| 601 |
Elk Grove · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
595 |
2,263 |
17
|
90 |
19.2% |
39.8% |
8.6 |
1.0 |
535 |
103 |
| 602 |
Montebello · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
549 |
2,121 |
17
|
67 |
26.0% |
23.2% |
14.8 |
2.9 |
366 |
95 |
| 603 |
Riverside · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
567 |
2,484 |
17
|
70 |
24.8% |
17.4% |
14.5 |
3.2 |
396 |
98 |
| 604 |
Whittier · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
406 |
1,652 |
17
|
87 |
19.8% |
20.0% |
13.6 |
1.2 |
354 |
70 |
| 605 |
Tujunga · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
267 |
1,195 |
17
|
86 |
20.0% |
10.9% |
14.6 |
4.5 |
230 |
46 |
| 606 |
Indio · Public Watch — engagement
|
Riverside |
482 |
1,962 |
17
|
55 |
31.6% |
20.5% |
16.2 |
2.5 |
263 |
83 |
| 607 |
Tahoe City · Public Best in class
|
Placer |
128 |
468 |
17
|
95 |
18.0% |
— |
12.5 |
2.3 |
122 |
22 |
| 608 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
210 |
738 |
17
|
69 |
25.0% |
16.7% |
14.8 |
3.3 |
144 |
36 |
| 609 |
Chula Vista · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
333 |
1,363 |
17
|
53 |
32.6% |
21.1% |
13.8 |
2.4 |
175 |
57 |
| 610 |
Le Grand · Public Weak at the gate
|
Merced |
117 |
484 |
17
|
80 |
21.3% |
— |
9.4 |
2.6 |
94 |
20 |
| 611 |
Fountain Valley · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
375 |
1,430 |
17
|
71 |
24.1% |
26.6% |
15.2 |
3.2 |
266 |
64 |
| 612 |
Santa Maria · Private
|
Santa Barbara |
123 |
512 |
17
|
96 |
17.8% |
— |
13.8 |
2.4 |
118 |
21 |
| 613 |
Downey · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
851 |
3,609 |
17
|
86 |
19.8% |
26.2% |
14.6 |
2.6 |
734 |
145 |
| 614 |
Morgan Hill · Public
|
Santa Clara |
276 |
1,101 |
17
|
76 |
22.4% |
29.8% |
11.2 |
4.7 |
210 |
47 |
| 615 |
Madera · Public Strong demand
|
Madera |
511 |
2,017 |
17
|
59 |
28.8% |
18.4% |
11.2 |
2.9 |
302 |
87 |
| 616 |
San Jose · Public Compounding decline
|
Santa Clara |
600 |
2,289 |
17
|
76 |
22.3% |
24.5% |
9.7 |
1.8 |
457 |
102 |
| 617 |
Woodland Hills · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
883 |
3,046 |
17
|
98 |
17.3% |
33.3% |
10.9 |
2.5 |
867 |
150 |
| 618 |
Glendora · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
521 |
2,069 |
17
|
94 |
18.0% |
33.0% |
12.9 |
2.5 |
488 |
88 |
| 619 |
Reedley · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
393 |
1,804 |
17
|
55 |
30.7% |
15.2% |
13.2 |
2.0 |
215 |
66 |
| 620 |
Fontana · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
462 |
1,660 |
17
|
70 |
23.8% |
15.6% |
13.2 |
2.8 |
324 |
77 |
| 621 |
Whittier · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
554 |
2,372 |
17
|
96 |
17.2% |
26.1% |
13.7 |
2.9 |
534 |
92 |
| 622 |
Moreno Valley · Public Both ends slipping
|
Riverside |
495 |
2,251 |
17
|
74 |
22.4% |
12.2% |
14.9 |
2.0 |
366 |
82 |
| 623 |
Tracy · Public Material decline
|
San Joaquin |
537 |
1,920 |
17
|
50 |
32.8% |
29.2% |
11.6 |
1.1 |
271 |
89 |
| 624 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
103 |
392 |
16
|
110 |
15.0% |
17.6% |
13.6 |
2.9 |
113 |
17 |
| 625 |
Petaluma · Public Strong demand
|
Sonoma |
401 |
1,653 |
16
|
66 |
25.1% |
27.3% |
10.5 |
2.0 |
263 |
66 |
| 626 |
Porterville · Public Demand problem
