| 401 |
Fort Bragg · Public Sharp downturn
|
Mendocino |
132 |
569 |
26
|
81 |
31.8% |
11.8% |
20.4 |
— |
107 |
34 |
| 402 |
Morro Bay · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Luis Obispo |
171 |
751 |
26
|
91 |
28.2% |
6.8% |
19.3 |
3.5 |
156 |
44 |
| 403 |
Fowler · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
199 |
807 |
26
|
73 |
35.2% |
17.6% |
18.1 |
6.5 |
145 |
51 |
| 404 |
Concord · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
582 |
2,373 |
26
|
122 |
21.0% |
29.5% |
20.1 |
3.4 |
709 |
149 |
| 405 |
El Segundo · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
141 |
550 |
26
|
131 |
19.5% |
8.3% |
19.1 |
6.4 |
185 |
36 |
| 406 |
Newport Beach · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
526 |
2,084 |
25
|
94 |
27.2% |
29.9% |
21.9 |
3.8 |
493 |
134 |
| 407 |
Richmond · Public Strong demand
|
Contra Costa |
130 |
546 |
25
|
103 |
24.6% |
9.1% |
16.1 |
7.7 |
134 |
33 |
| 408 |
Pasadena · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
138 |
1,053 |
25
|
115 |
22.0% |
25.7% |
18.1 |
5.1 |
159 |
35 |
| 409 |
Bakersfield · Public Weak at the gate
|
Kern |
576 |
2,398 |
25
|
91 |
27.9% |
24.7% |
20.7 |
3.1 |
523 |
146 |
| 410 |
Agoura Hills · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
442 |
1,709 |
25
|
130 |
19.5% |
26.8% |
19.7 |
5.2 |
574 |
112 |
| 411 |
San Juan Capistrano · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
703 |
2,641 |
25
|
111 |
22.9% |
25.3% |
19.4 |
2.6 |
777 |
178 |
| 412 |
Delhi · Public Material decline
|
Merced |
162 |
710 |
25
|
90 |
28.1% |
17.1% |
16.1 |
1.9 |
146 |
41 |
| 413 |
Temecula · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
733 |
2,946 |
25
|
125 |
20.2% |
33.5% |
21.0 |
3.1 |
916 |
185 |
| 414 |
Sylmar · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
341 |
1,463 |
25
|
89 |
28.2% |
24.4% |
22.0 |
5.3 |
305 |
86 |
| 415 |
San Leandro · Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
599 |
2,510 |
25
|
95 |
26.4% |
32.5% |
15.7 |
2.0 |
571 |
151 |
| 416 |
Daly City · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
322 |
1,278 |
25
|
119 |
21.1% |
39.5% |
15.5 |
3.7 |
384 |
81 |
| 417 |
Cathedral City · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
346 |
1,334 |
25
|
76 |
33.1% |
21.8% |
20.8 |
4.3 |
263 |
87 |
| 418 |
Novato · Public Both ends slipping
|
Marin |
350 |
1,287 |
25
|
105 |
23.9% |
26.1% |
18.6 |
5.4 |
368 |
88 |
| 419 |
Valencia · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
611 |
2,286 |
25
|
128 |
19.6% |
31.4% |
19.6 |
5.1 |
781 |
153 |
| 420 |
Camarillo · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
416 |
1,969 |
25
|
91 |
27.4% |
26.9% |
19.0 |
1.9 |
380 |
104 |
| 421 |
Temecula · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
683 |
2,739 |
25
|
102 |
24.5% |
29.4% |
21.4 |
3.4 |
695 |
170 |
| 422 |
Newark · Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
345 |
1,367 |
25
|
103 |
24.0% |
27.1% |
15.9 |
4.9 |
354 |
85 |
| 423 |
Santa Ana · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
536 |
2,126 |
25
|
108 |
22.8% |
26.5% |
18.3 |
4.5 |
580 |
132 |
| 424 |
Anaheim · Private
|
Orange |
187 |
767 |
25
|
157 |
15.7% |
6.5% |
18.2 |
2.1 |
294 |
46 |
| 425 |
Hercules · Public Material decline
|
Contra Costa |
163 |
767 |
