| 701 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
83 |
349 |
16
|
60 |
26.0% |
30.8% |
12.1 |
— |
50 |
13 |
| 702 |
Lynwood · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
448 |
1,858 |
16
|
70 |
22.3% |
18.6% |
12.9 |
1.3 |
314 |
70 |
| 703 |
Covina · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
314 |
1,247 |
16
|
63 |
24.9% |
12.2% |
12.4 |
2.2 |
197 |
49 |
| 704 |
South Gate · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
405 |
1,681 |
16
|
87 |
17.9% |
19.1% |
13.6 |
4.2 |
351 |
63 |
| 705 |
Turlock · Public Holding share
|
Stanislaus |
476 |
1,986 |
16
|
57 |
27.3% |
31.1% |
10.9 |
2.1 |
271 |
74 |
| 706 |
Napa · Public Material decline
|
Napa |
393 |
1,622 |
16
|
56 |
27.6% |
31.1% |
7.6 |
2.5 |
221 |
61 |
| 707 |
La Puente · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
374 |
1,535 |
16
|
90 |
17.2% |
36.2% |
14.4 |
2.4 |
338 |
58 |
| 708 |
Moreno Valley · Public Tracking
|
Riverside |
646 |
2,699 |
15
|
57 |
26.9% |
22.0% |
13.8 |
1.9 |
371 |
100 |
| 709 |
Loomis · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
390 |
1,634 |
15
|
61 |
25.4% |
16.7% |
11.5 |
3.6 |
236 |
60 |
| 710 |
Etiwanda · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
852 |
3,446 |
15
|
65 |
23.5% |
35.9% |
13.7 |
1.8 |
557 |
131 |
| 711 |
Pittsburg · Public Demand hides churn
|
Contra Costa |
803 |
3,403 |
15
|
57 |
27.0% |
30.9% |
11.0 |
2.5 |
456 |
123 |
| 712 |
Saugus · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
537 |
2,317 |
15
|
78 |
19.5% |
30.5% |
12.1 |
2.6 |
420 |
82 |
| 713 |
Covina · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
295 |
1,259 |
15
|
57 |
26.6% |
24.4% |
12.2 |
2.4 |
169 |
45 |
| 714 |
Mission Viejo · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
394 |
1,566 |
15
|
88 |
17.3% |
23.3% |
11.7 |
2.5 |
347 |
60 |
| 715 |
Newman · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
230 |
925 |
15
|
53 |
28.9% |
34.3% |
9.6 |
— |
121 |
35 |
| 716 |
· Public Best in class
|
Tulare |
519 |
2,490 |
15
|
60 |
25.2% |
22.8% |
10.6 |
2.7 |
314 |
79 |
| 717 |
· Public Watch — engagement
|
Merced |
434 |
1,917 |
15
|
47 |
32.5% |
16.7% |
9.9 |
2.1 |
203 |
66 |
| 718 |
· Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
664 |
2,290 |
15
|
69 |
22.2% |
34.6% |
13.9 |
2.3 |
455 |
101 |
| 719 |
Santa Ana · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
337 |
1,451 |
15
|
61 |
25.0% |
21.6% |
12.8 |
1.8 |
204 |
51 |
| 720 |
La Puente · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
205 |
813 |
15
|
68 |
22.3% |
22.6% |
11.7 |
1.5 |
139 |
31 |
| 721 |
Palmdale · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
582 |
2,349 |
15
|
61 |
24.7% |
35.2% |
12.0 |
1.7 |
356 |
88 |
| 722 |
Pomona · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
246 |
993 |
15
|
49 |
30.8% |
32.4% |
12.2 |
1.2 |
120 |
37 |
| 723 |
Hawthorne · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
426 |
1,675 |
15
|
75 |
20.0% |
20.3% |
12.4 |
1.4 |
320 |
64 |
| 724 |
Montebello · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
493 |
1,907 |
15
|
55 |
27.5% |
20.3% |
13.0 |
2.6 |
269 |
74 |
