City of Corona - Demographic Report by Husing

DEMOGRAPHIC,ECONOMIC &QUALITY OF LIFE REPORT

Corona, California

OPEN 24/7

Demo cover 2.indd 1 8/12/2008 10:50:55 AM

DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC & QUALITY OF LIFE DATA

Compiled By

John E. Husing, Ph.D.

Economics & Politics, Inc. 961 Creek View Lane Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 307-9444 Phone (909) 748-0620 FAX

[email protected] www.johnhusing.com

August 5, 2008

For More Information Call: The City of Corona Redevelopment and Economic Development 951-736-2260 951-746-2488 Fax Or Visit our Website: TEAMCorona.com

http://www.johnhusing.com/

Index

CORONA DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC,

QUALITY OF LIFE DATA TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table Of Contents

Exhibit List a-d

1. Introduction i-xii

2. Demographics 1-9

3. Residential 10-24

4. Employment 25-37

5. Taxable Retail Trade 38-46

6. Industrial Real Estate 47-55

7. Office Real Estate 56-65

8. Quality of Life 66-78

9. Inland Empire Marketplace 79-89

10. Tourism 90-94

Index City of Corona August 20, 2008

Index of Exhibits

Exhibit List Page a

CORONA Exhibits

No. Description Detail

1. Introduction Pages i-xii

2. Demographics Tables & Summary Comments 1 Population, 1990-2008 Table, Corona, Corona Area & Riverside County 2 Population Forecast Graph, Corona Market Area, 2005-2035 3 15 Fastest Growing Cities Table, Inland Empire, 2000-2008 4 Population , Top 20 Cities, January 2008 Graph, Inland Empire Cities 5 Household Income Distribution, 2006 Table, Corona & Riverside County 6 Income Distribution, 2006 Pie Chart, Corona & Riverside County 7 Total Spendable Income, 2006 Graph, Top 10 of 48 Inland Empire Cities 8 Median Income, 2006 Graph, Top 15 Inland Empire Cities/Top 5 OC Cities 9 Ethnic Distribution, 2000 vs. 2006 Table, Corona & Riverside County

10 Ethnic Distribution, 2006 Pie Chart, Corona & Riverside County 11 Educational Attainment, 2006 Table, Corona & Adjacent Counties, Adults 25 & up 12 College Graduates or High School/Less Graph, Corona & So. California Counties, 2006 13 Age Distribution, 2006 Table, Corona & Adjacent Counties 14 Age Distribution, 2006 Graph, Corona & Southern California

3. Residential Information Tables & Summary Comments 15 Existing Home Sales, 1988-2007e Graph, Corona 16 Existing Home Sales, By Quarter, 1988-2008 Graph, Corona, Seasonally Adjusted 17 Existing Home Sales, 2007 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 18 Existing Home Sales Growth 2006-2007 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 19 New Home Sales, 1988-2007 Graph, Corona 20 New Home Sales, By Quarter, 1988-2008 Graph, Corona, Seasonally Adjusted 21 New Home Sales, 2007e Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 22 New Home Sales Growth 2006-2007 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 23 Existing Home Prices, Quarterly,1988-2008 Graph, Corona, Not Seasonally Adjusted 24 Existing Home Prices, Quarterly, 1988-2008 Table, Corona 25 Existing Home Price Comparison, 1st Quarter 2008 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 26 Existing Home % Price Chg., 1st Quarter 2007-2008 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 27 New Home Prices, Quarterly, 1988-2008 Graph, Corona, Not Seasonally Adjusted 28 New Home Prices, Quarterly, 1988-2008 Table, Corona 29 New Home Price Comparison, 1st Quarter 2008 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 30 New Home Price Changes., 1st Quarter 2007-2008 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 31 Corona Price Advantage, 1st Qtr. 2008 Graph, Median Prices So. Calif. Counties 32 New & Existing Home Median Prices, May 2008 Graph, Corona & Orange County Cities Over 100,000. 33 Apartment Vacancy & Rental Rates, 1st Qtr 2008 Table, Inland Empire 34 Types of Housing, 2000-2008 Graph, Corona 35 Dwelling Units, 2006 & 2008 Table, Major Inland Empire Cities 36 Residential Vacancy Rate, 2008 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 37 Pop. Per Occupied Dwelling Unit Of Any Kind, 2008 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 38 Share of Housing Stock Sold, 2007 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 39 Single Family Residential Building Permits, 1997-2007 Graph, Corona 40 Foreclosure Sales, June 2007-May-2008 Graph, Inland Empire

4. Employment Tables & Summary Comments 41 Employment, 1991-2007 Graph, Corona 42 Employment By Sector, 1991-2007 Table, Corona

Index of Exhibits

Exhibit List Page b

CITY OF CORONA Exhibits

No. Description Detail 43 Employment Gain by Sector, 2000-2007 Graph, Corona 44 Employment Growth Rates, 1992-2007 Graph, Corona & Inland Empire 45 Employment Distribution By Sector, 2007 Pie Chart, Corona 46 Employment Distribution By Sector, 2000 Pie Chart, Corona 47 Payroll, 1991-2007 (millions) Graph, Corona 48 Payroll Growth, Allowing for Inflation, 2000-2007 Graph, Corona 49 Payroll By Sector, 1991-2007 Table, Corona 50 Payroll Gain By Sector, 2000-2007 Graph, Corona 51 Payroll Per Job, 1991-2007 Graph, Corona 52 Growth, Avg. Pay/ Job, After Inflation, 2000-2007 Graph, Corona 53 Average Pay Per Job, By Sector, 1991-2007 Table, Corona 54 Average Pay Per Job, By Sector, 2007 Graph, Corona 55 Number of Firms, 1991-2007 Graph, Corona 56 Number of Firms, By Sector, 1991-2007 Table, Corona 57 Number of Firms, 2000-2007 Graph, Corona 58 Distribution of Firms, By Sector, 2007 Pie Chart, Corona 59 Average Workers Per Firm, 1991-2007 Graph, Corona 60 Average Workers Per Firm, by Sector, 1991-2007 Table, Corona 61 Employment of Residents, By Sector, 2006 Graph, Corona 62 Employment of Residents, By Sector 2006 Graph, Corona & Inland Empire

