Saturation ranking
Where full-service restaurants is most and least saturated in California
Every California market with sourced Restaurants data, ranked on how much provision it already has. Counties are measured per 10,000 residents. Cities are measured as a share of the businesses in the same ZIP codes, because a city’s establishment counts cover its ZIP codes rather than its city limits and cannot be divided by its municipal population. Neither measure says anything about revenue or profitability, and a crowded market is not automatically a bad one: it is also where the most businesses come up for sale.
- Statewide establishments
- 31,333
- 2023 County Business Patterns
- State median density
- 7.7
- Per 10,000 residents, counties
- Counties ranked
- 57
- of 58 with data
- Cities ranked
- 301
- of 419 with data
Most saturated counties for restaurants
57 of 58 counties with sourced data qualify for this ranking. Markets with fewer than 5 establishments are excluded at both levels, because a single opening or closing would move them enough to dominate the list. Counties under 2,000 residents are also excluded, where a per-capita figure is arithmetically true and analytically useless.
| # | County | Establishments | Per 10k | Vs state median | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mono County12,505 residents | 34 | 27.2 | +254% | Densely served |
| 2 | Sierra County3,098 residents | 7 | 22.6 | +194% | Densely served |
| 3 | San Francisco County826,079 residents | 1,693 | 20.5 | +167% | Densely served |
| 4 | Plumas County18,583 residents | 35 | 18.8 | +145% | Densely served |
| 5 | San Luis Obispo County282,367 residents | 351 | 12.4 | +62% | Densely served |
| 6 | Mendocino County88,122 residents | 106 | 12.0 | +57% | Densely served |
| 7 | Tuolumne County53,160 residents | 61 | 11.5 | +49% | Above average |
| 8 | Marin County253,694 residents | 280 | 11.0 | +44% | Above average |
| 9 | Humboldt County131,647 residents | 145 | 11.0 | +43% | Above average |
| 10 | Napa County132,949 residents | 145 | 10.9 | +42% | Above average |
| 11 | San Mateo County743,568 residents | 801 | 10.8 | +40% | Above average |
| 12 | Sonoma County486,444 residents | 511 | 10.5 | +37% | Above average |
| 13 | Inyo County18,158 residents | 19 | 10.5 | +36% | Above average |
| 14 | Amador County41,876 residents | 43 | 10.3 | +34% | Above average |
| 15 | El Dorado County192,323 residents | 191 | 9.9 | +29% | Above average |
State median for this industry: 7.7 establishments per 10,000 residents. A high figure means more provision per resident, not more demand.
Least saturated counties for restaurants
The same 57 counties, read from the bottom of the ordering upward. Thin provision is worth checking against the neighbouring counties before treating it as an opening.
| # | County | Establishments | Per 10k | Vs state median | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kings County154,327 residents | 46 | 3.0 | -61% | Thinly served |
| 2 | Yuba County88,691 residents | 27 | 3.0 | -60% | Thinly served |
| 3 | Madera County167,927 residents | 66 | 3.9 | -49% | Thinly served |
| 4 | Merced County297,260 residents | 117 | 3.9 | -49% | Thinly served |
| 5 | Imperial County181,411 residents | 73 | 4.0 | -48% | Thinly served |
| 6 | Lassen County28,117 residents | 12 | 4.3 | -44% | Thinly served |
| 7 | Tulare County485,146 residents | 223 | 4.6 | -40% | Thinly served |
| 8 | Kern County927,068 residents | 450 | 4.9 | -37% | Below average |
| 9 | San Joaquin County823,815 residents | 403 | 4.9 | -36% | Below average |
| 10 | Fresno County1,035,456 residents | 520 | 5.0 | -35% | Below average |
| 11 | Riverside County2,544,916 residents | 1,338 | 5.3 | -32% | Below average |
| 12 | San Bernardino County2,224,091 residents | 1,245 | 5.6 | -27% | Below average |
| 13 | Stanislaus County557,719 residents | 315 | 5.6 | -26% | Below average |
| 14 | San Benito County70,082 residents | 40 | 5.7 | -26% | Below average |
| 15 | Lake County67,772 residents | 39 | 5.8 | -25% | Below average |
State median for this industry: 7.7 establishments per 10,000 residents. A low figure can mean a genuine gap, or a market served from the next county over.