| 725 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
793 |
3,143 |
15
|
60 |
25.1% |
28.6% |
10.1 |
1.5 |
474 |
119 |
| 726 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
760 |
3,080 |
15
|
53 |
28.1% |
21.1% |
11.1 |
2.2 |
405 |
114 |
| 727 |
Bellflower · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
341 |
1,997 |
15
|
67 |
22.3% |
15.7% |
12.0 |
2.4 |
229 |
51 |
| 728 |
Montebello · Private
|
Los Angeles |
87 |
378 |
15
|
106 |
14.1% |
— |
14.9 |
— |
92 |
13 |
| 729 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
623 |
2,368 |
15
|
63 |
23.6% |
35.5% |
8.8 |
0.6 |
394 |
93 |
| 730 |
Inglewood · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
114 |
407 |
15
|
73 |
20.5% |
— |
11.4 |
2.6 |
83 |
17 |
| 731 |
Sanger · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
631 |
2,426 |
15
|
35 |
42.1% |
24.5% |
10.9 |
1.7 |
223 |
94 |
| 732 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
289 |
1,159 |
15
|
53 |
28.1% |
18.6% |
14.9 |
1.4 |
153 |
43 |
| 733 |
Madera · Public Material decline
|
Madera |
390 |
1,869 |
15
|
46 |
32.0% |
24.1% |
11.3 |
2.6 |
181 |
58 |
| 734 |
Lincoln · Public Best in class
|
Placer |
291 |
1,317 |
15
|
45 |
32.6% |
39.5% |
7.6 |
— |
132 |
43 |
| 735 |
· Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
454 |
1,908 |
15
|
53 |
27.9% |
20.9% |
12.8 |
2.0 |
240 |
67 |
| 736 |
Elk Grove · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
556 |
2,142 |
15
|
68 |
21.8% |
29.3% |
9.2 |
1.6 |
377 |
82 |
| 737 |
Santa Fe Springs · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
523 |
1,865 |
15
|
67 |
21.9% |
31.2% |
13.6 |
1.9 |
351 |
77 |
| 738 |
Chino · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
449 |
2,077 |
15
|
55 |
26.5% |
10.6% |
13.6 |
1.8 |
249 |
66 |
| 739 |
Tulare · Public Sharp downturn
|
Tulare |
483 |
1,927 |
15
|
40 |
37.0% |
9.9% |
12.4 |
1.2 |
192 |
71 |
| 740 |
Spring Valley · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
525 |
2,198 |
15
|
85 |
17.3% |
31.2% |
10.7 |
1.9 |
446 |
77 |
| 741 |
Santee · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
396 |
1,624 |
15
|
51 |
28.7% |
31.0% |
12.6 |
2.8 |
202 |
58 |
| 742 |
Fresno · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
514 |
2,184 |
15
|
68 |
21.6% |
20.0% |
12.7 |
2.3 |
348 |
75 |
| 743 |
Corona · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
576 |
2,307 |
15
|
60 |
24.4% |
25.0% |
13.7 |
1.9 |
344 |
84 |
| 744 |
Weed · Public Watch — engagement
|
Siskiyou |
48 |
187 |
15
|
65 |
22.6% |
— |
6.2 |
6.2 |
31 |
7 |
| 745 |
Fontana · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
634 |
2,725 |
15
|
52 |
27.7% |
26.1% |
13.4 |
1.6 |
332 |
92 |
| 746 |
San Jose · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Clara |
69 |
297 |
14
|
177 |
8.2% |
— |
5.8 |
— |
122 |
10 |
| 747 |
Imperial Beach · Public Compounding decline
|
San Diego |
290 |
1,216 |
14
|
66 |
21.9% |
16.7% |
12.1 |
1.0 |
192 |
42 |
| 748 |
Costa Mesa · Public Tracking
|
Orange |
304 |
1,730 |
14
|
64 |
22.6% |
27.3% |
12.5 |
1.3 |
195 |
44 |
| 749 |
Richmond · Public Strong demand
|
Contra Costa |
76 |
333 |
14
|
76 |
19.0% |
27.3% |
7.9 |
4.0 |
58 |
11 |
