| 601 |
Modesto · Private
|
Stanislaus |
104 |
422 |
14
|
89 |
16.1% |
20.0% |
7.7 |
— |
93 |
15 |
| 602 |
West Covina · Public Tracking
|
Los Angeles |
208 |
712 |
14
|
89 |
16.1% |
13.3% |
11.5 |
1.9 |
186 |
30 |
| 603 |
San Jose · Public Compounding decline
|
Santa Clara |
347 |
1,374 |
14
|
75 |
19.3% |
24.0% |
10.1 |
1.7 |
259 |
50 |
| 604 |
San Diego · Private
|
San Diego |
167 |
717 |
14
|
133 |
10.8% |
12.5% |
12.0 |
4.8 |
222 |
24 |
| 605 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
272 |
1,226 |
14
|
55 |
26.2% |
17.9% |
7.0 |
— |
149 |
39 |
| 606 |
Antelope · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
384 |
1,821 |
14
|
62 |
23.0% |
29.1% |
8.8 |
2.1 |
239 |
55 |
| 607 |
Fair Oaks · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
454 |
1,939 |
14
|
52 |
27.8% |
27.7% |
8.4 |
2.6 |
234 |
65 |
| 608 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
680 |
2,801 |
14
|
49 |
29.1% |
25.8% |
9.8 |
1.8 |
333 |
97 |
| 609 |
Richmond · Public Both ends slipping
|
Contra Costa |
337 |
1,280 |
14
|
62 |
23.1% |
29.2% |
7.7 |
3.0 |
208 |
48 |
| 610 |
San Bruno · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
281 |
1,061 |
14
|
76 |
18.7% |
20.0% |
9.2 |
3.2 |
214 |
40 |
| 611 |
Stockton · Public Material decline
|
San Joaquin |
436 |
1,925 |
14
|
36 |
39.0% |
24.2% |
10.3 |
1.6 |
159 |
62 |
| 612 |
Brentwood · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
598 |
2,566 |
14
|
105 |
13.5% |
31.8% |
9.7 |
2.3 |
628 |
85 |
| 613 |
Riverside · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
324 |
1,514 |
14
|
63 |
22.7% |
21.7% |
13.0 |
1.2 |
203 |
46 |
| 614 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
127 |
614 |
14
|
72 |
19.8% |
— |
14.2 |
2.4 |
91 |
18 |
| 615 |
Watsonville · Public Both ends slipping
|
Santa Cruz |
515 |
2,215 |
14
|
52 |
27.1% |
32.9% |
8.3 |
1.2 |
269 |
73 |
| 616 |
La Habra · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
459 |
1,779 |
14
|
76 |
18.6% |
16.9% |
10.7 |
2.2 |
349 |
65 |
| 617 |
Fresno · Public Demand hides churn
|
Fresno |
424 |
2,056 |
14
|
67 |
21.1% |
16.7% |
9.0 |
1.4 |
285 |
60 |
| 618 |
Fontana · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
583 |
2,534 |
14
|
96 |
14.7% |
12.2% |
12.9 |
2.2 |
558 |
82 |
| 619 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
405 |
1,889 |
14
|
76 |
18.5% |
8.8% |
11.6 |
2.7 |
308 |
57 |
| 620 |
Pomona · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
235 |
895 |
14
|
49 |
28.9% |
18.2% |
12.3 |
2.5 |
114 |
33 |
| 621 |
Hanford · Public Sharp downturn
|
Kings |
321 |
1,331 |
14
|
34 |
41.7% |
13.3% |
10.9 |
2.8 |
108 |
45 |
| 622 |
· Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
593 |
2,330 |
14
|
34 |
41.3% |
30.1% |
11.6 |
1.5 |
201 |
83 |
| 623 |
Madera · Public Compounding decline
|
Madera |
386 |
1,859 |
14
|
44 |
31.6% |
22.2% |
8.6 |
1.8 |
171 |
54 |
| 624 |
Ceres · Public Demand problem
|
Stanislaus |
415 |
1,660 |
14
|
38 |
36.5% |
12.1% |
10.6 |
2.9 |
159 |
58 |
| 625 |
San Dimas · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
315 |
1,235 |
14
|
90 |
15.6% |
20.4% |
11.4 |
1.6 |
283 |
44 |