Most saturated cities for restaurants
301 of 419 cities with sourced data qualify for this ranking. Markets with fewer than 5 establishments are excluded at both levels, because a single opening or closing would move them enough to dominate the list. Cities with fewer than 500 businesses in total are also excluded, because on a base that small the industry’s share moves on rounding.
| # | City | Establishments | Share of local | Vs state share | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ArtesiaLos Angeles, 703 businesses in total | 77 | 10.95% | +263% | Densely served |
| 2 | MillbraeSan Mateo, 539 businesses in total | 56 | 10.39% | +245% | Densely served |
| 3 | AlbanyAlameda, 505 businesses in total | 39 | 7.72% | +156% | Densely served |
| 4 | South Lake TahoeEl Dorado, 1,082 businesses in total | 72 | 6.65% | +121% | Densely served |
| 5 | Half Moon BaySan Mateo, 509 businesses in total | 32 | 6.29% | +109% | Densely served |
| 6 | San GabrielLos Angeles, 2,119 businesses in total | 132 | 6.23% | +107% | Densely served |
| 7 | ArcataHumboldt, 622 businesses in total | 37 | 5.95% | +97% | Densely served |
| 8 | Palm SpringsRiverside, 1,933 businesses in total | 113 | 5.85% | +94% | Densely served |
| 9 | WestminsterOrange, 2,112 businesses in total | 123 | 5.82% | +93% | Densely served |
| 10 | MilpitasSanta Clara, 2,220 businesses in total | 126 | 5.68% | +88% | Densely served |
| 11 | Cathedral CityRiverside, 914 businesses in total | 50 | 5.47% | +81% | Densely served |
| 12 | Garden GroveOrange, 3,714 businesses in total | 202 | 5.44% | +80% | Densely served |
| 13 | NewarkAlameda, 1,224 businesses in total | 65 | 5.31% | +76% | Densely served |
| 14 | San BrunoSan Mateo, 994 businesses in total | 52 | 5.23% | +74% | Densely served |
| 15 | DublinAlameda, 1,615 businesses in total | 84 | 5.20% | +73% | Densely served |
| 16 | CupertinoSanta Clara, 1,627 businesses in total | 84 | 5.16% | +71% | Densely served |
| 17 | San FranciscoSan Francisco, 33,575 businesses in total | 1,700 | 5.06% | +68% | Densely served |
| 18 | Buena ParkOrange, 2,195 businesses in total | 111 | 5.06% | +68% | Densely served |
| 19 | AlamedaAlameda, 1,899 businesses in total | 96 | 5.06% | +68% | Densely served |
| 20 | SausalitoMarin, 718 businesses in total | 36 | 5.01% | +66% | Densely served |
| 21 | CapitolaSanta Cruz, 522 businesses in total | 26 | 4.98% | +65% | Densely served |
| 22 | Monterey ParkLos Angeles, 2,109 businesses in total | 103 | 4.88% | +62% | Densely served |
| 23 | MontereyMonterey, 1,833 businesses in total | 88 | 4.80% | +59% | Densely served |
| 24 | Rancho MirageRiverside, 752 businesses in total | 36 | 4.79% | +59% | Densely served |
| 25 | La QuintaRiverside, 951 businesses in total | 45 | 4.73% | +57% | Densely served |
Statewide, 3.01% of California businesses are in this industry. A higher local share means the industry takes up more of the local business base than it does statewide.
City figures are aggregated over the ZIP codes the Postal Service assigns to each place, which do not follow municipal boundaries. That is why the comparison here is a share of the businesses in those same ZIP codes rather than a figure per resident: both sides then cover the same ground, so a city that loses establishments to a separately named ZIP loses its denominator with them.