| 750 |
South San Francisco · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
304 |
1,239 |
14
|
66 |
21.8% |
22.7% |
9.9 |
2.0 |
202 |
44 |
| 751 |
Newhall · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
560 |
1,941 |
14
|
78 |
18.7% |
29.6% |
12.1 |
2.1 |
434 |
81 |
| 752 |
North Hills · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
450 |
1,905 |
14
|
78 |
18.6% |
21.5% |
9.8 |
1.3 |
350 |
65 |
| 753 |
Modesto · Private
|
Stanislaus |
104 |
422 |
14
|
89 |
16.1% |
20.0% |
7.7 |
— |
93 |
15 |
| 754 |
West Covina · Public Tracking
|
Los Angeles |
208 |
712 |
14
|
89 |
16.1% |
13.3% |
11.5 |
1.9 |
186 |
30 |
| 755 |
San Jose · Public Compounding decline
|
Santa Clara |
347 |
1,374 |
14
|
75 |
19.3% |
24.0% |
10.1 |
1.7 |
259 |
50 |
| 756 |
San Diego · Private
|
San Diego |
167 |
717 |
14
|
133 |
10.8% |
12.5% |
12.0 |
4.8 |
222 |
24 |
| 757 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
272 |
1,226 |
14
|
55 |
26.2% |
17.9% |
7.0 |
— |
149 |
39 |
| 758 |
Antelope · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
384 |
1,821 |
14
|
62 |
23.0% |
29.1% |
8.8 |
2.1 |
239 |
55 |
| 759 |
Fair Oaks · Public Holding share
|
Sacramento |
454 |
1,939 |
14
|
52 |
27.8% |
27.7% |
8.4 |
2.6 |
234 |
65 |
| 760 |
Sacramento · Private
|
Sacramento |
21 |
523 |
14
|
67 |
21.4% |
100.0% |
— |
— |
14 |
3 |
| 761 |
· Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
680 |
2,801 |
14
|
49 |
29.1% |
25.8% |
9.8 |
1.8 |
333 |
97 |
| 762 |
Richmond · Public Both ends slipping
|
Contra Costa |
337 |
1,280 |
14
|
62 |
23.1% |
29.2% |
7.7 |
3.0 |
208 |
48 |
| 763 |
San Bruno · Public Strong demand
|
San Mateo |
281 |
1,061 |
14
|
76 |
18.7% |
20.0% |
9.2 |
3.2 |
214 |
40 |
| 764 |
Stockton · Public Material decline
|
San Joaquin |
436 |
1,925 |
14
|
36 |
39.0% |
24.2% |
10.3 |
1.6 |
159 |
62 |
| 765 |
Brentwood · Public Best in class
|
Contra Costa |
598 |
2,566 |
14
|
105 |
13.5% |
31.8% |
9.7 |
2.3 |
628 |
85 |
| 766 |
Riverside · Public Weak at the gate
|
Riverside |
324 |
1,514 |
14
|
63 |
22.7% |
21.7% |
13.0 |
1.2 |
203 |
46 |
| 767 |
Los Angeles · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
127 |
614 |
14
|
72 |
19.8% |
— |
14.2 |
2.4 |
91 |
18 |
| 768 |
Watsonville · Public Both ends slipping
|
Santa Cruz |
515 |
2,215 |
14
|
52 |
27.1% |
32.9% |
8.3 |
1.2 |
269 |
73 |
| 769 |
La Habra · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
459 |
1,779 |
14
|
76 |
18.6% |
16.9% |
10.7 |
2.2 |
349 |
65 |
| 770 |
Fresno · Public Demand hides churn
|
Fresno |
424 |
2,056 |
14
|
67 |
21.1% |
16.7% |
9.0 |
1.4 |
285 |
60 |
| 771 |
Fontana · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
583 |
2,534 |
14
|
96 |
14.7% |
12.2% |
12.9 |
2.2 |
558 |
82 |
| 772 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
405 |
1,889 |
14
|
76 |
18.5% |
8.8% |
11.6 |
2.7 |
308 |
57 |
| 773 |
Pomona · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
235 |
895 |
14
|
49 |
28.9% |
18.2% |
12.3 |
2.5 |
114 |
33 |
| 774 |
Hanford · Public Sharp downturn
|
Kings |
321 |
1,331 |
14
|
34 |
41.7% |
13.3% |
10.9 |
2.8 |
108 |
45 |
| 775 |
· Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