5. Taxable Retail Trade Tables & Summary Comments 63 Total Taxable Sales, 1986-2007e Graph, Corona 64 Total Taxable Sales Growth, 1990-2007e Graph, Corona & Riverside County 65 Total Taxable Sales, 2007e Graph, Corona & Major or Nearby Retail Centers 66 Taxable Sales Per Capita, 1990-2007e Graph, Corona & Riverside County 67 Taxable Sales Per Capita, 2007e Graph, Corona & Major or Nearby Retail Centers 68 Sales Per Capita, 1990-2007e Table, Inland Empire Cities over 100,000 People 69 Taxable Sales By Retail Sector, 1997-2007 Table, Corona 70 Taxable Sales Growth By Sector, 2000-2007e Graph, Corona 71 Taxable Sales by Sector, 2000 Pie Chart, Corona 72 Taxable Sales by Sector, 2007e Pie Chart, Corona 73 Avg.Taxable Sales Per Outlet, By Sector, 2007e Table, Corona, Riverside & San Bernardino Counties 74 Total Taxable Sales Per Outlet, 2007e Graph, Corona, Riverside & San Bernardino Counties 75 Taxable Sales Per Capita, By Sector, Adj. 2007e Table, Corona, Riverside & San Bernardino Counties 76 Retail Sales Gap Per Capita, By Sector, 2007e Graph, Corona (less) Adjusted Riverside County

6. Industrial Real Estate Tables & Summary Comments 77 Industrial Space Gross Absorption, 1991-2008 Graph, Inland Empire (moving 4-Qtrs Total.) 78 Industrial Space, Existing & Under Construction Graph, Inland Empire, By Market, June 2008 79 Industrial Sites Existing, Under Const, Available Table, Corona, June 2008 80 Available Industrial Space Existing & Under Const Graph, Inland Empire, By Market June 2008 81 Availability Rate Existing or Under Const Graph, Inland Empire, By Market June 2008 82 Vacancy Rate, Completed Facilities, June 2008 Graph, Inland Empire, By Market 83 Industrial Space Availability Rate, 1991-2008 Graph, Inland Empire 84 Location of Changes in Ind Occupancy, June 06-08 Graph, Inland Empire Sub-Markets, Sq. Ft. 85 Industrial Space Costs, March 2008 Graph, So. California Sub-Markets, 400,000 Sq. ft 86 Industrial Space Costs, March 2008 Graph, Inland Empire Sub Markets 87 Industrial Construction, June 2008 Pie Chart, Inland Empire Sub Markets 88 Growth of Exported Containers, 1998-2007 Graph, Ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach 89 Air Cargo Tonnage, 1990-2008e LA-Ontario International Airport 90 Air Cargo Tonnage for SCAG Area Airports Constrained Demand (1,000s tons), 2030

Index of Exhibits

Exhibit List Page c


No. Description Detail

7. Commercial Office Market Tables & Summary Comments 91 Office Space, Existing & Under Construction Graph, So California Markets (sq ft) 2008 92 Office Net Space Absorption, 1991-2008 Graph, Inland Empire (moving 4 Qtrs.) 93 Total Office Space, Existing & Under Construction Graph, Inland Empire Markets, June 2008 94 Total Office Space, Existing & Under Construction Table, Corona, By Size Range, June 208 95 Office Space Availability Rate, 1991-2008 Graph, Inland Empire 96 U.S. Office Market Vacancy Rates ,1st Qtr. 2008 Graph, National Markets 97 Office Space Availability Rate, June 2008 Graph, Inland Empire, Completed & Under Construction 98 Office Space Vacancy Rate June 2008 Graph, Inland Empire, Completed & Vacant Only 99 Asking Office Space Lease Cost, June 2008 Graph, Southern California Markets

100 Asking Office Space Lease Rates, June 2008 Graph, Inland Empire Markets 101 Available Office Square Footage, June 2008 Graph, Inland Empire Markets Existing & Under Construction 102 Share of So California Home Sales, 1994-2008 Graph, Inland Empire 103 Office Space Per Capita & Per Job, 2007 Graph, Southern California Areas 104 Forecasts by Market, 2005-2020 Graph, People, Jobs & Firms 105 BA or Higher Education, 2000-2006 Graph, Inland Empire, Adults 25 & Up 106 Management, Professional & Related Jobs, 2006 Graph, Southern California Areas

8. Quality of Life Tables & Summary Comments 107 Enrollment in 12 Largest Districts, 2007-2008 Graph, Riverside County 108 Percent of Hispanic &White Students 2007-08 Graph, Largest Districts, Riverside County 109 % of Asian & African Am Students, 2007-08 Graph, Largest Districts, Riverside County 110 Academic Performance Index, 1999-2007 Graph, Corona-Norco Unified School District 111 UC & CSU Required Course Completion Graph, Largest Districts, Riverside County, Class of 2007 112 SAT Total Score Graph, Largest Districts, Riverside County, Class of 2007 113 CA Achievement Tests, 3rd Grade, 2007 Table, Riverside County, Share Above Nat’l; 50% Level 114 CA Achievement Tests, 3rd Grade, 2007 Graph, Corona-Norco & California 115 CA Achievement Tests, 7th Grade, 2007 Table, Riverside County, Share Above Nat’l; 50% Level 116 CA Achievement Tests, 7th Grade, 2007 Graph, Corona-Norco & California 117 College & University Enrollment, Campus, 2007 Table, Corona Area 118 College & University Enrollment, 2007 Pie Chart, Corona Area 119 Developed Parks, 2008 Table, Corona 120 Major Crimes Per 1,000 People, 1993-2007 Graph, Corona 121 Crime Rate By Type, 1993-2007 Table, Corona 122 Violent Crime Per 1,000 People, 1993-2007 Graph, Corona 123 Property Crime Per 1,000 People, 1993-2007 Graph, Corona 124 Major Crime Per 1,000 People, 2007 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 125 Major Crime, By Type, 2007 Table, Inland Empire Cities over 100,000 126 Violent Crime Per 1,000 People, 2007 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities 127 Property Crime Per 1,000 People, 2007 Graph, Major Inland Empire Cities