Most underserved cities for restaurants
The bottom of the same ordering. These are the California cities carrying the least restaurants provision per resident among those that clear both floors.
| # | City | Establishments | Share of local | Vs state share | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Santa Fe SpringsLos Angeles, 2,171 businesses in total | 15 | 0.69% | -77% | Thinly served |
| 2 | San MarinoLos Angeles, 656 businesses in total | 7 | 1.07% | -65% | Thinly served |
| 3 | ComptonLos Angeles, 1,736 businesses in total | 21 | 1.21% | -60% | Thinly served |
| 4 | CalabasasLos Angeles, 2,108 businesses in total | 29 | 1.38% | -54% | Thinly served |
| 5 | Signal HillLos Angeles, 745 businesses in total | 11 | 1.48% | -51% | Thinly served |
| 6 | Laguna NiguelOrange, 1,969 businesses in total | 31 | 1.57% | -48% | Thinly served |
| 7 | La PuenteLos Angeles, 2,119 businesses in total | 35 | 1.65% | -45% | Thinly served |
| 8 | Aliso ViejoOrange, 1,444 businesses in total | 24 | 1.66% | -45% | Thinly served |
| 9 | Westlake VillageLos Angeles, 1,669 businesses in total | 28 | 1.68% | -44% | Thinly served |
| 10 | Beverly HillsLos Angeles, 6,870 businesses in total | 116 | 1.69% | -44% | Thinly served |
| 11 | Yorba LindaOrange, 1,953 businesses in total | 34 | 1.74% | -42% | Thinly served |
| 12 | ParamountLos Angeles, 1,146 businesses in total | 20 | 1.75% | -42% | Thinly served |
| 13 | IrvineOrange, 14,947 businesses in total | 266 | 1.78% | -41% | Thinly served |
| 14 | GlendaleLos Angeles, 7,130 businesses in total | 127 | 1.78% | -41% | Thinly served |
| 15 | Jurupa Valley1,066 businesses in total | 19 | 1.78% | -41% | Thinly served |
| 16 | OntarioSan Bernardino, 5,487 businesses in total | 98 | 1.79% | -41% | Thinly served |
| 17 | BurbankLos Angeles, 5,899 businesses in total | 106 | 1.80% | -40% | Thinly served |
| 18 | Mission ViejoOrange, 2,993 businesses in total | 54 | 1.80% | -40% | Thinly served |
| 19 | PerrisRiverside, 1,263 businesses in total | 23 | 1.82% | -40% | Below average |
| 20 | South El MonteLos Angeles, 1,852 businesses in total | 34 | 1.84% | -39% | Below average |
| 21 | LynwoodLos Angeles, 762 businesses in total | 14 | 1.84% | -39% | Below average |
| 22 | Laguna HillsOrange, 1,901 businesses in total | 35 | 1.84% | -39% | Below average |
| 23 | Thousand OaksVentura, 3,759 businesses in total | 70 | 1.86% | -38% | Below average |
| 24 | EscondidoSan Diego, 4,331 businesses in total | 81 | 1.87% | -38% | Below average |
| 25 | CalexicoImperial, 641 businesses in total | 12 | 1.87% | -38% | Below average |
Statewide, 3.01% of California businesses are in this industry. A lower local share can mean a genuine gap, or a market served from the next town over.
How to read these rankings
- Both measures are supply measures. They say nothing about how much each business earns, how large it is, or how much demand comes from outside the market.
- The two levels are not directly comparable to each other. A county figure is establishments per resident; a city figure is this industry’s share of the local business base against the statewide share. Compare counties to counties and cities to cities.
- A thinly served market can be a genuine gap or a market already served from a neighbouring town. The individual market pages list the nearest comparable places for exactly this check.
- A densely served market means competition, but it is also where the largest pool of existing businesses sits, and therefore where the most owners reach retirement each year.
- Counties are the more stable measure. City figures rest on ZIP code geography, which the Postal Service redraws as it pleases, so a city can gain or lose a ZIP between years.
Full restaurants data for California/All industry rankings/Methodology
Sources
- U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 County Business Patterns. Establishment counts, employment and annual payroll by NAICS. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
- U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (2026Q1). Quarterly establishment counts and employment for employers covered by unemployment insurance. Retrieved 2026-09-08.
- U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 ZIP Code Business Patterns. Establishment counts by ZIP code and NAICS, aggregated over the ZIP codes assigned to each city, including the all-industry totals used as the local business base. Retrieved 2026-09-10.