593 |
2,330 |
14
|
34 |
41.3% |
30.1% |
11.6 |
1.5 |
201 |
83 |
| 776 |
Pomona · Private
|
Los Angeles |
50 |
171 |
14
|
170 |
8.2% |
— |
6.0 |
— |
85 |
7 |
| 777 |
Madera · Public Compounding decline
|
Madera |
386 |
1,859 |
14
|
44 |
31.6% |
22.2% |
8.6 |
1.8 |
171 |
54 |
| 778 |
Ceres · Public Demand problem
|
Stanislaus |
415 |
1,660 |
14
|
38 |
36.5% |
12.1% |
10.6 |
2.9 |
159 |
58 |
| 779 |
San Dimas · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
315 |
1,235 |
14
|
90 |
15.6% |
20.4% |
11.4 |
1.6 |
283 |
44 |
| 780 |
Rancho Cucamonga · Private
|
San Bernardino |
43 |
925 |
14
|
151 |
9.2% |
— |
13.9 |
— |
65 |
6 |
| 781 |
· Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
388 |
1,590 |
14
|
82 |
16.9% |
37.0% |
10.3 |
1.8 |
320 |
54 |
| 782 |
Jurupa Valley · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
302 |
1,259 |
14
|
59 |
23.6% |
7.1% |
11.6 |
2.6 |
178 |
42 |
| 783 |
Daly City · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Mateo |
260 |
1,072 |
14
|
82 |
16.8% |
27.8% |
9.6 |
2.3 |
214 |
36 |
| 784 |
· Public
|
Solano |
65 |
260 |
14
|
94 |
14.8% |
66.7% |
4.6 |
— |
61 |
9 |
| 785 |
Farmersville · Public Weak at the gate
|
Tulare |
181 |
711 |
14
|
29 |
48.1% |
12.0% |
9.9 |
1.7 |
52 |
25 |
| 786 |
Shingle Springs · Public Sharp downturn
|
El Dorado |
428 |
1,675 |
14
|
46 |
30.3% |
18.6% |
8.9 |
0.7 |
195 |
59 |
| 787 |
Vacaville · Public Best in class
|
Solano |
515 |
2,044 |
14
|
50 |
27.7% |
35.2% |
7.8 |
3.1 |
256 |
71 |
| 788 |
Moreno Valley · Public Mid-year churn
|
Riverside |
473 |
2,103 |
14
|
58 |
23.8% |
20.0% |
12.5 |
1.9 |
273 |
65 |
| 789 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
576 |
2,416 |
14
|
45 |
30.6% |
24.1% |
11.3 |
2.6 |
258 |
79 |
| 790 |
Los Angeles · Private
|
Los Angeles |
124 |
583 |
14
|
210 |
6.5% |
— |
10.5 |
— |
260 |
17 |
| 791 |
Temecula · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
774 |
3,136 |
14
|
83 |
16.5% |
36.8% |
10.7 |
1.0 |
641 |
106 |
| 792 |
Escondido · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
307 |
1,336 |
14
|
61 |
22.3% |
21.4% |
11.4 |
1.3 |
188 |
42 |
| 793 |
Redlands · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
520 |
2,110 |
14
|
54 |
25.4% |
28.2% |
12.3 |
1.7 |
279 |
71 |
| 794 |
Gardena · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
352 |
1,343 |
14
|
51 |
26.7% |
12.5% |
11.9 |
2.6 |
180 |
48 |
| 795 |
Newport Beach · Private
|
Orange |
66 |
259 |
14
|
85 |
16.1% |
— |
6.1 |
— |
56 |
9 |
| 796 |
Paso Robles · Public Demand problem
|
San Luis Obispo |
411 |
1,986 |
14
|
48 |
28.6% |
25.0% |
9.7 |
2.2 |
196 |
56 |
| 797 |
Apple Valley · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
558 |
2,211 |
14
|
45 |
30.0% |
14.5% |
11.1 |
1.4 |
253 |
76 |
| 798 |
Visalia · Public Demand problem
|
Tulare |
434 |
1,890 |
14
|
45 |
30.1% |
18.6% |
10.4 |
2.3 |
196 |
59 |
| 799 |
Oroville · Public Weak at the gate
|
Butte |
295 |
1,265 |
14
|
29 |
46.5% |
20.0% |
8.8 |
2.0 |
86 |
40 |
| 800 |
San Jacinto · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
96 |
1,658 |
14
|
74 |
18.3% |
— |
13.5 |
— |
71 |
13 |