| 801 |
Le Grand · Public Weak at the gate
|
Merced |
117 |
484 |
17
|
80 |
21.3% |
— |
9.4 |
2.6 |
94 |
20 |
| 802 |
Fountain Valley · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
375 |
1,430 |
17
|
71 |
24.1% |
26.6% |
15.2 |
3.2 |
266 |
64 |
| 803 |
Santa Maria · Private
|
Santa Barbara |
123 |
512 |
17
|
96 |
17.8% |
— |
13.8 |
2.4 |
118 |
21 |
| 804 |
Downey · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
851 |
3,609 |
17
|
86 |
19.8% |
26.2% |
14.6 |
2.6 |
734 |
145 |
| 805 |
Morgan Hill · Public
|
Santa Clara |
276 |
1,101 |
17
|
76 |
22.4% |
29.8% |
11.2 |
4.7 |
210 |
47 |
| 806 |
Madera · Public Strong demand
|
Madera |
511 |
2,017 |
17
|
59 |
28.8% |
18.4% |
11.2 |
2.9 |
302 |
87 |
| 807 |
San Jose · Public Compounding decline
|
Santa Clara |
600 |
2,289 |
17
|
76 |
22.3% |
24.5% |
9.7 |
1.8 |
457 |
102 |
| 808 |
Woodland Hills · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
883 |
3,046 |
17
|
98 |
17.3% |
33.3% |
10.9 |
2.5 |
867 |
150 |
| 809 |
Glendora · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
521 |
2,069 |
17
|
94 |
18.0% |
33.0% |
12.9 |
2.5 |
488 |
88 |
| 810 |
Reedley · Public Best in class
|
Fresno |
393 |
1,804 |
17
|
55 |
30.7% |
15.2% |
13.2 |
2.0 |
215 |
66 |
| 811 |
Fontana · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Bernardino |
462 |
1,660 |
17
|
70 |
23.8% |
15.6% |
13.2 |
2.8 |
324 |
77 |
| 812 |
Sylmar · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
96 |
794 |
17
|
59 |
28.1% |
— |
16.7 |
— |
57 |
16 |
| 813 |
Whittier · Public Weak at the gate
|
Los Angeles |
554 |
2,372 |
17
|
96 |
17.2% |
26.1% |
13.7 |
2.9 |
534 |
92 |
| 814 |
Moreno Valley · Public Both ends slipping
|
Riverside |
495 |
2,251 |
17
|
74 |
22.4% |
12.2% |
14.9 |
2.0 |
366 |
82 |
| 815 |
Tracy · Public Material decline
|
San Joaquin |
537 |
1,920 |
17
|
50 |
32.8% |
29.2% |
11.6 |
1.1 |
271 |
89 |
| 816 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
103 |
392 |
16
|
110 |
15.0% |
17.6% |
13.6 |
2.9 |
113 |
17 |
| 817 |
Sacramento · Public Weak at the gate
|
Sacramento |
85 |
755 |
16
|
73 |
22.6% |
50.0% |
7.1 |
— |
62 |
14 |
| 818 |
Petaluma · Public Strong demand
|
Sonoma |
401 |
1,653 |
16
|
66 |
25.1% |
27.3% |
10.5 |
2.0 |
263 |
66 |
| 819 |
Porterville · Public Demand problem
|
Tulare |
275 |
1,206 |
16
|
51 |
32.1% |
20.0% |
13.4 |
3.6 |
140 |
45 |
| 820 |
Grand Terrace · Public Material decline
|
San Bernardino |
416 |
1,647 |
16
|
51 |
32.2% |
22.1% |
14.2 |
2.6 |
211 |
68 |
| 821 |
Bell Gardens · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
523 |
2,046 |
16
|
54 |
30.1% |
23.5% |
12.8 |
2.3 |
282 |
85 |
| 822 |
Cudahy · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
142 |
1,257 |
16
|
84 |
19.3% |
— |
13.4 |
2.1 |
119 |
23 |
| 823 |
Apple Valley · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
105 |
1,489 |
16
|
61 |
26.6% |
— |
16.2 |
2.9 |
64 |
17 |
| 824 |
Quartz Hill · Public Strong demand
|
Los Angeles |
822 |
3,175 |
16
|
67 |
24.1% |
27.1% |
12.7 |
2.5 |
551 |
133 |
| 825 |
Thermal · Public Sharp downturn
|
Riverside |
557 |
2,300 |
