| 601 |
Pomona · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
356 |
1,542 |
19
|
71 |
26.9% |
33.8% |
15.7 |
1.4 |
253 |
68 |
| 602 |
Panorama City · Private
|
Los Angeles |
126 |
547 |
19
|
122 |
15.6% |
12.5% |
13.5 |
— |
154 |
24 |
| 603 |
Dana Point · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
473 |
1,725 |
19
|
92 |
20.6% |
32.2% |
16.1 |
3.4 |
437 |
90 |
| 604 |
South Lake Tahoe · Public Watch — engagement
|
El Dorado |
242 |
1,076 |
19
|
63 |
30.3% |
6.5% |
12.8 |
3.3 |
152 |
46 |
| 605 |
Lawndale · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
442 |
1,981 |
19
|
98 |
19.3% |
22.6% |
14.5 |
2.3 |
435 |
84 |
| 606 |
Sacramento · Public Strong demand
|
Sacramento |
374 |
1,679 |
19
|
61 |
31.3% |
25.4% |
12.6 |
2.4 |
227 |
71 |
| 607 |
Salinas · Public Material decline
|
Monterey |
475 |
1,978 |
19
|
75 |
25.4% |
17.8% |
12.6 |
2.3 |
355 |
90 |
| 608 |
Santa Clara · Public
|
Santa Clara |
481 |
1,614 |
19
|
134 |
14.1% |
33.0% |
13.9 |
1.7 |
646 |
91 |
| 609 |
Escondido · Public Both ends slipping
|
San Diego |
465 |
1,788 |
19
|
67 |
28.4% |
33.0% |
14.6 |
2.6 |
310 |
88 |
| 610 |
Calexico · Private
|
Imperial |
90 |
356 |
19
|
78 |
24.3% |
17.6% |
14.4 |
3.3 |
70 |
17 |
| 611 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
249 |
942 |
19
|
98 |
19.3% |
27.7% |
13.2 |
2.8 |
243 |
47 |
| 612 |
Carlsbad · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
408 |
1,774 |
19
|
92 |
20.5% |
33.8% |
15.7 |
3.2 |
376 |
77 |
| 613 |
South El Monte · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
308 |
1,125 |
19
|
67 |
28.0% |
20.7% |
17.5 |
4.2 |
207 |
58 |
| 614 |
West Covina · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
389 |
1,568 |
19
|
86 |
21.8% |
26.0% |
15.7 |
4.4 |
335 |
73 |
| 615 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
450 |
19
|
141 |
13.3% |
— |
18.8 |
5.4 |
158 |
21 |
| 616 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
240 |
971 |
19
|
79 |
23.8% |
26.7% |
13.3 |
5.4 |
189 |
45 |
| 617 |
San Francisco · Private
|
San Francisco |
48 |
174 |
19
|
196 |
9.6% |
— |
6.2 |
6.2 |
94 |
9 |
| 618 |
Long Beach · Public
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
701 |
19
|
79 |
23.9% |
— |
10.7 |
— |
88 |
21 |
| 619 |
Woodland · Public Compounding decline
|
Yolo |
262 |
1,155 |
19
|
60 |
31.4% |
34.7% |
9.9 |
1.9 |
156 |
49 |
| 620 |
Crockett · Public Material decline
|
Contra Costa |
75 |
351 |
19
|
80 |
23.3% |
— |
9.3 |
4.0 |
60 |
14 |
| 621 |
Upland · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
723 |
2,797 |
19
|
74 |
25.1% |
28.9% |
16.9 |
2.5 |
537 |
135 |
| 622 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
370 |
1,582 |
19
|
83 |
22.6% |
13.0% |
14.9 |
3.2 |
306 |
69 |
| 623 |
Sacramento · Public Strong demand
|
Sacramento |
413 |
1,622 |
19
|
65 |
28.8% |
19.5% |
11.6 |
1.9 |
267 |
77 |
| 624 |
La Quinta · Public Holding share
|
Riverside |
546 |
2,425 |
18
|
65 |
28.4% |
29.7% |
17.4 |
2.6 |
355 |
101 |
| 625 |
Rialto · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
492 |
1,951 |
18
|
74 |
25.1% |
19.8% |
16.9 |
3.5 |
362 |
91 |
| 626 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