9. Inland Empire Market Tables & Summary Comments 128 Forecasted Population Growth, 2000-2020 Graph, Inland Empire & Top 12 States 129 Forecasted Population Growth, 2005-2020 Graph, Southern California 130 Total Population, July 2007 Graph, Inland Empire As A State 131 Total Personal Income, 2006 Graph, Inland Empire As A State 132 Monthly Wage & Salary Job Levels, 1983-2008 Graph, Inland Empire vs. Rest of Southern California 133 Job Forecast, 2005-2020 Graph, Southern California 134 Southern California Job Gain, 1990-2008 Graph, “Where did 1,287,631 jobs go?” 135 Job Creation, 1984-2008e Graph, Inland Empire, Annual Average 136 Home Price Advtg., Median Priced New/Existing Graph, I.E. & Southern California Markets, 2nd Qtr 2008 137 Industrial/Commercial Space Cost, June 2008 Table, Southern California

Index of Exhibits

Exhibit List Page d


No. Description Detail 138 Labor Cost Savings, Paying Over/Under $60,000 Graph, Inland Empire vs. Coastal Counties, 2006 139 BA or Higher Education, Adults 25/up 2000-2006 Graph, Inland Empire 140 Port Container Traffic 1990-2008 & 2025e Graph, Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach 141 Air Cargo Tonnage For SCAG Area Airports Graph, Constrained Demand, 2030 142 Air Passenger Service, 1990-2008e Graph, LA-Ontario International Airport 143 So. California Air Quality, 1976-2007 Graph, Days Exceeding CA Standard 144 Av High Temperature By Month Graph, IE Urban Valleys, Coachella Valley, High Desert

10. Inland Empire Market Tables & Summary Comments 145 Population, Fender Museum of Music & the Arts Table, Market, 30-45 Minute Commute, 2005-2015 146 Total Population, Fender Museum Market Area Graph, 30-45 Minute Commute From Corona, 2005-2015 147 Population, Fender Museum of Music & the Arts Table, Market, 60-75 Minute Commute, 2005-2015 148 Total Population, Fender Museum Market Area Graph, 60-75 Minute Commute From Corona, 2005-2015 149 Estimated Income Levels, 2008 Table, Fender Museum of Music & the Arts Market 150 Income, Fender Museum of Music & Arts Market Graph, Total & Per Capita, 2008 & Median Income, 2006 151 Southern California Tourist Spending, 2007 Graph, Southern California Counties

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page i

CORONA SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION Corona is the gateway through which economic forces flow from Orange County into the Inland Empire. Over the past two decades, as that county has become increasingly built-out, the inland migration of families and firms has made Corona a prosperous city. Thus, its $72,162 median income now surpasses Orange County ($70,232) and ranks above six of its eight largest cities. While 2007 was a difficult year in Southern California, the payroll released by firms and agen-cies in Corona reached a record $3.22 billion and its pay per job was a record $40,804, far above the Inland Empire’s $33,679 average. While Corona’s retail sales slowed in 2007, they were still $3.54 billion, just below the $3.58 billion record of 2006. The city’s industrial market has shown continued strength with a low 4.8% vacancy rate. Corona’s prosperity is also seen in its elementary, middle and high schools with students above California’s averages on the Academic Performance Index. Also, the city’s crime rate remains one of the state’s lowest.

Southern California’s housing downturn has impacted two aspects of Corona’s economy. Its home prices have dropped back to the 2004 level that preceded their speculative run up. How-ever, with affordability increasing, seasonally adjusted home sales jumped 21.0% from fourth quarter 2007 to first quarter 2008. Meanwhile, Corona’s office market, which had benefited from the inland migration of residential construction, escrow, title and insurance firms, has paral-leled that of Orange County with the vacancy rate jumping as these firms have had to cutback.

Looking ahead, Corona still has the three ingredients that have been its basic strength:

Location because the community is adjacent to Orange County and acting very much like one of its prosperous communities.

Timing because in the next housing cycle, the inland flow of people and office firms will bring economic activity to it, given the city’s lower costs versus Orange County.

Attitude because Corona retains its focus on creating a prosperous community with a livable environment and a solid economic base.

In Sections 2-10 of this report, detailed data are presented showing how the forces impacting Co-rona and the Inland Empire have affected the city’s development and standard of living:

2. Corona’s population, income, age, ethnic, and educational levels

3. Volume, price and other trends in Corona’s residential sectors

4. Trends in employment, payroll and average pay levels for Corona’s firms

5. Corona’s retail performance, by sector, including its strengths and gaps

6. Conditions in Corona’s industrial real estate market and comparisons to the competition

7. Conditions in Corona’s office real estate market and comparisons to the competition

8. Size and performance of Corona’s schools, parks and crime statistics

9. Conditions generally in the Inland Empire

10. Tourism data affecting Corona

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page ii

Section 2. Demographics. From 2000-2008, Corona added 22,462 people to reach a 147,428. The city’s 18.0% growth was well below Riverside County’s 35.1% as it is starting to run out of residential sites. The city’s 2000-2008 absolute growth thus ranked tenth among the Inland Empire’s 48 cities, after being first as recently as 2003. Corona’s 2008 population ranked seventh in the Inland Empire, after nearby Ontario (176,690). If it were in Orange County, the city would have ranked sixth, after Garden Grove (173,067). With Corona running short of de-velopable land, its newest homes have been in executive neighborhoods.