25
|
179 |
13.8% |
37.5% |
15.9 |
7.4 |
291 |
40 |
| 426 |
San Diego · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
400 |
1,724 |
24
|
133 |
18.5% |
33.7% |
17.8 |
3.8 |
531 |
98 |
| 427 |
San Marcos · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
777 |
3,067 |
24
|
116 |
21.1% |
29.5% |
19.6 |
3.2 |
901 |
190 |
| 428 |
Vista · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Diego |
119 |
1,355 |
24
|
88 |
27.6% |
34.5% |
21.0 |
2.5 |
105 |
29 |
| 429 |
San Jose · Public
|
Santa Clara |
107 |
421 |
24
|
94 |
25.7% |
15.4% |
19.6 |
7.5 |
101 |
26 |
| 430 |
Salinas · Public Material decline
|
Monterey |
611 |
2,380 |
24
|
63 |
38.6% |
22.3% |
18.3 |
2.6 |
383 |
148 |
| 431 |
Sonoma · Public Material decline
|
Sonoma |
256 |
1,071 |
24
|
73 |
33.0% |
14.5% |
15.6 |
5.9 |
188 |
62 |
| 432 |
Sunnyvale · Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
572 |
2,060 |
24
|
156 |
15.4% |
28.3% |
19.6 |
3.5 |
895 |
138 |
| 433 |
Long Beach · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
299 |
1,260 |
24
|
105 |
22.9% |
62.5% |
20.7 |
4.3 |
315 |
72 |
| 434 |
Lynwood · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
378 |
1,633 |
24
|
82 |
29.4% |
19.8% |
21.2 |
3.4 |
309 |
91 |
| 435 |
Ukiah · Public Strong demand
|
Mendocino |
378 |
1,767 |
24
|
59 |
40.6% |
18.7% |
16.7 |
2.9 |
224 |
91 |
| 436 |
Rowland Heights · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
463 |
2,016 |
24
|
125 |
19.1% |
30.6% |
18.4 |
4.1 |
580 |
111 |
| 437 |
Huntington Beach · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
507 |
1,997 |
24
|
94 |
25.3% |
25.0% |
19.3 |
4.3 |
475 |
120 |
| 438 |
Hollywood · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
140 |
599 |
24
|
119 |
19.8% |
21.2% |
17.1 |
3.6 |
167 |
33 |
| 439 |
Thermal · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
433 |
1,875 |
24
|
67 |
35.2% |
20.6% |
19.6 |
3.2 |
290 |
102 |
| 440 |
Huntington Park · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
382 |
1,479 |
24
|
94 |
25.0% |
32.2% |
19.6 |
4.2 |
360 |
90 |
| 441 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
316 |
1,263 |
23
|
68 |
34.4% |
16.2% |
19.6 |
7.0 |
215 |
74 |
| 442 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
146 |
616 |
23
|
136 |
17.1% |
— |
14.4 |
2.7 |
199 |
34 |
| 443 |
Novato · Public Demand problem
|
Marin |
305 |
1,250 |
23
|
135 |
17.2% |
15.5% |
16.1 |
3.3 |
412 |
71 |
| 444 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
537 |
1,941 |
23
|
80 |
29.2% |
22.4% |
19.6 |
4.5 |
428 |
125 |
| 445 |
Mission Viejo · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
597 |
2,475 |
23
|
101 |
23.1% |
29.5% |
18.4 |
3.5 |
601 |
139 |
| 446 |
Baldwin Park · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
393 |
1,650 |
23
|
75 |
30.9% |
19.8% |
21.6 |
4.1 |
295 |
91 |
| 447 |
Santa Rosa · Private
|
Sonoma |
108 |
567 |
23
|
150 |
15.4% |
— |
17.6 |
2.8 |
162 |
25 |
| 448 |
Harbor City · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
402 |
1,549 |
23
|
90 |
25.7% |
24.7% |
19.6 |
3.5 |
362 |
93 |
| 449 |
Gonzales · Public Sharp downturn
|
Monterey |
204 |
751 |
23
|
56 |
41.2% |
14.9% |
15.7 |
4.4 |
114 |
47 |
| 450 |
Concord · Private
|
Contra Costa |
252 |
1,025 |
23
|
132 |
17.5% |
25.9% |
17.9 |
6.8 |