516 |
2,011 |
18
|
80 |
23.0% |
36.8% |
16.5 |
3.7 |
413 |
95 |
| 627 |
Ripon · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Joaquin |
261 |
1,051 |
18
|
56 |
32.6% |
25.0% |
11.1 |
1.1 |
147 |
48 |
| 628 |
Windsor · Public Strong demand
|
Sonoma |
426 |
1,700 |
18
|
69 |
26.7% |
28.2% |
12.2 |
2.6 |
292 |
78 |
| 629 |
San Pedro · Public Tracking
|
Los Angeles |
563 |
2,398 |
18
|
86 |
21.2% |
29.1% |
15.1 |
3.4 |
486 |
103 |
| 630 |
Garden Grove · Public Holding share
|
Orange |
405 |
1,634 |
18
|
95 |
19.3% |
39.2% |
15.1 |
1.5 |
384 |
74 |
| 631 |
Anaheim · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
625 |
2,667 |
18
|
82 |
22.3% |
30.7% |
15.2 |
2.7 |
512 |
114 |
| 632 |
Anaheim · Public Weak at the gate
|
Orange |
363 |
1,393 |
18
|
87 |
20.9% |
22.7% |
14.6 |
2.8 |
315 |
66 |
| 633 |
Vacaville · Private
|
Solano |
55 |
821 |
18
|
149 |
12.2% |
— |
7.3 |
— |
82 |
10 |
| 634 |
Oakhurst · Public Compounding decline
|
Madera |
138 |
542 |
18
|
45 |
40.3% |
32.0% |
13.8 |
— |
62 |
25 |
| 635 |
Orosi · Public Weak at the gate
|
Tulare |
199 |
1,108 |
18
|
60 |
30.0% |
— |
11.1 |
— |
120 |
36 |
| 636 |
San Pedro · Private
|
Los Angeles |
83 |
407 |
18
|
118 |
15.3% |
— |
18.1 |
4.8 |
98 |
15 |
| 637 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
39 |
363 |
18
|
182 |
9.9% |
— |
7.7 |
— |
71 |
7 |
| 638 |
Van Nuys · Public
|
Los Angeles |
78 |
362 |
18
|
192 |
9.3% |
21.4% |
12.8 |
— |
150 |
14 |
| 639 |
San Bernardino · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
575 |
2,748 |
18
|
70 |
25.6% |
17.5% |
13.7 |
2.4 |
403 |
103 |
| 640 |
Downey · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
933 |
4,051 |
18
|
83 |
21.7% |
28.1% |
15.3 |
2.6 |
771 |
167 |
| 641 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
112 |
410 |
18
|
112 |
15.9% |
15.0% |
13.4 |
— |
126 |
20 |
| 642 |
Riverside · Public Demand problem
|
Riverside |
484 |
2,011 |
18
|
69 |
25.8% |
18.6% |
15.5 |
3.5 |
333 |
86 |
| 643 |
Alhambra · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
576 |
2,056 |
18
|
115 |
15.4% |
27.4% |
13.0 |
4.0 |
660 |
102 |
| 644 |
Simi Valley · Public Holding share
|
Ventura |
305 |
1,033 |
18
|
94 |
18.9% |
25.9% |
13.1 |
1.3 |
286 |
54 |
| 645 |
Castaic · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
294 |
1,159 |
18
|
57 |
31.1% |
25.0% |
14.3 |
2.7 |
167 |
52 |
| 646 |
Fresno · Public Watch — engagement
|
Fresno |
651 |
2,858 |
18
|
61 |
29.0% |
18.3% |
12.1 |
2.0 |
396 |
115 |
| 647 |
West Covina · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
437 |
1,756 |
18
|
93 |
18.9% |
31.2% |
13.0 |
1.8 |
407 |
77 |
| 648 |
Ojai · Private
|
Ventura |
602 |
3,535 |
18
|
54 |
32.5% |
10.4% |
13.5 |
2.8 |
326 |
106 |
| 649 |
San Bernardino · Public Material decline
|
San Bernardino |
301 |
1,431 |
18
|
54 |
32.3% |
5.7% |
15.3 |
3.3 |
164 |
53 |
| 650 |
· Public Compounding decline
|
Santa Clara |
375 |
1,590 |
18
|
78 |
22.7% |
28.8% |
11.7 |
3.5 |
291 |
66 |
| 651 |
Folsom · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
739 |
2,901 |
18
|
129 |
13.7% |
40.0% |
11.4 |
2.2 |
951 |
130 |
| 652 |