|
Tulare |
275 |
1,206 |
16
|
51 |
32.1% |
20.0% |
13.4 |
3.6 |
140 |
45 |
| 627 |
Grand Terrace · Public Material decline
|
San Bernardino |
416 |
1,647 |
16
|
51 |
32.2% |
22.1% |
14.2 |
2.6 |
211 |
68 |
| 628 |
Bell Gardens · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
523 |
2,046 |
16
|
54 |
30.1% |
23.5% |
12.8 |
2.3 |
282 |
85 |
| 629 |
Cudahy · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
142 |
1,257 |
16
|
84 |
19.3% |
— |
13.4 |
2.1 |
119 |
23 |
| 630 |
Apple Valley · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
105 |
1,489 |
16
|
61 |
26.6% |
— |
16.2 |
2.9 |
64 |
17 |
| 631 |
Quartz Hill · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
822 |
3,175 |
16
|
67 |
24.1% |
27.1% |
12.7 |
2.5 |
551 |
133 |
| 632 |
Thermal · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
557 |
2,300 |
16
|
60 |
26.7% |
34.4% |
13.6 |
2.1 |
337 |
90 |
| 633 |
Norwalk · Public
|
Los Angeles |
198 |
882 |
16
|
64 |
25.4% |
— |
13.1 |
1.5 |
126 |
32 |
| 634 |
Tustin · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
458 |
1,627 |
16
|
69 |
23.5% |
28.4% |
13.3 |
1.3 |
315 |
74 |
| 635 |
El Monte · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
273 |
1,123 |
16
|
66 |
24.4% |
11.4% |
12.1 |
1.8 |
180 |
44 |
| 636 |
Cerritos · Private
|
Los Angeles |
137 |
527 |
16
|
88 |
18.2% |
13.6% |
13.9 |
2.9 |
121 |
22 |
| 637 |
Buena Park · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
424 |
1,682 |
16
|
61 |
26.5% |
13.2% |
14.9 |
3.3 |
257 |
68 |
| 638 |
El Monte · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
368 |
1,383 |
16
|
74 |
21.6% |
28.8% |
14.4 |
3.0 |
273 |
59 |
| 639 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
131 |
555 |
16
|
106 |
15.1% |
28.6% |
10.7 |
2.3 |
139 |
21 |
| 640 |
Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
495 |
1,949 |
16
|
65 |
24.4% |
22.8% |
13.3 |
1.4 |
324 |
79 |
| 641 |
Tracy · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
395 |
1,739 |
16
|
52 |
30.4% |
36.5% |
11.4 |
1.5 |
207 |
63 |
| 642 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
138 |
564 |
16
|
88 |
18.0% |
— |
11.6 |
— |
122 |
22 |
| 643 |
Riverside · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
541 |
2,142 |
16
|
74 |
21.5% |
25.6% |
13.3 |
2.4 |
400 |
86 |
| 644 |
Desert Hot Springs · Public Both ends slipping
|
Riverside |
403 |
1,687 |
16
|
49 |
32.6% |
18.8% |
12.4 |
2.5 |
196 |
64 |
| 645 |
Corcoran · Public Strong demand
|
Kings |
208 |
931 |
16
|
45 |
35.5% |
15.2% |
13.5 |
5.8 |
93 |
33 |
| 646 |
San Bernardino · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Bernardino |
435 |
1,810 |
16
|
83 |
19.1% |
11.6% |
14.0 |
2.5 |
362 |
69 |
| 647 |
Escondido · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
248 |
932 |
16
|
78 |
20.2% |
10.3% |
12.1 |
1.2 |
193 |
39 |
| 648 |
Roseville · Public Compounding decline
|
Placer |
356 |
1,290 |
16
|
59 |
26.5% |
35.7% |
10.1 |
2.8 |
211 |
56 |
| 649 |
Sacramento · Public Demand hides churn
|
Sacramento |
446 |
1,987 |
16
|
44 |
36.1% |
8.6% |
9.9 |
3.6 |
194 |
70 |
| 650 |
Lynwood · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
448 |
1,858 |
16
|
70 |
22.3% |
18.6% |
12.9 |
1.3 |
314 |
70 |
| 651 |
Covina · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
