| 601 |
Baldwin Park · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
393 |
1,650 |
23
|
75 |
30.9% |
19.8% |
21.6 |
4.1 |
295 |
91 |
| 602 |
Santa Rosa · Private
|
Sonoma |
108 |
567 |
23
|
150 |
15.4% |
— |
17.6 |
2.8 |
162 |
25 |
| 603 |
Harbor City · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
402 |
1,549 |
23
|
90 |
25.7% |
24.7% |
19.6 |
3.5 |
362 |
93 |
| 604 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
26 |
74 |
23
|
154 |
15.0% |
— |
11.5 |
— |
40 |
6 |
| 605 |
San Gabriel · Private
|
Los Angeles |
26 |
112 |
23
|
169 |
13.6% |
— |
23.1 |
11.5 |
44 |
6 |
| 606 |
Gonzales · Public Sharp downturn
|
Monterey |
204 |
751 |
23
|
56 |
41.2% |
14.9% |
15.7 |
4.4 |
114 |
47 |
| 607 |
Concord · Private
|
Contra Costa |
252 |
1,025 |
23
|
132 |
17.5% |
25.9% |
17.9 |
6.8 |
332 |
58 |
| 608 |
San Fernando · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
87 |
417 |
23
|
123 |
18.7% |
— |
18.4 |
4.6 |
107 |
20 |
| 609 |
Nuevo · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
170 |
667 |
23
|
74 |
31.2% |
15.4% |
20.6 |
1.8 |
125 |
39 |
| 610 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
384 |
1,582 |
23
|
118 |
19.4% |
20.4% |
19.8 |
5.0 |
453 |
88 |
| 611 |
Bell · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
441 |
2,088 |
23
|
101 |
22.8% |
22.8% |
19.7 |
4.1 |
444 |
101 |
| 612 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
140 |
1,031 |
23
|
174 |
13.2% |
34.4% |
22.9 |
8.6 |
243 |
32 |
| 613 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
425 |
1,891 |
23
|
97 |
23.4% |
32.0% |
13.9 |
3.3 |
414 |
97 |
| 614 |
Oakland · Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
79 |
295 |
23
|
105 |
21.7% |
— |
10.1 |
— |
83 |
18 |
| 615 |
San Francisco · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Francisco |
44 |
123 |
23
|
89 |
25.6% |
— |
6.8 |
6.8 |
39 |
10 |
| 616 |
Salinas · Private
|
Monterey |
88 |
584 |
23
|
141 |
16.1% |
15.0% |
17.1 |
— |
124 |
20 |
| 617 |
Union City · Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
832 |
3,096 |
23
|
120 |
19.0% |
34.4% |
15.4 |
3.7 |
995 |
189 |
| 618 |
Los Angeles · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
106 |
431 |
23
|
108 |
20.9% |
25.0% |
16.0 |
3.8 |
115 |
24 |
| 619 |
Los Angeles · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
137 |
585 |
23
|
112 |
20.1% |
— |
14.6 |
— |
154 |
31 |
| 620 |
Corona · Public Demand problem
|
Riverside |
673 |
2,712 |
23
|
86 |
26.3% |
23.0% |
20.1 |
4.5 |
578 |
152 |
| 621 |
Los Olivos · Private
|
Santa Barbara |
31 |
219 |
23
|
100 |
22.6% |
— |
12.9 |
— |
31 |
7 |
| 622 |
South San Francisco · Public Demand problem
|
San Mateo |
271 |
1,053 |
23
|
126 |
17.8% |
29.5% |
14.0 |
3.3 |
342 |
61 |
| 623 |
Moreno Valley · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
476 |
2,101 |
22
|
87 |
26.0% |
29.0% |
18.7 |
1.9 |
412 |
107 |
| 624 |
Idyllwild · Private
|
Riverside |
89 |
273 |
22
|
80 |
28.2% |
15.0% |
18.0 |
5.6 |
71 |
20 |
| 625 |
El Monte · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
423 |
1,638 |
22
|
84 |
26.6% |
30.5% |
20.3 |
4.0 |
357 |
95 |
| 626 |