Murrieta · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
803 |
3,328 |
18
|
66 |
26.4% |
36.9% |
15.8 |
2.0 |
534 |
141 |
| 653 |
Azusa · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
422 |
1,609 |
18
|
60 |
29.0% |
23.0% |
15.9 |
3.1 |
255 |
74 |
| 654 |
Duarte · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
206 |
756 |
17
|
75 |
23.2% |
16.7% |
15.1 |
1.9 |
155 |
36 |
| 655 |
Murrieta · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
515 |
2,104 |
17
|
59 |
29.8% |
23.3% |
13.2 |
2.5 |
302 |
90 |
| 656 |
Pasadena · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
269 |
1,206 |
17
|
79 |
22.2% |
17.0% |
13.8 |
4.5 |
212 |
47 |
| 657 |
El Cajon · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
464 |
1,728 |
17
|
69 |
25.4% |
34.6% |
14.9 |
3.5 |
319 |
81 |
| 658 |
Maywood · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
242 |
1,012 |
17
|
68 |
25.4% |
14.3% |
14.1 |
1.2 |
165 |
42 |
| 659 |
Elk Grove · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
595 |
2,263 |
17
|
90 |
19.2% |
39.8% |
8.6 |
1.0 |
535 |
103 |
| 660 |
Montebello · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
549 |
2,121 |
17
|
67 |
26.0% |
23.2% |
14.8 |
2.9 |
366 |
95 |
| 661 |
Whittier · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
406 |
1,652 |
17
|
87 |
19.8% |
20.0% |
13.6 |
1.2 |
354 |
70 |
| 662 |
Tujunga · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
267 |
1,195 |
17
|
86 |
20.0% |
10.9% |
14.6 |
4.5 |
230 |
46 |
| 663 |
Indio · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
482 |
1,962 |
17
|
55 |
31.6% |
20.5% |
16.2 |
2.5 |
263 |
83 |
| 664 |
Tahoe City · Public Best in class
|
Placer |
128 |
468 |
17
|
95 |
18.0% |
— |
12.5 |
2.3 |
122 |
22 |
| 665 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
210 |
738 |
17
|
69 |
25.0% |
16.7% |
14.8 |
3.3 |
144 |
36 |
| 666 |
Chula Vista · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
333 |
1,363 |
17
|
53 |
32.6% |
21.1% |
13.8 |
2.4 |
175 |
57 |
| 667 |
Fountain Valley · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
375 |
1,430 |
17
|
71 |
24.1% |
26.6% |
15.2 |
3.2 |
266 |
64 |
| 668 |
Madera · Public Strong demand
|
Madera |
511 |
2,017 |
17
|
59 |
28.8% |
18.4% |
11.2 |
2.9 |
302 |
87 |
| 669 |
San Jose · Public Compounding decline
|
Santa Clara |
600 |
2,289 |
17
|
76 |
22.3% |
24.5% |
9.7 |
1.8 |
457 |
102 |
| 670 |
Glendora · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
521 |
2,069 |
17
|
94 |
18.0% |
33.0% |
12.9 |
2.5 |
488 |
88 |
| 671 |
Reedley · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
393 |
1,804 |
17
|
55 |
30.7% |
15.2% |
13.2 |
2.0 |
215 |
66 |
| 672 |
Fontana · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
462 |
1,660 |
17
|
70 |
23.8% |
15.6% |
13.2 |
2.8 |
324 |
77 |
| 673 |
Whittier · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
554 |
2,372 |
17
|
96 |
17.2% |
26.1% |
13.7 |
2.9 |
534 |
92 |
| 674 |
Moreno Valley · Public Both ends slipping
|
Riverside |
495 |
2,251 |
17
|
74 |
22.4% |
12.2% |
14.9 |
2.0 |
366 |
82 |
| 675 |
Tracy · Public Material decline
|
San Joaquin |
537 |
1,920 |
17
|
50 |
32.8% |
29.2% |
11.6 |
1.1 |
271 |