| 626 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
388 |
1,590 |
14
|
82 |
16.9% |
37.0% |
10.3 |
1.8 |
320 |
54 |
| 627 |
Jurupa Valley · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
302 |
1,259 |
14
|
59 |
23.6% |
7.1% |
11.6 |
2.6 |
178 |
42 |
| 628 |
Daly City · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Mateo |
260 |
1,072 |
14
|
82 |
16.8% |
27.8% |
9.6 |
2.3 |
214 |
36 |
| 629 |
Farmersville · Public Weak at the gate
|
Tulare |
181 |
711 |
14
|
29 |
48.1% |
12.0% |
9.9 |
1.7 |
52 |
25 |
| 630 |
Shingle Springs · Public Sharp downturn
|
El Dorado |
428 |
1,675 |
14
|
46 |
30.3% |
18.6% |
8.9 |
0.7 |
195 |
59 |
| 631 |
Vacaville · Public Best in class
|
Solano |
515 |
2,044 |
14
|
50 |
27.7% |
35.2% |
7.8 |
3.1 |
256 |
71 |
| 632 |
Moreno Valley · Public Mid-year churn
|
Riverside |
473 |
2,103 |
14
|
58 |
23.8% |
20.0% |
12.5 |
1.9 |
273 |
65 |
| 633 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
576 |
2,416 |
14
|
45 |
30.6% |
24.1% |
11.3 |
2.6 |
258 |
79 |
| 634 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
124 |
583 |
14
|
210 |
6.5% |
— |
10.5 |
— |
260 |
17 |
| 635 |
Temecula · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
774 |
3,136 |
14
|
83 |
16.5% |
36.8% |
10.7 |
1.0 |
641 |
106 |
| 636 |
Escondido · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
307 |
1,336 |
14
|
61 |
22.3% |
21.4% |
11.4 |
1.3 |
188 |
42 |
| 637 |
Redlands · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
520 |
2,110 |
14
|
54 |
25.4% |
28.2% |
12.3 |
1.7 |
279 |
71 |
| 638 |
Gardena · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
352 |
1,343 |
14
|
51 |
26.7% |
12.5% |
11.9 |
2.6 |
180 |
48 |
| 639 |
Paso Robles · Public Demand problem
|
San Luis Obispo |
411 |
1,986 |
14
|
48 |
28.6% |
25.0% |
9.7 |
2.2 |
196 |
56 |
| 640 |
Apple Valley · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
558 |
2,211 |
14
|
45 |
30.0% |
14.5% |
11.1 |
1.4 |
253 |
76 |
| 641 |
Visalia · Public Demand problem
|
Tulare |
434 |
1,890 |
14
|
45 |
30.1% |
18.6% |
10.4 |
2.3 |
196 |
59 |
| 642 |
Oroville · Public Weak at the gate
|
Butte |
295 |
1,265 |
14
|
29 |
46.5% |
20.0% |
8.8 |
2.0 |
86 |
40 |
| 643 |
Mendota · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
266 |
1,065 |
14
|
43 |
31.6% |
8.3% |
9.8 |
1.5 |
114 |
36 |
| 644 |
Fontana · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
423 |
1,739 |
13
|
73 |
18.5% |
14.0% |
11.1 |
1.4 |
308 |
57 |
| 645 |
· Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
542 |
1,980 |
13
|
56 |
24.0% |
26.0% |
10.2 |
2.6 |
304 |
73 |
| 646 |
Santa Ana · Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
616 |
2,505 |
13
|
64 |
20.9% |
24.1% |
12.0 |
3.1 |
397 |
83 |
| 647 |
Anaheim · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
379 |
1,539 |
13
|
54 |
24.8% |
27.4% |
11.9 |
2.1 |
206 |
51 |
| 648 |
Caruthers · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
171 |
682 |
13
|
39 |
34.3% |
17.4% |
6.4 |
— |
67 |
23 |
| 649 |
El Segundo · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
134 |
923 |
13
|
109 |
12.3% |
— |
10.4 |
3.0 |
146 |
18 |
| 650 |
Moorpark · Public Best in class
|
Ventura |
447 |
1,691 |
13
|