As indicated, Corona has become a prosperous city. In 2006, its median household income reached $72,162, above Orange County ($70,232) and well above Riverside County ($53,508). It ranked 6th highest of the Inland Empire’s 48 cities. Of Orange County’s eight cities of over 100,000 people, only Irvine ($84,270) and Huntington Beach ($75,896) had higher incomes. Its total personal income of $4.0 billion ranked third among inland cities after Riverside ($6.3 bil-lion) and Rancho Cucamonga ($4.5 billion) but ahead Fontana ($3.1 billion). All three had much larger populations. Significantly, 32.7% of Corona’s families earned $100,000 or more, just below the Orange County’s 33.1% and far above Riverside County’s 20.6%.

Corona’s educational levels are benefiting from local educational efforts and the migration of upscale families from Orange County. In 2006, the share of its population aged 25 and over with a Bachelor’s or higher degrees was 23.2%, placing it above Riverside (18.9%) and San Ber-nardino (17.4%) counties and just below Los Angeles County (27.7%). However, it was still well below San Diego (33.3%) and Orange (34.8%) counties. The share of Corona’s adults who stopped their formal educations at high school was 46.0%. That was below Los Angeles (48.0%), Riverside (50.9%) and San Bernardino (52.1%) counties, though above Orange (36.9%) and San Diego (36.3%) counties.

By Southern California’s standards, Corona is a young city. Its 2006 median age was 30.0, be-low all of the surrounding counties which ranged from San Bernardino (30.6) and Riverside (32.5) to Orange (35.3). Just 12.5% of the city’s population was 55 and over, far below Southern California’s counties which ranged from 16.0% to 20.5%. Its largest groups were divided closely between the two groups of parents: 25-34 (16.6%) and 35-44 (16.7%) and the two groups of their children: 0-9 (16.3%) and 10-19 (16.6%). In all four cases, these were greater shares than in Southern California as a whole.

Like most Southern California cities, Corona is an ethnically diverse community. In 2006, those who culturally classify themselves as Hispanic were 42.4% of the city, up from 35.7% in 2000. Next were the 41.9% of city residents who were White, up from 47.0%. Asians/ Pacific Island-ers were 8.1% of the city’s residents, a gain from 7.7% in 2000. That fact again reflected Co-rona’s proximity to Orange County where the share was 16.2%. At 4.8%, the city’s share of the African-Americans was down from 6.2% in 2000. Riverside County’s shares were: Whites (43.0%), Hispanics (42.2%), African American (5.8%), Asians/Pacific Islanders (5.3%).

Section 3. Residential. Corona’s home prices have reflected the forces impacting the Inland Empire’s housing markets for two decades. From the mid-1990s until late 2003, prices rose rapidly as Southern California’s housing demand outstripped supply with few areas other than the Inland Empire offering new tracts. In 2004, speculators jumped into the markets to take advantage of this appreciation and pushed prices to unsustainable levels. Sub-prime financing acted as an enabler. When demand dried up, the speculative bubble broke and prices began fal-ling, returning to their 2004 levels. In the process, many speculators and families who bought from 2004-2006 found they owed more than their homes were worth. Some were unable to sell

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page iii

their properties or refinance due to the difficulties in the secondary mortgage market leading to foreclosures and distressed sales. Prices will continue falling until the market again becomes dependent on willing sellers, then an upward price bump should occur.

Statistically, Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 existing median home price was $387,268, down –29.0% from 1st quarter 2007 and just above the 1st quarter 2004 level of $382,867. Earlier, the price had peaked at $554,414 with the decline from there of –30.1%. In 2008, Corona’s median existing home price ranks second among the Inland Empire’s major markets, below Rancho Cucamonga ($455,437) and above Temecula ($357,782). Among major markets, its 1st quarter 2007-2008 decline of –29.0% was below San Bernardino (-30.4%), Murrieta (–33.1%) and Moreno Valley (-37.4%) but above Rancho Cucamonga (–14.2%) and Temecula (-21.7%).

Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 median new home price of $489,900, was down –27.8% from the $678,927 record in 4th quarter 2005. The city’s 2008 price ranked third among the Inland Em-pire’s major markets after Riverside ($499,832), and Rancho Cucamonga ($493,258). From 1st quarter 2007-2008, Corona’s new home price fell -$148,384, the largest absolute drop among major Inland Empire markets, above those in Fontana (-$145,823) and Temecula (-$90,794). New home prices will continue falling as long as developers have available inventory and face competition from foreclosures and other distressed sales of existing homes.

By coastal county standards, Corona’s housing markets remain a bargain. Compared to coastal counties, its $387,000 existing home median price was $188,000 below Orange ($575,000), $78,000 below San Diego ($465,000) and $45,500 below Los Angeles ($432,500). Its $490,000 new home price was $37,250 below Orange ($527,250) and $30,000 below San Diego ($520,000) counties, but $30,000 above Los Angeles ($460,000).

With prices peaking and mortgage financing hard to obtain, Corona’s seasonally adjusted exist-ing home sales fell from a record 984 units in 4th quarter 2005 to a decade low of 340 units by 2nd quarter 2007. However, at that point, the price declines described above brought buyers back to the market with sales bouncing up to 540 units in 1st quarter 2008. From 4th quarter 2007 to 1st quarter 2008, the seasonally adjusted volume gain was 21.0%. In 2007, Corona had the Inland Empire’s third highest existing home sales behind Riverside (2,652) and San Bernardino (2,043). From 2006-2007, the city’s 957 unit decline in volume was in the middle of the inland area’s major markets. The greatest absolute falls were in Riverside (-2,074; -43.9%) and San Bernardino (-1,975; -49.2%). The smallest was in Temecula (-478; -29.9%).