Granada Hills · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
512 |
2,152 |
22
|
87 |
26.0% |
21.7% |
17.8 |
3.3 |
443 |
115 |
| 627 |
La Verne · Private
|
Los Angeles |
156 |
696 |
22
|
154 |
14.5% |
17.1% |
16.0 |
1.9 |
241 |
35 |
| 628 |
South Gate · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
499 |
1,990 |
22
|
109 |
20.7% |
29.5% |
17.4 |
3.2 |
542 |
112 |
| 629 |
Placentia · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
433 |
1,998 |
22
|
103 |
21.8% |
25.8% |
18.7 |
3.7 |
446 |
97 |
| 630 |
Huntington Park · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
67 |
562 |
22
|
112 |
20.0% |
— |
22.4 |
4.5 |
75 |
15 |
| 631 |
Whittier · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
256 |
1,000 |
22
|
102 |
21.8% |
19.3% |
16.4 |
4.3 |
261 |
57 |
| 632 |
Los Angeles · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
117 |
474 |
22
|
95 |
23.4% |
11.5% |
19.7 |
— |
111 |
26 |
| 633 |
Perris · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
405 |
1,630 |
22
|
79 |
28.2% |
22.2% |
19.3 |
1.5 |
319 |
90 |
| 634 |
Edwards · Public Sharp downturn
|
Kern |
63 |
497 |
22
|
68 |
32.6% |
— |
17.5 |
— |
43 |
14 |
| 635 |
San Diego · Private
|
San Diego |
63 |
862 |
22
|
165 |
13.5% |
— |
17.5 |
— |
104 |
14 |
| 636 |
Felton · Public Material decline
|
Santa Cruz |
163 |
578 |
22
|
72 |
30.5% |
8.3% |
17.8 |
4.9 |
118 |
36 |
| 637 |
San Diego · Public Strong demand
|
San Diego |
557 |
2,187 |
22
|
99 |
22.2% |
30.9% |
19.6 |
4.5 |
554 |
123 |
| 638 |
Chula Vista · Public Holding share
|
San Diego |
654 |
2,440 |
22
|
109 |
20.2% |
30.6% |
18.6 |
3.2 |
711 |
144 |
| 639 |
Fresno · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
518 |
2,339 |
22
|
62 |
35.3% |
23.7% |
15.6 |
5.2 |
323 |
114 |
| 640 |
Rancho Cucamonga · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
769 |
3,221 |
22
|
94 |
23.5% |
30.2% |
17.6 |
3.5 |
719 |
169 |
| 641 |
Arcata · Public Demand problem
|
Humboldt |
264 |
1,007 |
22
|
69 |
31.7% |
24.1% |
16.7 |
3.4 |
183 |
58 |
| 642 |
San Diego · Public Demand problem
|
San Diego |
146 |
535 |
22
|
83 |
26.4% |
28.1% |
19.2 |
4.8 |
121 |
32 |
| 643 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
96 |
363 |
22
|
132 |
16.5% |
— |
21.9 |
— |
127 |
21 |
| 644 |
Fillmore · Public Strong demand
|
Ventura |
247 |
1,007 |
22
|
55 |
39.4% |
9.3% |
19.4 |
4.9 |
137 |
54 |
| 645 |
Elk Grove · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
613 |
2,536 |
22
|
99 |
22.0% |
37.3% |
13.4 |
1.6 |
608 |
134 |
| 646 |
Castroville · Public Watch — engagement
|
Monterey |
316 |
1,250 |
22
|
62 |
35.4% |
13.0% |
15.5 |
2.9 |
195 |
69 |
| 647 |
Covina · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
252 |
1,056 |
22
|
89 |
24.6% |
9.1% |
17.9 |
2.4 |
224 |
55 |
| 648 |
Oakland · Public Sharp downturn
|
Alameda |
55 |
480 |
22
|
173 |
12.6% |
33.3% |
7.3 |
— |
95 |
12 |
| 649 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
423 |
1,568 |
22
|
82 |
26.4% |
37.0% |
19.4 |
2.6 |
348 |
92 |
| 650 |
Marysville · Public Weak at the gate
|
Yuba |
46 |
366 |
22
|
74 |
29.4% |
— |
13.0 |
6.5 |
34 |
10 |
