70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Santa Rosa, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Santa Rosa, California. Healthcare institutional service demand was a leading positive mechanism.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
17Sources used
12Primary sources
35Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.7 points average among 6 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Santa Rosa, California
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Healthcare institutional service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #1 to #13 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Santa Rosa, California
Healthcare is a large Santa Rosa-area institutional sector supporting commercial and institutional service demand
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022: 2,989,269 thousand usd. [4] [5] [8]
Santa Rosa retail submarket vacancy is 5.7 percent in the July 2026 report
The citywide vacancy rate masks a wide range by retail subtype—0.7 percent for power centers versus 7.6 percent for neighborhood centers—and the cited downtown-association area has fewer than 4 percent of properties listed as vacant retail. Site feasibility and walk-in potential therefore require property-format and micro-market evidence rather than the citywide vacancy average alone. [5]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [4] [5] [8]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Healthcare is a large Santa Rosa-area institutional sector supporting commercial and institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
A median housing-vintage around 1980 and current replacement permits support a midlife system-replacement cycle1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Active US 101 bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing construction creates a corridor-specific routing disruption through late 20271 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.54 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.11 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.58 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.58 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.58 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.58 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.50 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.36 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.36 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.33 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.33 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.31 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.19 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue In 20222,989,269 thousand usd
- Healthcare And Social Assistance Is Identified Among The Region’s Top Employment Sectors And Healthcare/health Services Is A Recommended Santa Rosa Target Industrytop employment sector: yes; recommended target industry: yes categorical
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.5 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #5 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate, 2020 202456.7 percent
- July 2026 Permit Register Includes Recurring Replacement And Modernization Workreroofing, water heater replacement, electrical panel or rewire, hvac or heat pump changeout permit work categories observed
- Median Year Structure Built As Reported From 2024 Acs 5 Year Data1,980 year
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.2 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#5 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#6 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#7 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#8 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #5–#8
#9 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#10 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#11 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#12 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#13 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [8] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [4] [17] [16] [12] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [5] [8] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [5] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [4] [6] [3] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [5] [9] [8] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [4] [8]Referral ecosystem: [8] [4] [5]Territory quality: [5] [12] [13] [14] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [10] [11] [12] [13] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.5 pts | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.1 pts | — |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts | — |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +0.6 pts | — |
| #5 Aire Serv | — | +0.5 pts |
| #6 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.4 pts |
| #7 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.4 pts |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #9 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts |
| #10 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — |
| #11 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.2 pts |
| #12 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, Jan-Pro International, FASTSIGNS; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Santa Rosa, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Santa Rosa, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.3. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.1–70.3
- Category average
- 70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.3
PuroClean70.1
Metric registry
The 35 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 179,437people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [4] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 68,321households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 56.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median gross rent, 2020-2024 | 2,152usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 2,989,269thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 4,160,849thousand usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work, 2020-2024 | 22.9minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic receipts | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [4] |
| Approximate share of Santa Rosa residents reported as working within the city | 35percent | Early 2026 economic conditions and 2025 housing changes | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [6] |
| Santa Rosa retail submarket vacancy rate labeled Q3 2026 | 5.7percent | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa retail submarket within city limits | Supports research conclusion | [5] |
| Retail space listed as available in the Santa Rosa submarket | 710,000square feet approximate | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa retail submarket within city limits | Context only | [5] |
| Retail vacancy varies materially by property subtype | neighborhood center: 7.6; power center: 0.7; strip center: 2.9; mall: 4.7; general retail: 6.1percent by retail subtype | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa retail submarket within city limits | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Downtown retail properties listed for lease represent less than 4 percent of properties within the cited downtown-association boundaries | vacant retail properties for lease: 17; share of properties less than percent: 4mixed count and percent | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Downtown Santa Rosa: Downtown Action Organization and Railroad Square Association boundaries | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Retail market rent in Santa Rosa | 30usd per square foot per year | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa retail submarket | Context only | [5] |
| Santa Rosa industrial submarket vacancy rate labeled Q3 2026 | 7.5percent | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa industrial submarket | Context only | [5] |
| Industrial space listed as available in Santa Rosa | 1,000,000square feet approximate | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa industrial submarket | Context only | [5] |
| Industrial space under construction in Santa Rosa as reported in the July 2026 quarterly report | 0square feet reported under construction | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa industrial submarket | Context only | [5] |