16
|
60 |
26.7% |
34.4% |
13.6 |
2.1 |
337 |
90 |
| 826 |
Norwalk · Public
|
Los Angeles |
198 |
882 |
16
|
64 |
25.4% |
— |
13.1 |
1.5 |
126 |
32 |
| 827 |
Saint Helena · Public Weak at the gate
|
Napa |
99 |
416 |
16
|
93 |
17.4% |
18.8% |
8.1 |
— |
92 |
16 |
| 828 |
Tustin · Public Compounding decline
|
Orange |
458 |
1,627 |
16
|
69 |
23.5% |
28.4% |
13.3 |
1.3 |
315 |
74 |
| 829 |
El Monte · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
273 |
1,123 |
16
|
66 |
24.4% |
11.4% |
12.1 |
1.8 |
180 |
44 |
| 830 |
Los Angeles · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
87 |
296 |
16
|
97 |
16.7% |
— |
12.6 |
6.9 |
84 |
14 |
| 831 |
Cerritos · Private
|
Los Angeles |
137 |
527 |
16
|
88 |
18.2% |
13.6% |
13.9 |
2.9 |
121 |
22 |
| 832 |
Buena Park · Public Both ends slipping
|
Orange |
424 |
1,682 |
16
|
61 |
26.5% |
13.2% |
14.9 |
3.3 |
257 |
68 |
| 833 |
El Monte · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
368 |
1,383 |
16
|
74 |
21.6% |
28.8% |
14.4 |
3.0 |
273 |
59 |
| 834 |
Los Angeles · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
131 |
555 |
16
|
106 |
15.1% |
28.6% |
10.7 |
2.3 |
139 |
21 |
| 835 |
Vista · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
495 |
1,949 |
16
|
65 |
24.4% |
22.8% |
13.3 |
1.4 |
324 |
79 |
| 836 |
Tracy · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Joaquin |
395 |
1,739 |
16
|
52 |
30.4% |
36.5% |
11.4 |
1.5 |
207 |
63 |
| 837 |
Los Angeles · Public Demand hides churn
|
Los Angeles |
138 |
564 |
16
|
88 |
18.0% |
— |
11.6 |
— |
122 |
22 |
| 838 |
Riverside · Public Best in class
|
Riverside |
541 |
2,142 |
16
|
74 |
21.5% |
25.6% |
13.3 |
2.4 |
400 |
86 |
| 839 |
Desert Hot Springs · Public Both ends slipping
|
Riverside |
403 |
1,687 |
16
|
49 |
32.6% |
18.8% |
12.4 |
2.5 |
196 |
64 |
| 840 |
Corcoran · Public Strong demand
|
Kings |
208 |
931 |
16
|
45 |
35.5% |
15.2% |
13.5 |
5.8 |
93 |
33 |
| 841 |
San Bernardino · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Bernardino |
435 |
1,810 |
16
|
83 |
19.1% |
11.6% |
14.0 |
2.5 |
362 |
69 |
| 842 |
Escondido · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
248 |
932 |
16
|
78 |
20.2% |
10.3% |
12.1 |
1.2 |
193 |
39 |
| 843 |
Roseville · Public Compounding decline
|
Placer |
356 |
1,290 |
16
|
59 |
26.5% |
35.7% |
10.1 |
2.8 |
211 |
56 |
| 844 |
Sacramento · Public Demand hides churn
|
Sacramento |
446 |
1,987 |
16
|
44 |
36.1% |
8.6% |
9.9 |
3.6 |
194 |
70 |
| 845 |
San Diego · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Diego |
83 |
349 |
16
|
60 |
26.0% |
30.8% |
12.1 |
— |
50 |
13 |
| 846 |
Lynwood · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
448 |
1,858 |
16
|
70 |
22.3% |
18.6% |
12.9 |
1.3 |
314 |
70 |
| 847 |
Covina · Public Holding share
|
Los Angeles |
314 |
1,247 |
16
|
63 |
24.9% |
12.2% |
12.4 |
2.2 |
197 |
49 |
| 848 |
South Gate · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
405 |
1,681 |
16
|
87 |
17.9% |
19.1% |
13.6 |
4.2 |
351 |
63 |
| 849 |
Turlock · Public Holding share
|
Stanislaus |
476 |
1,986 |
16
|
57 |
27.3% |
31.1% |
10.9 |
2.1 |