314 |
1,247 |
16
|
63 |
24.9% |
12.2% |
12.4 |
2.2 |
197 |
49 |
| 652 |
South Gate · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
405 |
1,681 |
16
|
87 |
17.9% |
19.1% |
13.6 |
4.2 |
351 |
63 |
| 653 |
Turlock · Public Holding share
|
Stanislaus |
476 |
1,986 |
16
|
57 |
27.3% |
31.1% |
10.9 |
2.1 |
271 |
74 |
| 654 |
Napa · Public Material decline
|
Napa |
393 |
1,622 |
16
|
56 |
27.6% |
31.1% |
7.6 |
2.5 |
221 |
61 |
| 655 |
La Puente · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
374 |
1,535 |
16
|
90 |
17.2% |
36.2% |
14.4 |
2.4 |
338 |
58 |
| 656 |
Moreno Valley · Public Tracking
|
Riverside |
646 |
2,699 |
15
|
57 |
26.9% |
22.0% |
13.8 |
1.9 |
371 |
100 |
| 657 |
Loomis · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
390 |
1,634 |
15
|
61 |
25.4% |
16.7% |
11.5 |
3.6 |
236 |
60 |
| 658 |
Etiwanda · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
852 |
3,446 |
15
|
65 |
23.5% |
35.9% |
13.7 |
1.8 |
557 |
131 |
| 659 |
Pittsburg · Public Demand hides churn
|
Contra Costa |
803 |
3,403 |
15
|
57 |
27.0% |
30.9% |
11.0 |
2.5 |
456 |
123 |
| 660 |
Saugus · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
537 |
2,317 |
15
|
78 |
19.5% |
30.5% |
12.1 |
2.6 |
420 |
82 |
| 661 |
Covina · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
295 |
1,259 |
15
|
57 |
26.6% |
24.4% |
12.2 |
2.4 |
169 |
45 |
| 662 |
Mission Viejo · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
394 |
1,566 |
15
|
88 |
17.3% |
23.3% |
11.7 |
2.5 |
347 |
60 |
| 663 |
Newman · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
230 |
925 |
15
|
53 |
28.9% |
34.3% |
9.6 |
— |
121 |
35 |
| 664 |
Visalia · Public Best in class
|
Tulare |
519 |
2,490 |
15
|
60 |
25.2% |
22.8% |
10.6 |
2.7 |
314 |
79 |
| 665 |
Merced · Public Watch — engagement
|
Merced |
434 |
1,917 |
15
|
47 |
32.5% |
16.7% |
9.9 |
2.1 |
203 |
66 |
| 666 |
National City · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
664 |
2,290 |
15
|
69 |
22.2% |
34.6% |
13.9 |
2.3 |
455 |
101 |
| 667 |
Santa Ana · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
337 |
1,451 |
15
|
61 |
25.0% |
21.6% |
12.8 |
1.8 |
204 |
51 |
| 668 |
La Puente · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
205 |
813 |
15
|
68 |
22.3% |
22.6% |
11.7 |
1.5 |
139 |
31 |
| 669 |
Palmdale · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
582 |
2,349 |
15
|
61 |
24.7% |
35.2% |
12.0 |
1.7 |
356 |
88 |
| 670 |
Pomona · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
246 |
993 |
15
|
49 |
30.8% |
32.4% |
12.2 |
1.2 |
120 |
37 |
| 671 |
Hawthorne · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
426 |
1,675 |
15
|
75 |
20.0% |
20.3% |
12.4 |
1.4 |
320 |
64 |
| 672 |
Montebello · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
493 |
1,907 |
15
|
55 |
27.5% |
20.3% |
13.0 |
2.6 |
269 |
74 |
| 673 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
793 |
3,143 |
15
|
60 |
25.1% |
28.6% |
10.1 |
1.5 |
474 |
119 |
| 674 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
760 |
3,080 |
15
|
53 |
28.1% |
21.1% |
11.1 |
2.2 |
405 |
114 |
| 675 |
Bellflower · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
341 |
1,997 |
15
|
67 |
22.3% |
15.7% |
12.0 |
2.4 |
229 |
51 |