Corona’s new home sales reached record levels in 2005 (3,065) and 2006 (3,031), but retreated to 2,000 units in 2007 as high prices and mortgage difficulties hit the market. The city’s 2007 volume led the Inland Empire and was nearly double the next highest cities: Riverside (1,056) and Temecula (1,003). Still, Corona was down 1,031 units or –34.0% from 2006, the second largest absolute decline after Murrieta (-1,471; -78.9%). In 2008, the slowdown continued with 1st quarter 2008 seasonally adjusted new home volume at only 293 units. Volume will remain low as long as developers must compete with the distressed sales of existing homes.

Looking at other measures, in 2008, 3.6% of Corona’s dwellings of all kinds were vacant, second lowest of major inland cities to Rancho Cucamonga (3.0%). Corona’s population density is mod-est with its 3.35 people per occupied dwelling in 2008 in the mid-range among the major inland cities, where Fontana led (3.97) and Murrieta was the lowest (3.05). In terms of housing turn-over, 12.1% of Corona’s existing homes were sold in 2007, down from 17.7% in 2006 but still the highest major inland city above Temecula (8.2%). In 2007, developers retained their interest in Corona with 617 single family housing permits issued, 6.3% of those in Riverside County.

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page iv

Section 4. Employment. From 2000-2007, employment within firms and agencies lo-cated in Corona went from 53,938 to 79,030, up 25,092 jobs or 46.5%. The city’s peak was at 80,681 jobs in 2006, with 2007’s small decline brought on by the inland area’s housing difficul-ties. Thus, while Corona’s job growth has historically outpaced the Inland Empire in every year, city’s employment fell -2.0% in 2007 while the inland region was flat (0.0%).

In most communities, retail trade is the largest employer, not in Corona. In 2007, construction (17,194) and manufacturing (15,366) led its job base, with retailing ranked third (13,311). This occurred as residential developers moved their headquarters to the city following earlier migra-tions by manufacturers. From 2000-2007, the city’s fastest job growth was thus construction (7,012) with the growth in retailing next (5,336) due to the opening of The Crossing and Dos Lagos. The continued migration and expansion of blue collar distributors (3,190) and manufac-turers (1,845) caused some job gains in those sectors. The 2000-2007 growth caused some changes in the composition of Corona’s job base with construction (18.9% to 21.8%), retailing (14.8 to 16.8%) and distribution (8.7% to 10.0%) becoming more important. While manufactur-ing added jobs, it became less dominant (25.1% to 19.4%).

Corona’s payroll growth has been more aggressive than its job growth. In 2000, city payrolls totaled $1.66 billion. By 2007, they nearly doubled to a record $3.23 billion, up $1.56 billion or 94.2%. Adjusting for a 26.7% increase in Southern California’s consumer prices, the payroll’s purchasing power still grew $1.12 billion or 67.5%. Construction ($824.8 million) had the city’s largest 2007 payroll followed by manufacturing ($683.0 million), distribution ($429.4 million) and retail trade ($291.3 million). From 2000-2007, Corona’s $491.7 million gain in construction payroll ranked ahead of the $253.5 million growth in manufacturing payroll and the $233.1 in-crease in distribution. Importantly, the city saw a tripling of payroll in the small but high-paying engineering & management sector and a doubling of payroll in its small aerospace sector.

Corona’s jobs have paid unusually well for an inland area with average pay per job going from $30,782 in 2000 to a record $40,804 in 2007, up 32.6%. In 2007, the city’s jobs averaged 21.2% above the Inland Empire’s $33,679, though they were below Orange County’s $49,417. From 2000-2007, Corona’s workers needed $8,217 of their $10,023 gain in pay to offset the 26.7% rise in prices. Still, net purchasing power was up $1,806 or 5.9%. Corona’s highest paying sectors had jobs requiring advanced degrees or specialized training: government ($64,438), finance, in-surance & real estate ($56,172), education ($54,727) and engineering & management ($48,460). Distribution ($54,299) paid well due to its increasingly use of information technology. The city’s largest employer was construction which had a high average pay level due to the growing presence of headquarters in Corona ($47,972). Aerospace workers made good money due to their skill levels ($45,219) as did those in manufacturing ($44,448), the city’s second largest sec-tor. Among Corona’s large employers, only third ranked retailing ($21,883) did not pay well.

The average firm in Corona is relatively large. In 2000, the city had 2,470 companies with an average of 22.2 workers. In 2007, it had 3,692 firms averaging 21.4 employees. By contrast, in 2007, the Inland Empire averaged 12.6 workers per firm; it was 14.5 in Orange County. From 2000-2007, the most firms were added in distribution (209), construction (207) and retailing (176). By 2007, the largest sector was retailing with 583 companies (15.8%). Distribution ac-counted for 558 (13.6%), construction had 515 (13.9%), and manufacturing had 391 (10.6%).

In 2006, the Census Bureau indicated that the top sectors employing Corona’s residents some-what differ from the Inland Empire. Its largest share of workers was in other “consumer” ser-vices at 17.5%, similar though less than the Inland Empire’s 20.0%. A much greater share of

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page v

city residents had jobs in manufacturing (15.5% v.11.8%). The opposite was true of finance, in-surance and real estate (4.8% v. 7.0%). Otherwise, there was a close correlation between the sectors employing workers in city and in the inland area. By occupation, Corona’s residents were more likely than most inland residents to work in either sales and office occupations (29.4% v. 25.2%) or to work as professionals and managers (28.2% v. 24.8%). They were less likely to work in service occupations (13.2% v. 16.0%), production and logistics jobs (12.1% vs. 13.9%) or construction occupations (9.6% v. 12.3%).