271 |
74 |
| 850 |
Napa · Public Material decline
|
Napa |
393 |
1,622 |
16
|
56 |
27.6% |
31.1% |
7.6 |
2.5 |
221 |
61 |
| 851 |
La Puente · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
374 |
1,535 |
16
|
90 |
17.2% |
36.2% |
14.4 |
2.4 |
338 |
58 |
| 852 |
Moreno Valley · Public Tracking
|
Riverside |
646 |
2,699 |
15
|
57 |
26.9% |
22.0% |
13.8 |
1.9 |
371 |
100 |
| 853 |
Loomis · Public Material decline
|
Placer |
390 |
1,634 |
15
|
61 |
25.4% |
16.7% |
11.5 |
3.6 |
236 |
60 |
| 854 |
Etiwanda · Public Weak at the gate
|
San Bernardino |
852 |
3,446 |
15
|
65 |
23.5% |
35.9% |
13.7 |
1.8 |
557 |
131 |
| 855 |
Pittsburg · Public Demand hides churn
|
Contra Costa |
803 |
3,403 |
15
|
57 |
27.0% |
30.9% |
11.0 |
2.5 |
456 |
123 |
| 856 |
Larkspur · Public Demand hides churn
|
Marin |
72 |
124 |
15
|
121 |
12.6% |
— |
9.7 |
— |
87 |
11 |
| 857 |
Saugus · Public Best in class
|
Los Angeles |
537 |
2,317 |
15
|
78 |
19.5% |
30.5% |
12.1 |
2.6 |
420 |
82 |
| 858 |
Covina · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
295 |
1,259 |
15
|
57 |
26.6% |
24.4% |
12.2 |
2.4 |
169 |
45 |
| 859 |
Mission Viejo · Public Material decline
|
Orange |
394 |
1,566 |
15
|
88 |
17.3% |
23.3% |
11.7 |
2.5 |
347 |
60 |
| 860 |
Newman · Public Strong demand
|
Stanislaus |
230 |
925 |
15
|
53 |
28.9% |
34.3% |
9.6 |
— |
121 |
35 |
| 861 |
Visalia · Public Best in class
|
Tulare |
519 |
2,490 |
15
|
60 |
25.2% |
22.8% |
10.6 |
2.7 |
314 |
79 |
| 862 |
Merced · Public Watch — engagement
|
Merced |
434 |
1,917 |
15
|
47 |
32.5% |
16.7% |
9.9 |
2.1 |
203 |
66 |
| 863 |
National City · Public Material decline
|
San Diego |
664 |
2,290 |
15
|
69 |
22.2% |
34.6% |
13.9 |
2.3 |
455 |
101 |
| 864 |
Santa Ana · Public Strong demand
|
Orange |
337 |
1,451 |
15
|
61 |
25.0% |
21.6% |
12.8 |
1.8 |
204 |
51 |
| 865 |
La Puente · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
205 |
813 |
15
|
68 |
22.3% |
22.6% |
11.7 |
1.5 |
139 |
31 |
| 866 |
Palmdale · Public Both ends slipping
|
Los Angeles |
582 |
2,349 |
15
|
61 |
24.7% |
35.2% |
12.0 |
1.7 |
356 |
88 |
| 867 |
Pomona · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
246 |
993 |
15
|
49 |
30.8% |
32.4% |
12.2 |
1.2 |
120 |
37 |
| 868 |
Hawthorne · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
426 |
1,675 |
15
|
75 |
20.0% |
20.3% |
12.4 |
1.4 |
320 |
64 |
| 869 |
Montebello · Public Material decline
|
Los Angeles |
493 |
1,907 |
15
|
55 |
27.5% |
20.3% |
13.0 |
2.6 |
269 |
74 |
| 870 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
793 |
3,143 |
15
|
60 |
25.1% |
28.6% |
10.1 |
1.5 |
474 |
119 |
| 871 |
Santa Maria · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Barbara |
760 |
3,080 |
15
|
53 |
28.1% |
21.1% |
11.1 |
2.2 |
405 |
114 |
| 872 |
Williams · Public Material decline
|
Colusa |
80 |
588 |
15
|
79 |
19.1% |
— |
5.0 |
— |
63 |
12 |
| 873 |
Bellflower · Public Demand problem
|
Los Angeles |
341 |
1,997 |
15
|
67 |
22.3% |
15.7% |
12.0 |
2.4 |
229 |
51 |
| 874 |
Montebello · Private
|
Los Angeles |
87 |
378 |
15
|
106 |
14.1% |
— |
14.9 |
— |
92 |
13 |