69 |
19.4% |
18.3% |
10.3 |
1.1 |
310 |
60 |
| 651 |
Hesperia · Public Watch — engagement
|
San Bernardino |
537 |
2,405 |
13
|
55 |
24.2% |
25.0% |
12.5 |
1.9 |
298 |
72 |
| 652 |
Roseville · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
485 |
1,940 |
13
|
67 |
20.0% |
29.2% |
8.7 |
1.6 |
325 |
65 |
| 653 |
Murrieta · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
516 |
2,066 |
13
|
50 |
26.7% |
29.0% |
11.4 |
1.4 |
258 |
69 |
| 654 |
Kingsburg · Public Weak at the gate
|
Fresno |
247 |
1,073 |
13
|
32 |
41.2% |
9.1% |
9.7 |
1.6 |
80 |
33 |
| 655 |
Simi Valley · Public Tracking
|
Ventura |
464 |
1,910 |
13
|
57 |
23.4% |
14.5% |
10.3 |
1.3 |
265 |
62 |
| 656 |
Lake Elsinore · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
540 |
2,373 |
13
|
57 |
23.5% |
34.7% |
11.7 |
2.0 |
306 |
72 |
| 657 |
Roseville · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
383 |
1,443 |
13
|
48 |
27.6% |
27.4% |
7.8 |
2.4 |
185 |
51 |
| 658 |
La Palma · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
527 |
1,983 |
13
|
88 |
15.0% |
25.7% |
11.2 |
1.9 |
466 |
70 |
| 659 |
San Pedro · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
219 |
916 |
13
|
92 |
14.4% |
24.1% |
10.5 |
1.8 |
202 |
29 |
| 660 |
Mission Hills · Private
|
Los Angeles |
189 |
810 |
13
|
142 |
9.3% |
16.0% |
10.1 |
2.1 |
268 |
25 |
| 661 |
El Centro · Public Weak at the gate
|
Imperial |
454 |
1,846 |
13
|
53 |
25.1% |
33.3% |
11.0 |
1.5 |
239 |
60 |
| 662 |
Pinole · Public Demand hides churn
|
Contra Costa |
311 |
1,245 |
13
|
83 |
15.9% |
46.3% |
6.4 |
1.9 |
258 |
41 |
| 663 |
Oro Grande · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
175 |
2,453 |
13
|
54 |
24.2% |
— |
9.1 |
— |
95 |
23 |
| 664 |
Modesto · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
604 |
2,292 |
13
|
39 |
33.8% |
15.2% |
8.6 |
1.7 |
234 |
79 |
| 665 |
Gilroy · Public Best in class
|
Santa Clara |
383 |
1,630 |
13
|
63 |
20.8% |
40.0% |
8.4 |
1.8 |
240 |
50 |
| 666 |
Oxnard · Public Demand hides churn
|
Ventura |
445 |
1,913 |
13
|
50 |
26.0% |
13.8% |
9.4 |
2.0 |
223 |
58 |
| 667 |
Oceanside · Public Compounding decline
|
San Diego |
454 |
1,948 |
13
|
61 |
21.1% |
22.0% |
11.2 |
2.0 |
279 |
59 |
| 668 |
Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
447 |
1,746 |
13
|
48 |
27.0% |
25.9% |
10.7 |
2.2 |
215 |
58 |
| 669 |
Tulare · Public Tracking
|
Tulare |
355 |
1,616 |
13
|
28 |
46.5% |
15.2% |
10.4 |
2.0 |
99 |
46 |
| 670 |
Stockton · Public Material decline
|
San Joaquin |
278 |
1,164 |
13
|
49 |
26.7% |
19.4% |
7.9 |
1.8 |
135 |
36 |
| 671 |
Long Beach · Private
|
Los Angeles |
116 |
422 |
13
|
120 |
10.8% |
— |
7.8 |
2.6 |
139 |
15 |
| 672 |
Sun Valley · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
512 |
2,124 |
13
|
70 |
18.3% |
24.2% |
10.6 |
2.3 |
360 |
66 |
| 673 |
Costa Mesa · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
264 |
976 |
13
|
54 |
23.9% |
17.6% |
11.7 |
— |
142 |
34 |
| 674 |
Stockton · Public Compounding decline
|
San Joaquin |
365 |
1,644 |
13
|
38 |
34.3% |
21.3% |
8.8 |
1.4 |
137 |
47 |
| 675 |
· Public Demand problem
|
Tuolumne |
202 |
880 |
13
|
30 |
43.3% |
11.5% |
9.4 |