| Industrial and flex market rents in Santa Rosa | industrial overall: 16.6; logistics: 15.8; flex: 18.4; specialized: 17.4usd per square foot per year | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa industrial submarket | Context only | [5] |
| Industrial leases executed April-June 2026 | leases: 20; properties: 16; total sf leased: 146,000; average lease size sf: 7,325; average asking rent per sf: 13.68mixed lease metrics | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa industrial leasing activity | Context only | [5] |
| Sonoma County industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026 | 9.8percent | Q2 2026 | Sonoma County, California | Context only | [9] |
| Available industrial space identified in Santa Rosa by North Bay market research | 789,964square feet | Q2 2026 | Santa Rosa industrial market | Context only | [9] |
| New residential building permits reported in the July 2026 quarterly report | 104permits | July 2026 report; workforce through May-June 2026; leasing April-June 2026; CoStar market indicators labeled Q3 2026 | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [5] |
| July 2026 permit register includes recurring replacement and modernization work | reroofing, water heater replacement, electrical panel or rewire, hvac or heat pump changeoutpermit work categories observed | July 2026 permit activity | Santa Rosa, California | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Median year structure built as reported from 2024 ACS 5-year data | 1,980year | 2024 ACS 5-year estimates as reported by the publisher | Santa Rosa, California | Used in scoring | [17] [1] |
| Renter households reported as spending more than 30 percent of income on rent | 52.8percent of renters | 2024 ACS 5-year estimates as reported by the publisher | Santa Rosa, California | Context only | [17] |
| Mean hourly wage for all occupations in Santa Rosa-Petaluma MSA | 35.4usd per hour | May 2025 | Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA (Sonoma County) | Context only | [7] |
| Mean hourly wages for occupation groups with potential frontline overlap | healthcare support: 21.66; food preparation and serving: 21.7; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 23.41; sales and related: 27.2; office and administrative support: 29.07usd per hour by occupation group | May 2025 | Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA (Sonoma County) | Context only | [7] |
| Mean hourly wages for skilled-trade-adjacent occupation groups | construction and extraction: 39.03; installation maintenance and repair: 35.24; production: 26.73; transportation and material moving: 25.85usd per hour by occupation group | May 2025 | Santa Rosa-Petaluma, CA MSA (Sonoma County) | Context only | [7] |
| Healthcare and social assistance is identified among the region’s top employment sectors and healthcare/health services is a recommended Santa Rosa target industry | top employment sector: yes; recommended target industry: yescategorical | 2025 labor-market and property data compiled for the 2026 recruitment plan | Santa Rosa city and Santa Rosa-Petaluma MSA | Used in scoring | [8] [5] |
| Most signs require a sign permit and standards vary by zoning district; sign programs can apply to multi-tenant developments | yesboolean | Current rules accessed August 2026 | Santa Rosa, California | Conditional relationship | [10] |
| Planning Division sign application fees effective July 1, 2026 | director level: 580.65; standard: 1,740.86; enhanced preservation district: 3,384.59; sign program: 3,384.59; sign variance: 8,994.65usd by application type | Planning Division fee schedule effective July 1, 2026 | Santa Rosa, California | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Current City mapping tool reflects the updated 2026 WUI boundary; new construction within a mapped WUI area must meet California Building Code Chapter 7A | updated map boundary: 2,026; chapter 7a required for new construction in wui: yescategorical | Current page and updated 2026 WUI map boundary | Santa Rosa Wildland-Urban Interface areas | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Santa Rosa Creek Watershed FEMA maps remain preliminary, with final effective maps estimated for Spring 2027 | appeal period end: 2026-04-20; estimated effective period: Spring 2027; new requirements not effective from preliminary map alone: yesstatus and date | Preliminary maps released June 27, 2025; appeal period January-April 2026; final effective maps estimated Spring 2027 | Santa Rosa Creek Watershed; affected properties within Santa Rosa | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Highway 101 Bicycle & Pedestrian Overcrossing construction is active | construction contract usd: 37,600,000; groundbreaking: 2026-04-11; target completion: 2027-11-30; location: US 101 between Edwards Avenue and Elliott Avenueproject status | Construction began April 2026; completion targeted November 2027 | US 101 between Edwards Avenue and Elliott Avenue, near College Avenue and Steele Lane | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Hearn Avenue Overcrossing construction was completed in December 2025 | construction start: 2024-04; construction complete: 2025-12project status | Construction April 2024-December 2025; completion confirmed in 2026 article | Highway 101 Hearn Avenue interchange | Context only | [15] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.54 after target-market demand +1.5 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Multi-city structural operating research docket (I 142)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Median year structure built as reported from 2024 ACS 5-year data
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Interrogation of Municipal GeographiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142(3)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Santa Rosa city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024, and Median gross rent, 2020-2024
- 5Economic Development Quarterly Report — July 2026
Used for: Santa Rosa retail submarket vacancy rate labeled Q3 2026, Retail space listed as available in the Santa Rosa submarket, Retail vacancy varies materially by property subtype, Downtown retail properties listed for lease represent less than 4 percent of properties within the cited downtown-association boundaries, and Retail market rent in Santa Rosa
- 6Checking In on Santa Rosa’s Economy: April 2026 Report
Used for: Approximate share of Santa Rosa residents reported as working within the city
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Santa Rosa-Petaluma — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage for all occupations in Santa Rosa-Petaluma MSA, Mean hourly wages for occupation groups with potential frontline overlap, and Mean hourly wages for skilled-trade-adjacent occupation groups
- 8City of Santa Rosa Business & Target Industry Recruitment Analysis
Used for: Healthcare and social assistance is identified among the region’s top employment sectors and healthcare/health services is a recommended Santa Rosa target industry
- 9MarketBeat North Bay Industrial Q2 2026
Used for: Sonoma County industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026 and Available industrial space identified in Santa Rosa by North Bay market research
- 10Sign Regulations
Used for: Most signs require a sign permit and standards vary by zoning district; sign programs can apply to multi-tenant developments
- 11Planning & Economic Development Department Fee Schedule
Used for: Planning Division sign application fees effective July 1, 2026
- 12Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area
Used for: Current City mapping tool reflects the updated 2026 WUI boundary; new construction within a mapped WUI area must meet California Building Code Chapter 7A
- 13FEMA Flood Risk Mapping Project
Used for: Santa Rosa Creek Watershed FEMA maps remain preliminary, with final effective maps estimated for Spring 2027
- 14Highway 101 Bicycle & Pedestrian Overcrossing
Used for: Highway 101 Bicycle & Pedestrian Overcrossing construction is active
- 15Hearn Avenue Overcrossing Awarded Bridge Project of the Year
Used for: Hearn Avenue Overcrossing construction was completed in December 2025
- 16Building Division Monthly Activity Report — July 2026
Used for: July 2026 permit register includes recurring replacement and modernization work
- 17Santa Rosa, CA Population, Income, Rent & Demographics
Used for: Median year structure built as reported from 2024 ACS 5-year data and Renter households reported as spending more than 30 percent of income on rent
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.