| 676 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
623 |
2,368 |
15
|
63 |
23.6% |
35.5% |
8.8 |
0.6 |
394 |
93 |
| 677 |
Inglewood · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
114 |
407 |
15
|
73 |
20.5% |
— |
11.4 |
2.6 |
83 |
17 |
| 678 |
Sanger · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
631 |
2,426 |
15
|
35 |
42.1% |
24.5% |
10.9 |
1.7 |
223 |
94 |
| 679 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
289 |
1,159 |
15
|
53 |
28.1% |
18.6% |
14.9 |
1.4 |
153 |
43 |
| 680 |
Madera · Public Material decline
|
Madera |
390 |
1,869 |
15
|
46 |
32.0% |
24.1% |
11.3 |
2.6 |
181 |
58 |
| 681 |
Lincoln · Public Best in class
|
Placer |
291 |
1,317 |
15
|
45 |
32.6% |
39.5% |
7.6 |
— |
132 |
43 |
| 682 |
Santa Ana · Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
454 |
1,908 |
15
|
53 |
27.9% |
20.9% |
12.8 |
2.0 |
240 |
67 |
| 683 |
Elk Grove · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
556 |
2,142 |
15
|
68 |
21.8% |
29.3% |
9.2 |
1.6 |
377 |
82 |
| 684 |
San Jose · Public Watch — engagement
|
Santa Clara |
163 |
520 |
15
|
78 |
18.9% |
— |
8.0 |
1.8 |
127 |
24 |
| 685 |
Santa Fe Springs · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
523 |
1,865 |
15
|
67 |
21.9% |
31.2% |
13.6 |
1.9 |
351 |
77 |
| 686 |
Chino · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
449 |
2,077 |
15
|
55 |
26.5% |
10.6% |
13.6 |
1.8 |
249 |
66 |
| 687 |
Tulare · Public Sharp downturn
|
Tulare |
483 |
1,927 |
15
|
40 |
37.0% |
9.9% |
12.4 |
1.2 |
192 |
71 |
| 688 |
Spring Valley · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
525 |
2,198 |
15
|
85 |
17.3% |
31.2% |
10.7 |
1.9 |
446 |
77 |
| 689 |
Santee · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
396 |
1,624 |
15
|
51 |
28.7% |
31.0% |
12.6 |
2.8 |
202 |
58 |
| 690 |
Fresno · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
514 |
2,184 |
15
|
68 |
21.6% |
20.0% |
12.7 |
2.3 |
348 |
75 |
| 691 |
Corona · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
576 |
2,307 |
15
|
60 |
24.4% |
25.0% |
13.7 |
1.9 |
344 |
84 |
| 692 |
San Francisco · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Francisco |
110 |
475 |
15
|
54 |
27.1% |
18.8% |
8.2 |
— |
59 |
16 |
| 693 |
Fontana · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
634 |
2,725 |
15
|
52 |
27.7% |
26.1% |
13.4 |
1.6 |
332 |
92 |
| 694 |
Wasco · Public Demand problem
|
Kern |
386 |
1,672 |
15
|
41 |
35.4% |
25.0% |
11.1 |
1.8 |
158 |
56 |
| 695 |
Imperial Beach · Public Compounding decline
|
San Diego |
290 |
1,216 |
14
|
66 |
21.9% |
16.7% |
12.1 |
1.0 |
192 |
42 |
| 696 |
Costa Mesa · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
304 |
1,730 |
14
|
64 |
22.6% |
27.3% |
12.5 |
1.3 |
195 |
44 |
| 697 |
South San Francisco · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
304 |
1,239 |
14
|
66 |
21.8% |
22.7% |
9.9 |
2.0 |
202 |
44 |
| 698 |
Newhall · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
560 |
1,941 |
14
|
78 |
18.7% |
29.6% |
12.1 |
2.1 |
434 |
81 |
| 699 |
North Hills · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
450 |
1,905 |
14
|
78 |
18.6% |
21.5% |
9.8 |
1.3 |
350 |
65 |
| 700 |
Modesto · Private
|
Stanislaus |
104 |
422 |
14
|
89 |
16.1% |
20.0% |
7.7 |
— |
93 |
15 |