| 875 |
Sacramento · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
623 |
2,368 |
15
|
63 |
23.6% |
35.5% |
8.8 |
0.6 |
394 |
93 |
| 876 |
Inglewood · Public Compounding decline
|
Los Angeles |
114 |
407 |
15
|
73 |
20.5% |
— |
11.4 |
2.6 |
83 |
17 |
| 877 |
Sanger · Public Sharp downturn
|
Fresno |
631 |
2,426 |
15
|
35 |
42.1% |
24.5% |
10.9 |
1.7 |
223 |
94 |
| 878 |
Los Angeles · Public
|
Los Angeles |
289 |
1,159 |
15
|
53 |
28.1% |
18.6% |
14.9 |
1.4 |
153 |
43 |
| 879 |
Madera · Public Material decline
|
Madera |
390 |
1,869 |
15
|
46 |
32.0% |
24.1% |
11.3 |
2.6 |
181 |
58 |
| 880 |
Lincoln · Public Best in class
|
Placer |
291 |
1,317 |
15
|
45 |
32.6% |
39.5% |
7.6 |
— |
132 |
43 |
| 881 |
Santa Ana · Public Demand hides churn
|
Orange |
454 |
1,908 |
15
|
53 |
27.9% |
20.9% |
12.8 |
2.0 |
240 |
67 |
| 882 |
Elk Grove · Public Best in class
|
Sacramento |
556 |
2,142 |
15
|
68 |
21.8% |
29.3% |
9.2 |
1.6 |
377 |
82 |
| 883 |
San Jose · Public Watch — engagement
|
Santa Clara |
163 |
520 |
15
|
78 |
18.9% |
— |
8.0 |
1.8 |
127 |
24 |
| 884 |
Santa Fe Springs · Public Sharp downturn
|
Los Angeles |
523 |
1,865 |
15
|
67 |
21.9% |
31.2% |
13.6 |
1.9 |
351 |
77 |
| 885 |
Chino · Public Holding share
|
San Bernardino |
449 |
2,077 |
15
|
55 |
26.5% |
10.6% |
13.6 |
1.8 |
249 |
66 |
| 886 |
Tulare · Public Sharp downturn
|
Tulare |
483 |
1,927 |
15
|
40 |
37.0% |
9.9% |
12.4 |
1.2 |
192 |
71 |
| 887 |
Spring Valley · Public Best in class
|
San Diego |
525 |
2,198 |
15
|
85 |
17.3% |
31.2% |
10.7 |
1.9 |
446 |
77 |
| 888 |
Santee · Public Sharp downturn
|
San Diego |
396 |
1,624 |
15
|
51 |
28.7% |
31.0% |
12.6 |
2.8 |
202 |
58 |
| 889 |
Nevada City · Public Best in class
|
Nevada |
41 |
191 |
15
|
56 |
26.1% |
— |
7.3 |
— |
23 |
6 |
| 890 |
Fresno · Public Holding share
|
Fresno |
514 |
2,184 |
15
|
68 |
21.6% |
20.0% |
12.7 |
2.3 |
348 |
75 |
| 891 |
Corona · Public Material decline
|
Riverside |
576 |
2,307 |
15
|
60 |
24.4% |
25.0% |
13.7 |
1.9 |
344 |
84 |
| 892 |
Weed · Public Watch — engagement
|
Siskiyou |
48 |
187 |
15
|
65 |
22.6% |
— |
6.2 |
6.2 |
31 |
7 |
| 893 |
San Francisco · Public Demand hides churn
|
San Francisco |
110 |
475 |
15
|
54 |
27.1% |
18.8% |
8.2 |
— |
59 |
16 |
| 894 |
Fontana · Public Best in class
|
San Bernardino |
634 |
2,725 |
15
|
52 |
27.7% |
26.1% |
13.4 |
1.6 |
332 |
92 |
| 895 |
Wasco · Public Demand problem
|
Kern |
386 |
1,672 |
15
|
41 |
35.4% |
25.0% |
11.1 |
1.8 |
158 |
56 |
| 896 |
San Jose · Public Strong demand
|
Santa Clara |
69 |
297 |
14
|
177 |
8.2% |
— |
5.8 |
— |
122 |
10 |
| 897 |
Imperial Beach · Public Compounding decline
|
San Diego |
290 |
1,216 |
14
|
66 |
21.9% |
16.7% |
12.1 |
1.0 |
192 |
42 |
| 898 |
Costa Mesa · Public Demand problem
|
Orange |
304 |
1,730 |
14
|
64 |
22.6% |
27.3% |
12.5 |
1.3 |
195 |
44 |
| 899 |
Richmond · Public Strong demand
|
Contra Costa |
76 |
333 |
14
|
76 |
19.0% |
27.3% |
7.9 |
4.0 |
58 |
11 |
| 900 |
South San Francisco · Public Compounding decline
|
San Mateo |
304 |
1,239 |
14
|
66 |
21.8% |
22.7% |
9.9 |
2.0 |
202 |
44 |