| 651 |
San Luis Obispo · Private
|
San Luis Obispo |
83 |
319 |
22
|
170 |
12.8% |
16.7% |
13.2 |
— |
141 |
18 |
| 652 |
Petaluma · Public Material decline
|
Sonoma |
296 |
1,193 |
22
|
102 |
21.1% |
23.4% |
16.6 |
2.4 |
303 |
64 |
| 653 |
Ojai · Public Material decline
|
Ventura |
153 |
576 |
22
|
95 |
22.6% |
18.2% |
15.0 |
— |
146 |
33 |
| 654 |
Templeton · Public Holding share
|
San Luis Obispo |
204 |
725 |
22
|
74 |
29.3% |
11.4% |
13.7 |
1.5 |
150 |
44 |
| 655 |
Long Beach · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
823 |
3,408 |
22
|
117 |
18.4% |
23.7% |
17.2 |
5.6 |
960 |
177 |
| 656 |
Palmdale · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
251 |
2,259 |
22
|
78 |
27.6% |
29.6% |
19.1 |
4.0 |
196 |
54 |
| 657 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
294 |
1,318 |
21
|
78 |
27.6% |
31.8% |
20.1 |
7.1 |
228 |
63 |
| 658 |
Palm Springs · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
393 |
1,497 |
21
|
74 |
29.0% |
26.2% |
18.8 |
2.3 |
290 |
84 |
| 659 |
Chula Vista · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
712 |
2,557 |
21
|
127 |
16.8% |
32.9% |
19.4 |
3.5 |
904 |
152 |
| 660 |
Huntington Beach · Public Best in class
|
Orange |
550 |
2,049 |
21
|
83 |
25.6% |
25.6% |
17.4 |
3.3 |
457 |
117 |
| 661 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
395 |
491 |
21
|
90 |
23.7% |
29.8% |
19.8 |
4.6 |
354 |
84 |
| 662 |
Redwood City · Public Tracking
|
San Mateo |
475 |
1,854 |
21
|
118 |
18.0% |
16.8% |
14.9 |
5.0 |
560 |
101 |
| 663 |
Los Angeles · Public Watch — engagement
|
Los Angeles |
273 |
1,284 |
21
|
119 |
17.8% |
22.4% |
16.5 |
4.4 |
326 |
58 |
| 664 |
Roseville · Public Strong demand
|
Placer |
440 |
2,079 |
21
|
95 |
22.3% |
22.6% |
13.6 |
2.5 |
417 |
93 |
| 665 |
Fremont · Public Material decline
|
Alameda |
336 |
1,273 |
21
|
117 |
18.1% |
25.4% |
13.7 |
2.7 |
393 |
71 |
| 666 |
Westminster · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
644 |
2,529 |
21
|
95 |
22.2% |
28.7% |
19.1 |
3.7 |
613 |
136 |
| 667 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
57 |
298 |
21
|
193 |
10.9% |
— |
21.1 |
5.3 |
110 |
12 |
| 668 |
Carson · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
320 |
1,407 |
21
|
91 |
22.9% |
25.4% |
18.1 |
5.3 |
292 |
67 |
| 669 |
Fullerton · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
441 |
1,880 |
21
|
59 |
35.1% |
20.6% |
16.6 |
3.2 |
262 |
92 |
| 670 |
Chula Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
446 |
1,771 |
21
|
62 |
33.6% |
32.3% |
17.3 |
3.1 |
277 |
93 |
| 671 |
Ventura · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
457 |
1,939 |
21
|
79 |
26.4% |
16.8% |
15.3 |
4.4 |
360 |
95 |
| 672 |
San Bernardino · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Bernardino |
255 |
1,246 |
21
|
71 |
29.3% |
15.1% |
16.1 |
2.8 |
181 |
53 |
| 673 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
82 |
394 |
21
|
130 |
15.9% |
29.4% |
15.8 |
— |
107 |
17 |
| 674 |
Los Angeles · Public Tracking
|
Los Angeles |
145 |
533 |
21
|
115 |
18.0% |
— |
16.6 |
4.8 |
167 |
30 |
| 675 |
Carpinteria · Public Weak at the gate
|
