2.3 |
355 |
90 |
| 470 |
Santa Clara · Public
|
Santa Clara |
481 |
1,614 |
19
|
134 |
14.1% |
33.0% |
13.9 |
1.7 |
646 |
91 |
| 471 |
Escondido · Public Both ends slipping
|
San Diego |
465 |
1,788 |
19
|
67 |
28.4% |
33.0% |
14.6 |
2.6 |
310 |
88 |
| 472 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
249 |
942 |
19
|
98 |
19.3% |
27.7% |
13.2 |
2.8 |
243 |
47 |
| 473 |
Carlsbad · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
408 |
1,774 |
19
|
92 |
20.5% |
33.8% |
15.7 |
3.2 |
376 |
77 |
| 474 |
South El Monte · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
308 |
1,125 |
19
|
67 |
28.0% |
20.7% |
17.5 |
4.2 |
207 |
58 |
| 475 |
West Covina · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
389 |
1,568 |
19
|
86 |
21.8% |
26.0% |
15.7 |
4.4 |
335 |
73 |
| 476 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
450 |
19
|
141 |
13.3% |
— |
18.8 |
5.4 |
158 |
21 |
| 477 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
240 |
971 |
19
|
79 |
23.8% |
26.7% |
13.3 |
5.4 |
189 |
45 |
| 478 |
Long Beach · Public
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
701 |
19
|
79 |
23.9% |
— |
10.7 |
— |
88 |
21 |
| 479 |
Woodland · Public Compounding decline
|
Yolo |
262 |
1,155 |
19
|
60 |
31.4% |
34.7% |
9.9 |
1.9 |
156 |
49 |
| 480 |
Upland · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
723 |
2,797 |
19
|
74 |
25.1% |
28.9% |
16.9 |
2.5 |
537 |
135 |
| 481 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
370 |
1,582 |
19
|
83 |
22.6% |
13.0% |
14.9 |
3.2 |
306 |
69 |
| 482 |
Sacramento · Public Strong demand
|
Sacramento |
413 |
1,622 |
19
|
65 |
28.8% |
19.5% |
11.6 |
1.9 |
267 |
77 |
| 483 |
La Quinta · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
546 |
2,425 |
18
|
65 |
28.4% |
29.7% |
17.4 |
2.6 |
355 |
101 |
| 484 |
Rialto · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
492 |
1,951 |
18
|
74 |
25.1% |
19.8% |
16.9 |
3.5 |
362 |
91 |
| 485 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
516 |
2,011 |
18
|
80 |
23.0% |
36.8% |
16.5 |
3.7 |
413 |
95 |
| 486 |
Ripon · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Joaquin |
261 |
1,051 |
18
|
56 |
32.6% |
25.0% |
11.1 |
1.1 |
147 |
48 |
| 487 |
Windsor · Public Strong demand
|
Sonoma |
426 |
1,700 |
18
|
69 |
26.7% |
28.2% |
12.2 |
2.6 |
292 |
78 |
| 488 |
San Pedro · Public Tracking
|
Los Angeles |
563 |
2,398 |
18
|
86 |
21.2% |
29.1% |
15.1 |
3.4 |
486 |
103 |
| 489 |
Garden Grove · Public Holding share
|
Orange |
405 |
1,634 |
18
|
95 |
19.3% |
39.2% |
15.1 |
1.5 |
384 |
74 |
| 490 |
Anaheim · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
625 |
2,667 |
18
|
82 |
22.3% |
30.7% |
15.2 |
2.7 |
512 |
114 |
| 491 |
Anaheim · Public Weak at the gate
|
Orange |
363 |
1,393 |
18
|
87 |
20.9% |
22.7% |
14.6 |
2.8 |
315 |
66 |
| 492 |
Oakhurst · Public Compounding decline
|
Madera |
138 |
542 |
18
|
45 |
40.3% |
32.0% |
13.8 |
— |
62 |
25 |
| 493 |
Orosi · Public Weak at the gate
|
Tulare |
199 |
1,108 |
18
|
60 |
30.0% |
— |
11.1 |
— |
120 |
36 |
| 494 |
San Bernardino · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
575 |
2,748 |
18
|
70 |
25.6% |
17.5% |
13.7 |
2.4 |
403 |
103 |
| 495 |
Downey · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
933 |
4,051 |
18
|
83 |
21.7% |
28.1% |
15.3 |
2.6 |
771 |
167 |
| 496 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
410 |
18
|
112 |
15.9% |
15.0% |
13.4 |
— |
126 |
20 |
| 497 |
Riverside · Public Demand problem
|
Riverside |
484 |
2,011 |
18
|
69 |
25.8% |
18.6% |
15.5 |
3.5 |
333 |
86 |
| 498 |
Alhambra · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
576 |
2,056 |
18
|
115 |
15.4% |
27.4% |
13.0 |
4.0 |
660 |
102 |
| 499 |
Simi Valley · Public Holding share
|
Ventura |
305 |
1,033 |
18
|
94 |
18.9% |
25.9% |
13.1 |
1.3 |
286 |
54 |
| 500 |
Castaic · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
294 |
1,159 |
18
|
57 |
31.1% |
25.0% |
14.3 |
2.7 |
167 |
52 |