2.0 |
60 |
26 |
| 676 |
Rialto · Public Material decline
|
San Bernardino |
499 |
2,075 |
13
|
67 |
19.3% |
12.5% |
11.6 |
0.8 |
332 |
64 |
| 677 |
Escondido · Public Compounding decline
|
San Diego |
507 |
1,656 |
13
|
47 |
27.1% |
24.6% |
11.4 |
0.6 |
240 |
65 |
| 678 |
· Public Demand problem
|
Contra Costa |
242 |
1,028 |
13
|
56 |
23.0% |
12.9% |
7.0 |
— |
135 |
31 |
| 679 |
Patterson · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
422 |
1,830 |
13
|
40 |
32.3% |
11.1% |
9.7 |
2.8 |
167 |
54 |
| 680 |
Lakeside · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
501 |
1,810 |
13
|
53 |
24.0% |
28.1% |
9.0 |
2.0 |
267 |
64 |
| 681 |
Oxnard · Public Watch — engagement
|
Ventura |
628 |
2,380 |
13
|
53 |
24.0% |
21.2% |
10.5 |
2.1 |
333 |
80 |
| 682 |
La Mirada · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
457 |
1,726 |
13
|
67 |
18.9% |
27.6% |
10.5 |
2.2 |
306 |
58 |
| 683 |
Anaheim · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
331 |
1,446 |
13
|
47 |
26.9% |
26.2% |
11.2 |
1.8 |
156 |
42 |
| 684 |
Porterville · Public Demand problem
|
Tulare |
458 |
1,855 |
13
|
49 |
25.9% |
6.9% |
10.0 |
1.3 |
224 |
58 |
| 685 |
Oak Hills · Public Watch — engagement
|
San Bernardino |
545 |
2,370 |
13
|
47 |
26.7% |
17.4% |
10.8 |
1.8 |
258 |
69 |
| 686 |
Bakersfield · Public Sharp downturn
|
Kern |
542 |
2,228 |
13
|
49 |
25.7% |
20.6% |
10.0 |
1.7 |
265 |
68 |
| 687 |
Pomona · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
463 |
1,567 |
13
|
55 |
22.9% |
10.3% |
11.0 |
2.2 |
253 |
58 |
| 688 |
Selma · Public Demand problem
|
Fresno |
391 |
1,721 |
13
|
42 |
29.5% |
24.5% |
8.4 |
2.0 |
166 |
49 |
| 689 |
San Bernardino · Public Watch — engagement
|
San Bernardino |
632 |
2,692 |
12
|
61 |
20.5% |
20.2% |
10.1 |
1.7 |
385 |
79 |
| 690 |
· Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
520 |
2,261 |
12
|
72 |
17.4% |
23.1% |
9.6 |
3.5 |
373 |
65 |
| 691 |
Richmond · Public Material decline
|
Contra Costa |
288 |
1,047 |
12
|
68 |
18.5% |
41.7% |
6.6 |
2.8 |
195 |
36 |
| 692 |
Lodi · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
480 |
1,952 |
12
|
32 |
39.5% |
11.7% |
8.8 |
2.5 |
152 |
60 |
| 693 |
Montclair · Public Watch — engagement
|
San Bernardino |
552 |
2,515 |
12
|
48 |
25.9% |
27.5% |
11.4 |
1.6 |
266 |
69 |
| 694 |
Merced · Public Strong demand
|
Merced |
441 |
1,943 |
12
|
46 |
27.4% |
9.1% |
8.6 |
0.7 |
201 |
55 |
| 695 |
Delano · Public Best in class
|
Kern |
345 |
1,394 |
12
|
37 |
34.1% |
13.9% |
9.6 |
2.6 |
126 |
43 |
| 696 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
402 |
1,487 |
12
|
52 |
23.8% |
32.0% |
11.2 |
2.5 |
210 |
50 |
| 697 |
Lathrop · Public Demand problem
|
San Joaquin |
346 |
1,486 |
12
|
50 |
24.9% |
20.9% |
7.2 |
— |
173 |
43 |
| 698 |
Huntington Beach · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
298 |
1,154 |
12
|
63 |
19.6% |
24.3% |
10.1 |
2.4 |
189 |
37 |
| 699 |
Fairfield · Public Sharp downturn
|
Solano |
419 |
1,631 |
12
|
67 |
18.5% |
30.8% |
6.7 |
0.7 |
281 |
52 |
| 700 |
Lakewood · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
372 |
1,384 |
12
|
51 |
24.1% |
23.9% |
10.8 |
0.8 |
191 |
46 |