Santa Barbara |
145 |
593 |
21
|
71 |
29.1% |
23.3% |
16.6 |
3.5 |
103 |
30 |
| 676 |
Ventura · Public Best in class
|
Ventura |
232 |
951 |
21
|
134 |
15.5% |
18.8% |
12.9 |
3.5 |
310 |
48 |
| 677 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
257 |
1,183 |
21
|
100 |
20.5% |
28.3% |
16.3 |
2.7 |
258 |
53 |
| 678 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
34 |
237 |
21
|
106 |
19.4% |
— |
20.6 |
11.8 |
36 |
7 |
| 679 |
Garden Grove · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
457 |
1,664 |
21
|
77 |
26.8% |
30.9% |
18.6 |
3.9 |
351 |
94 |
| 680 |
Villa Park · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
467 |
2,023 |
21
|
92 |
22.4% |
29.2% |
15.8 |
3.0 |
428 |
96 |
| 681 |
San Diego · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
404 |
1,563 |
21
|
83 |
24.8% |
27.7% |
17.1 |
1.5 |
335 |
83 |
| 682 |
Modesto · Public Best in class
|
Stanislaus |
565 |
2,346 |
21
|
59 |
34.6% |
21.6% |
13.1 |
2.3 |
335 |
116 |
| 683 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
377 |
1,591 |
20
|
73 |
27.9% |
33.8% |
18.0 |
2.6 |
276 |
77 |
| 684 |
Garden Grove · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
373 |
1,439 |
20
|
81 |
25.2% |
26.3% |
17.4 |
2.7 |
301 |
76 |
| 685 |
Calistoga · Public Strong demand
|
Napa |
59 |
355 |
20
|
119 |
17.1% |
— |
6.8 |
— |
70 |
12 |
| 686 |
Perris · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
615 |
2,396 |
20
|
86 |
23.6% |
18.4% |
17.6 |
3.2 |
529 |
125 |
| 687 |
Rocklin · Public Sharp downturn
|
Placer |
532 |
1,936 |
20
|
92 |
22.0% |
33.3% |
14.7 |
2.6 |
490 |
108 |
| 688 |
Livermore · Public Weak at the gate
|
Alameda |
434 |
1,827 |
20
|
102 |
19.8% |
27.3% |
13.6 |
3.5 |
444 |
88 |
| 689 |
Compton · Public Mid-year churn
|
Los Angeles |
227 |
908 |
20
|
82 |
24.9% |
15.2% |
16.3 |
3.5 |
185 |
46 |
| 690 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
247 |
978 |
20
|
83 |
24.5% |
6.0% |
17.4 |
4.9 |
204 |
50 |
| 691 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
109 |
457 |
20
|
79 |
25.6% |
27.3% |
20.2 |
2.8 |
86 |
22 |
| 692 |
Burbank · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
622 |
2,457 |
20
|
107 |
18.8% |
25.6% |
15.8 |
4.3 |
665 |
125 |
| 693 |
Burbank · Public
|
Los Angeles |
622 |
2,457 |
20
|
107 |
18.8% |
25.6% |
15.8 |
4.3 |
665 |
125 |
| 694 |
Salinas · Public Material decline
|
Monterey |
662 |
2,742 |
20
|
78 |
25.7% |
27.8% |
12.8 |
2.4 |
517 |
133 |
| 695 |
Simi Valley · Public Demand problem
|
Ventura |
478 |
1,835 |
20
|
64 |
31.6% |
24.0% |
16.1 |
4.4 |
304 |
96 |
| 696 |
San Francisco · Private
|
San Francisco |
80 |
302 |
20
|
241 |
8.3% |
— |
10.0 |
— |
193 |
16 |
| 697 |
Milpitas · Public Demand hides churn
|
Santa Clara |
25 |
55 |
20
|
184 |
10.9% |
— |
— |
— |
46 |
5 |
| 698 |
Santa Ana · Public Holding share
|
Orange |
595 |
2,376 |
20
|
75 |
26.7% |
27.7% |
16.6 |
3.2 |
445 |
119 |
| 699 |
Merced · Public Strong demand
|
Merced |
461 |
1,793 |
20
|
53 |
37.7% |
23.9% |
12.6 |
3.7 |
244 |
92 |
| 700 |
Avenal · Public Demand problem
|
Kings |
156 |
762 |
20
|
45 |
44.3% |
16.1% |
16.0 |
2.6 |
70 |
31 |