Section 5. Taxable Retail Trade. In 2007, Corona’s retail sales were $3.54 billion. This was down slightly from $3.58 billion in 2006, due to the current difficulties in the housing market. Corona’s sales have consistently out-performed Riverside County except during the re-cessions of 1992 and 2002. In 2005, the city’s growth was 15% versus the county’s 12%. It was 7% versus 6% in 2006. In the 2007 downturn, the city’s sales dropped -1.1% to the county’s –1.4%. California was up 0.2%. Corona’s 2007 sales of $3.5 billion ranked third among the 48 Inland Empire cities after Ontario ($5.6 billion) and Riverside ($4.9 billion). Interestingly, its sales ranked below just three of Orange County cities: Anaheim ($5.8 billion), Irvine ($5.0 bil-lion) and Costa Mesa ($4.1 billion).

Given the importance of the retail sales tax to California municipalities, taxable retail sales per capita is a good barometer of a community’s ability to provide services to its population. Co-rona fares very well by this standard. In 2007, its per capita sales reached $24,099 to rank eighth in the Inland Empire. Compared to major inland retail cities, it was below Montclair ($32,885), Ontario ($32,128), Palm Desert ($31,468) and Temecula ($26,114). Of Orange County’s large cities, it exceeded Orange ($22,695) and Anaheim ($16,842) but was below Costa Mesa ($35,804) and just below Irvine ($24,134). From 2000-2007, Corona’s sales per capita rose by $10,499 (77.2%). In this period, Riverside County only grew $3,389 (21.3%). Thus in 2007, the city’s per capita sales were $9,879 higher (69.5%) than the countywide aver-age of $14,220.

Note: the 2000-2007 growth of Corona’s total sales (104.3%) and per capita sales (77.2%) far exceeded the 26.7% gain in prices. This means that the physical volume of underlying goods being traded has risen dramatically as has the purchasing power of retail sales taxes collected.

From 2000-2007, Corona’s retail trade more than doubled, up $1.81 billion (104.3%). By far, the largest gain was from retail sales by non-retail outlets, up $767 million. This includes activ-ity by professional and service firms, contractors, and manufacturers and distributors selling di-rectly to the public. The group accounted for 42.5% of the city’s 2000-2007 sales increase. Other sectors accounting for large shares of the city’s growth were service stations (10.2%), gen-eral merchandise (10.0%) and automotive (8.6%). From 2000-2007, these changes caused Co-rona’s leading non-retail sales group to rise from 36.6% of sales ($634 million) to 39.6% ($1.4 billion) while its second ranked automotive group dropped from 13.5% ($234 million) to 11.0% ($389 million). General merchandise stores ranked third, falling slightly from 10.8% ($187 mil-lion) to 10.4% ($368 million) due to the opening of power centers plus The Crossings and Dos Lagos regional centers. Service stations went from 7.1% ($122 million) to 8.6% ($306 million) passing building materials which fell from a fourth ranked 10.5% ($181 million) to a fifth ranked 8.5% ($301 million) with the housing slump.

Retail outlets in Corona generally outperformed those in the inland area generally. In 2007, the city’s average retail store had sales of $1.11 million. That was $188,314 or 20.4% more than the average for outlets in Riverside County ($921,583) and $226,981 or 25.7% more than the aver-

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page vi

age in San Bernardino County ($882,916). In seven of ten sectors, Corona’s outlets did better than Riverside County’s average. The largest difference was among the city’s service stations which had a $2,223,371 average sales advantage over those in Riverside County. Next were building materials outlets which averaged $947,745 more in sales than for the county as a whole.

An elementary sales gap analysis found that, in 2007, Corona’s $24,099 per capita retail sales were well above the averages for Riverside ($19,178) and San Bernardino Counties ($20,509). This was true even though the county figures were respectively raised 34.9% and 36.3% to make up for the high purchasing power of the city’s residents. By sector, Corona was found to be re-ceiving an influx of money from surrounding communities in several sectors, with the strongest advantages in non-retail outlets due to its many manufacturers and distributors; building materi-als; and the automotive group. The largest disadvantages existed with specialty retailers and food stores. Previous outflows in general merchandise, apparel and restaurant sectors have been either closed or nearly eliminated due to centers like The Crossings and upscale Dos Lagos.

Section 6. Industrial Real Estate. Industrial firms have been coming to Corona for years, in part, due to its location next to Orange County. Also, the city has offered modern fa-cilities at reasonable lease rates and its labor costs are competitive. In addition, firms located in the city have uncongested access to transportation centers including LA-Ontario International Airport (ONT) with its huge UPS hub and direct flights to China. Soon, UPS will also handle DHL’s air cargo. Meanwhile, a new air cargo cross-dock to handle international carriers has now been authorized. In 2008, ONT will handle 530,00 tons of air cargo with volume forecasted at 2.6 million tons by 2030. Corona’s manufacturers are near Yellow Freight Lines cross-docking hubs in Bloomington and San Bernardino plus FedEx Ground’s hub in Rialto where cargo is transloaded from local to interstate trucks. Also, Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) has a huge intermodal rail yard in San Bernardino where over 550,000 interstate con-tainers a year move between trucks and trains. BNSF also has a transloading facility in Fontana to move non-containerized cargo between trucks and trains. Corona’s manufacturers can also access the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor brine line that takes non-toxic wastewater to the ocean.

Along with these location factors, firms considering Corona find a community with policies and procedures designed to increase the efficiency with which businesses interact with the municipal government. Their success is seen by the fact that successful firms, like Fender Guitar and Wat-son Pharmaceautical, have elected to remain in Corona and others like Robertsons Ready Mix have chosen to transfer their headquarters to the city.