89 |
| 676 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
85 |
755 |
16
|
73 |
22.6% |
50.0% |
7.1 |
— |
62 |
14 |
| 677 |
Petaluma · Public Strong demand
|
Sonoma |
401 |
1,653 |
16
|
66 |
25.1% |
27.3% |
10.5 |
2.0 |
263 |
66 |
| 678 |
· Public Demand problem
|
Tulare |
275 |
1,206 |
16
|
51 |
32.1% |
20.0% |
13.4 |
3.6 |
140 |
45 |
| 679 |
· Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
523 |
2,046 |
16
|
54 |
30.1% |
23.5% |
12.8 |
2.3 |
282 |
85 |
| 680 |
Cudahy · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
142 |
1,257 |
16
|
84 |
19.3% |
— |
13.4 |
2.1 |
119 |
23 |
| 681 |
· Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
105 |
1,489 |
16
|
61 |
26.6% |
— |
16.2 |
2.9 |
64 |
17 |
| 682 |
Quartz Hill · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
822 |
3,175 |
16
|
67 |
24.1% |
27.1% |
12.7 |
2.5 |
551 |
133 |
| 683 |
Thermal · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
557 |
2,300 |
16
|
60 |
26.7% |
34.4% |
13.6 |
2.1 |
337 |
90 |
| 684 |
Norwalk · Public
|
Los Angeles |
198 |
882 |
16
|
64 |
25.4% |
— |
13.1 |
1.5 |
126 |
32 |
| 685 |
Saint Helena · Public Weak at the gate
|
Napa |
99 |
416 |
16
|
93 |
17.4% |
18.8% |
8.1 |
— |
92 |
16 |
| 686 |
Tustin · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
458 |
1,627 |
16
|
69 |
23.5% |
28.4% |
13.3 |
1.3 |
315 |
74 |
| 687 |
Cerritos · Private
|
Los Angeles |
137 |
527 |
16
|
88 |
18.2% |
13.6% |
13.9 |
2.9 |
121 |
22 |
| 688 |
Buena Park · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
424 |
1,682 |
16
|
61 |
26.5% |
13.2% |
14.9 |
3.3 |
257 |
68 |
| 689 |
El Monte · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
368 |
1,383 |
16
|
74 |
21.6% |
28.8% |
14.4 |
3.0 |
273 |
59 |
| 690 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
131 |
555 |
16
|
106 |
15.1% |
28.6% |
10.7 |
2.3 |
139 |
21 |
| 691 |
Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
495 |
1,949 |
16
|
65 |
24.4% |
22.8% |
13.3 |
1.4 |
324 |
79 |
| 692 |
Cerritos · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
395 |
1,739 |
16
|
52 |
30.4% |
36.5% |
11.4 |
1.5 |
207 |
63 |
| 693 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
138 |
564 |
16
|
88 |
18.0% |
— |
11.6 |
— |
122 |
22 |
| 694 |
· Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
541 |
2,142 |
16
|
74 |
21.5% |
25.6% |
13.3 |
2.4 |
400 |
86 |
| 695 |
Desert Hot Springs · Public Both ends slipping
|
Riverside |
403 |
1,687 |
16
|
49 |
32.6% |
18.8% |
12.4 |
2.5 |
196 |
64 |
| 696 |
Corcoran · Public Strong demand
|
Kings |
208 |
931 |
16
|
45 |
35.5% |
15.2% |
13.5 |
5.8 |
93 |
33 |
| 697 |
San Bernardino · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Bernardino |
435 |
1,810 |
16
|
83 |
19.1% |
11.6% |
14.0 |
2.5 |
362 |
69 |
| 698 |
Escondido · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
248 |
932 |
16
|
78 |
20.2% |
10.3% |
12.1 |
1.2 |
193 |
39 |
| 699 |
Roseville · Public Compounding decline
|
Placer |
356 |
1,290 |
16
|
59 |
26.5% |
35.7% |
10.1 |
2.8 |
211 |
56 |
| 700 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
Sacramento |
446 |
1,987 |
16
|
44 |
36.1% |
8.6% |
9.9 |
3.6 |
194 |
70 |