332 |
58 |
| 451 |
Nuevo · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
170 |
667 |
23
|
74 |
31.2% |
15.4% |
20.6 |
1.8 |
125 |
39 |
| 452 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
384 |
1,582 |
23
|
118 |
19.4% |
20.4% |
19.8 |
5.0 |
453 |
88 |
| 453 |
Bell · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
441 |
2,088 |
23
|
101 |
22.8% |
22.8% |
19.7 |
4.1 |
444 |
101 |
| 454 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
140 |
1,031 |
23
|
174 |
13.2% |
34.4% |
22.9 |
8.6 |
243 |
32 |
| 455 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
425 |
1,891 |
23
|
97 |
23.4% |
32.0% |
13.9 |
3.3 |
414 |
97 |
| 456 |
Union City · Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
832 |
3,096 |
23
|
120 |
19.0% |
34.4% |
15.4 |
3.7 |
995 |
189 |
| 457 |
Los Angeles · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
106 |
431 |
23
|
108 |
20.9% |
25.0% |
16.0 |
3.8 |
115 |
24 |
| 458 |
Los Angeles · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
137 |
585 |
23
|
112 |
20.1% |
— |
14.6 |
— |
154 |
31 |
| 459 |
Corona · Public Demand problem
|
Riverside |
673 |
2,712 |
23
|
86 |
26.3% |
23.0% |
20.1 |
4.5 |
578 |
152 |
| 460 |
South San Francisco · Public Demand problem
|
San Mateo |
271 |
1,053 |
23
|
126 |
17.8% |
29.5% |
14.0 |
3.3 |
342 |
61 |
| 461 |
Moreno Valley · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
476 |
2,101 |
22
|
87 |
26.0% |
29.0% |
18.7 |
1.9 |
412 |
107 |
| 462 |
El Monte · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
423 |
1,638 |
22
|
84 |
26.6% |
30.5% |
20.3 |
4.0 |
357 |
95 |
| 463 |
Granada Hills · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
512 |
2,152 |
22
|
87 |
26.0% |
21.7% |
17.8 |
3.3 |
443 |
115 |
| 464 |
La Verne · Private
|
Los Angeles |
156 |
696 |
22
|
154 |
14.5% |
17.1% |
16.0 |
1.9 |
241 |
35 |
| 465 |
South Gate · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
499 |
1,990 |
22
|
109 |
20.7% |
29.5% |
17.4 |
3.2 |
542 |
112 |
| 466 |
Placentia · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
433 |
1,998 |
22
|
103 |
21.8% |
25.8% |
18.7 |
3.7 |
446 |
97 |
| 467 |
Whittier · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
256 |
1,000 |
22
|
102 |
21.8% |
19.3% |
16.4 |
4.3 |
261 |
57 |
| 468 |
Los Angeles · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
117 |
474 |
22
|
95 |
23.4% |
11.5% |
19.7 |
— |
111 |
26 |
| 469 |
Perris · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
405 |
1,630 |
22
|
79 |
28.2% |
22.2% |
19.3 |
1.5 |
319 |
90 |
| 470 |
Felton · Public Material decline
|
Santa Cruz |
163 |
578 |
22
|
72 |
30.5% |
8.3% |
17.8 |
4.9 |
118 |
36 |
| 471 |
San Diego · Public Strong demand
|
San Diego |
557 |
2,187 |
22
|
99 |
22.2% |
30.9% |
19.6 |
4.5 |
554 |
123 |
| 472 |
Chula Vista · Public Holding share
|
San Diego |
654 |
2,440 |
22
|
109 |
20.2% |
30.6% |
18.6 |
3.2 |
711 |
144 |
| 473 |
Fresno · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
518 |
2,339 |
22
|
62 |
35.3% |
23.7% |
15.6 |
5.2 |
323 |
114 |
| 474 |
Rancho Cucamonga · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
769 |
3,221 |
22
|
94 |
23.5% |
30.2% |
17.6 |
3.5 |
719 |
169 |
| 475 |
Arcata · Public Demand problem
|
Humboldt |
264 |
1,007 |
22
|
69 |
31.7% |
24.1% |
16.7 |