From 2004 to 2008, an average of 20 million square feet (sq. ft.) of industrial space has been ab-sorbed in the Inland Empire. This high demand caused vacancies to fall to as low as 3.0% from 2003-2006. By 2nd quarter 2008, however, the rate had moved up to 7.9% as construction has recently outpaced demand. Today, most new space is being built east of the I-15 freeway as the area in and around Corona is running short of industrial sites. Thus in June 2008, just 2.3 mil-lion sq. ft. or 12.6% of the inland area’s 18.4 million sq. ft. of construction was along the western edges of the Inland Empire, including Corona, down from 63.6% as recently as 2001. Similarly, just 26.9% of industrial space absorbed from 2006-2008 was in this market versus 75.0% from 1995-2001.

Corona should gain an advantage from the falling value of the dollar. It has made American ex-ports a worldwide bargain with volume at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach growing by 366,000 20-foot equivalent container units (teus) in 2007, a record. This should help Corona

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page vii

since most of its industrial space is devoted to manufacturers who now have new potential mar-kets. That is in contrast to the typical inland city where space is mostly dedicated to warehouses that are heavily import dependent. From 2007-2008, imports have fallen –7.3% at the ports.

In June 2008, Grubb & Ellis showed Corona with 26.2 million sq. ft. of industrial space, (25.7 million complete; 417,000 under construction) or 6.1% of the 430.2 million sq. ft. in the Inland Empire. The city’s share was just less than San Bernardino (27.3 million sq. ft.) and above Mo-reno Valley/Perris (21.2 million sq. ft.). As stated, Corona’s space is unusual in its orientation to manufacturing, not distribution. That is seen in its composition. When construction is com-pleted, medium sized facilities (25,000-99,999 sq. ft.) used by manufacturers and smaller dis-tributors will be 42.7%. Smaller spaces (5,000-24,999 sq. ft.) often purchased by smaller manu-facturers, entrepreneurs or office operations will be 25.2%. Large buildings (100,000 & up) pri-marily used by national distributors will be only 32.2%.

In June 2008, Corona had 2.4 million square feet of space either vacant, becoming available or under construction but not leased. Only two major inland markets had less available space: Rancho Cucamonga (2.4 million sq. ft.) and Chino (2.1 million sq. ft.). That represented 9.3% of its space, equal to Ontario and well below the inland average of 13.4%. Among major markets, only Rancho Cucamonga (6.6%) and Chino (5.4%) were below it. Looking only at vacant com-pleted space, Corona’s vacancy rate was 4.8%. Among major markets, only Rancho Cucamonga (3.9%) and Chino (2.8%) were tighter.

In March 2008, the asking rate for Corona’s industrial space averaged $0.50 per sq. ft. a month (nnn) or $2,408,000 a year for 400,000 sq. ft.. This equaled Los Angeles County’s cheapest lo-cation around the City of Industry. In Orange County, the cheapest market was $0.63 per sq. ft./month in the western area ($3,024,000). With ONT near Corona, space with access to a major airport varied from $0.75 per sq. ft./month in Orange County ($3,600,000) to $0.68 in Los Ange-les County’s South Bay ($3,264,000). In the Inland Empire, Corona’s asking rate of $0.50 per sq. ft./month ranked third highest. Its lease rate was below SW Riverside County ($0.63 sq. ft./mo.) and Chino ($0.51 sq. ft./mo.) but more expensive than Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga ($0.46 sq. ft./mo.). The least expensive inland space was in Perris/Moreno Valley ($0.40 sq. ft./mo.), Riverside ($0.39 sq. ft./mo.) and San Bernardino ($0.38 sq. ft./mo.).

Section 7. Office Real Estate. Corona has become a major player in the Inland Em-pire’s office market. Prior to 2003, this market was nearly dormant. In fact, its vacancy rate was over 20% as recently as 1999. In 2003, net absorption leaped to nearly 1.2 million sq. ft. as the inland region’s large and growing population and economy began forcing office firms to migrate inland to compete for business. In 2004, absorption slowed a little due to lack of space as the vacancy rate dropped to 7%, third lowest in the U.S. In 2005-2006, the completion of new pro-jects allowed absorption to reach nearly 2 million sq. ft. with vacancies remaining at 7%. That spurt was due, in part, to numerous housing related firms moving to Corona to handle the fact that 54% of Southern California’s new home sales were in the Inland Empire.

In 2007-2008, the inland housing market had a steep decline causing population and economic growth to slow. Office absorption dropped significantly just as still more new space became available. By second quarter 2008, the vacancy rate was thus up back to 17.5%. Looking ahead, there will be a period of difficulty in the Corona’s office market until the next housing cycle. At that point, the lack of residential land in Orange and San Diego counties will again force housing related activity into inland buildings.

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page viii

In June 2008, Grubb & Ellis reported that, when construction projects are completed, the Inland Empire will have 27.2 million sq. ft. of office space, 7.0% of Southern California’s total. Corona ranked fifth of 20 inland city markets with 2.25 million sq. ft., an 8.3% share. It ranked after Riverside (6.05 million sq. ft.; 22.4%), Ontario (4.28 million sq. ft.; 15.8%), San Bernardino (3.74 million sq. ft.; 13.8%) and Rancho Cucamonga (3.57 million sq. ft.; 13.2%). Corona’s space included 994,852 sq. ft. that was either vacant, becoming available or under construction and not pre-leased, a 44.2% share versus 24.8% for the inland region.

Riverside-Corona’s average asking office lease rate for Class A space was $2.42 per square foot a month in June 2008. The least costly Orange County space was $2.65 per sq. ft. in its western area. In the nearby San Gabriel Valley, the rate was $2.74 per sq. ft. Of the Inland Empire’s 20 city markets, Corona’s $2.06 per sq. ft. a month blended asking rate for all office space ranked third, just above Ontario ($2.04 per sq. ft./mo.). Other major markets included Rancho Cuca-monga ($1.79 sq. ft./mo.), Riverside ($1.69 sq. ft./mo.) and San Bernardino ($1.51 sq. ft./mo.).