3.4 |
183 |
58 |
| 476 |
San Diego · Public Demand problem
|
San Diego |
146 |
535 |
22
|
83 |
26.4% |
28.1% |
19.2 |
4.8 |
121 |
32 |
| 477 |
Fillmore · Public Strong demand
|
Ventura |
247 |
1,007 |
22
|
55 |
39.4% |
9.3% |
19.4 |
4.9 |
137 |
54 |
| 478 |
Elk Grove · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
613 |
2,536 |
22
|
99 |
22.0% |
37.3% |
13.4 |
1.6 |
608 |
134 |
| 479 |
Castroville · Public Watch — engagement
|
Monterey |
316 |
1,250 |
22
|
62 |
35.4% |
13.0% |
15.5 |
2.9 |
195 |
69 |
| 480 |
Covina · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
252 |
1,056 |
22
|
89 |
24.6% |
9.1% |
17.9 |
2.4 |
224 |
55 |
| 481 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
423 |
1,568 |
22
|
82 |
26.4% |
37.0% |
19.4 |
2.6 |
348 |
92 |
| 482 |
Petaluma · Public Material decline
|
Sonoma |
296 |
1,193 |
22
|
102 |
21.1% |
23.4% |
16.6 |
2.4 |
303 |
64 |
| 483 |
Ojai · Public Material decline
|
Ventura |
153 |
576 |
22
|
95 |
22.6% |
18.2% |
15.0 |
— |
146 |
33 |
| 484 |
Templeton · Public Holding share
|
San Luis Obispo |
204 |
725 |
22
|
74 |
29.3% |
11.4% |
13.7 |
1.5 |
150 |
44 |
| 485 |
Long Beach · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
823 |
3,408 |
22
|
117 |
18.4% |
23.7% |
17.2 |
5.6 |
960 |
177 |
| 486 |
Palmdale · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
251 |
2,259 |
22
|
78 |
27.6% |
29.6% |
19.1 |
4.0 |
196 |
54 |
| 487 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
294 |
1,318 |
21
|
78 |
27.6% |
31.8% |
20.1 |
7.1 |
228 |
63 |
| 488 |
Palm Springs · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
393 |
1,497 |
21
|
74 |
29.0% |
26.2% |
18.8 |
2.3 |
290 |
84 |
| 489 |
Chula Vista · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
712 |
2,557 |
21
|
127 |
16.8% |
32.9% |
19.4 |
3.5 |
904 |
152 |
| 490 |
Huntington Beach · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
550 |
2,049 |
21
|
83 |
25.6% |
25.6% |
17.4 |
3.3 |
457 |
117 |
| 491 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
395 |
491 |
21
|
90 |
23.7% |
29.8% |
19.8 |
4.6 |
354 |
84 |
| 492 |
Redwood City · Public Tracking
|
San Mateo |
475 |
1,854 |
21
|
118 |
18.0% |
16.8% |
14.9 |
5.0 |
560 |
101 |
| 493 |
Los Angeles · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
273 |
1,284 |
21
|
119 |
17.8% |
22.4% |
16.5 |
4.4 |
326 |
58 |
| 494 |
Roseville · Public Strong demand
|
Placer |
440 |
2,079 |
21
|
95 |
22.3% |
22.6% |
13.6 |
2.5 |
417 |
93 |
| 495 |
Fremont · Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
336 |
1,273 |
21
|
117 |
18.1% |
25.4% |
13.7 |
2.7 |
393 |
71 |
| 496 |
Westminster · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
644 |
2,529 |
21
|
95 |
22.2% |
28.7% |
19.1 |
3.7 |
613 |
136 |
| 497 |
Carson · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
320 |
1,407 |
21
|
91 |
22.9% |
25.4% |
18.1 |
5.3 |
292 |
67 |
| 498 |
Fullerton · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
441 |
1,880 |
21
|
59 |
35.1% |
20.6% |
16.6 |
3.2 |
262 |
92 |
| 499 |
Chula Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
446 |
1,771 |
21
|
62 |
33.6% |
32.3% |
17.3 |
3.1 |
277 |
93 |
| 500 |
Ventura · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
457 |
1,939 |
21
|
79 |
26.4% |
16.8% |
15.3 |
4.4 |
360 |
95 |