While the Corona’s office market has recently faced difficulties, the long term forces that re-cently propelled it still exist. The vast bulk of Southern California’s undeveloped land is in the Inland Empire and this is where the most of the region’s housing will be built in the next cycle. Construction related office firms will thus have to locate inland to serve this market. Mean-while, even with recent office growth, the inland area’s large population (4.1 million) and econ-omy (1.85 million jobs) are underserved by local office firms. In 2007, the area had only 6.6 square feet of office space per capita, far below Los Angeles (18.3), San Diego (22.6) and Or-ange (27.6) counties. It had just 21.2 square feet of office space per job versus Los Angeles (45.8), San Diego (53.4) and Orange (56.4) counties. These situations will worsen, given the forecast that the inland area will add more people (1.5 million), jobs (653,388) and companies (42,898) from 2005-2020 than any Southern California market. While office firms today still largely serve the area from coastal locations, this cannot continue with $4.00 gasoline and clogged freeways.

Meanwhile, Corona is benefiting from the fact that the Inland Empire has attracted numerous executives, professionals and technology workers because coastal county prices for upscale home remain beyond the reach of younger well educated families who want a high-end lifestyle. As a result, from 2000-2006, the area added 129,234 residents with Bachelor’s or higher degrees (up 41.4%). By 2006, 30.1% of Corona’s workers were managers or professionals, just under Los Angeles County’s 32.9%. When office firms move inland, they often find many of their own workers already living in the area. They also can often compete for their coastal competi-tor’s best workers since they live inland and want to stop commuting.

Another factor positively impacting Corona’s long term office market is the short distance to LA-Ontario International Airport. That facility ranks second only to LAX in passengers and is a compelling alternative for business travelers wishing to avoid congestion there. Meanwhile, firms located in Corona are within easy reach of the researchers, interns and graduates of 16 four year colleges. This includes major scientific schools like Harvey Mudd College, Cal Poly Pomona, Loma Linda University Medical Center and University of California Riverside.

Section 8. Quality of Life. Corona’s increasing prosperity has given it the wherewithal to devote an increasing amount of community resources to education, parks and law enforce-ment. The results have been significant. The community’s students are performing well, its citi-zens enjoy a substantial number and variety of parks, and the city is a very safe place to live.

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page ix

Corona’s young people attend classes in the Corona-Norco Unified School District the largest in Riverside County with 51,334 pupils in 2008. That was up 1,469 or 2.9% students from the prior year and above enrollment in the Riverside (43,593) and Moreno Valley (37,126) districts.

Looking at performance measures, the Corona-Norco schools have performed well. On the Aca-demic Performance Index used to measure overall school performance, their students have im-proved in nearly every year from 1999-2007. In 2007, they scored above the state’s averages at the elementary (806 vs. 761), middle school (743 vs. 720), and high school (718 vs. 689) levels. On the 2007 California Standardize Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests given to all 3rd and 7th graders, the district’s students were in the upper tier of students in Riverside County’s 21 dis-tricts. For 3rd graders, the percent of students at or above the national 50% threshold ranked 4th in math and spelling, and 5th in reading and language. They outperformed the state averages on all four tests and exceeded the U.S. 50% threshold in language (50%), math (60%) and spelling (60%), but were below the U.S. in reading (40%). The 7th graders tested 4th in language and math and 3rd in reading and spelling. They tested also above California averages on all four tests and were above the U.S. 50% level in math (55%) and spelling (60%), but barely below it in reading (49%) and language (49%). Corona-Norco’s 2007 seniors had some difficulty in com-pleting preparatory classes for the University of California-Cal State University systems. Just a 22.9% did so, below the averages for Riverside County (27.3%) and California (35.0%). They scored an average of 1,429 on the Scholastic Assessment Test, above the 1,418 average for Riv-erside County but below the 1,497 average for California.

Looking at recreation opportunities, Corona has 37 parks covering 346.6 acres or one acre of park land for each 425 residents. That is fewer people per park acre than the Inland Empire’s major cities except Riverside and Temecula. Designated “Tree City USA” by the National Ar-bor Day Foundation, the system includes urban forests, regional and sports facilities, plus neighborhood parks. A family oriented community, Corona provides an extensive youth pro-gram, including seasonal nerf and youth flag football, basketball, indoor soccer, t-ball and junior baseball, and peewee sports. An After School Kids Club Program is available at eight city ele-mentary schools, and a K-6th graders Year Round Kids Camp Program is available at the City Park Community Center. There is an extensive summer aquatics program at three city and school swimming pools. Adults can participate in basketball, volleyball and softball leagues, as well as 75 different recreation classes and 40 annual excursions. The Corona Senior Center provides multiple services and recreation outlets for the community’s older citizens.

Corona is one of the Inland Empire’s safest major cities. From 1993-2007, the U.S. Department of Justice reports that city crime per 1,000 residents fell by 58.2% to just 29.9 incidents. In this period, the number of reported crimes fell 2,110 (–32.5%) even though the city’s population grew by 54,638 people (59.3%). In 2007, the rate was down –0.7% after dropping -9.1% and –1.8% in 2005 and 2006. The city’s 2007 violent crime rate per 1,000 people was at just 2.3 inci-dents per 1,000 people, down 56.0% from 1993. Its property crime rate was off 57.8% from 1993-2007 with the number of incidents down 1,965 or –32.7%. Regionally, Corona’s safety record places it the third lowest among the eight Inland Empire cities with over 100,000 people. Its rate of 30.0 incidents per 1,000 people was only above Rancho Cucamonga (25.0) and Fontana (27.4). Corona’s violent crime rate of just 2.3 incidents per 1000 people was the second lowest among major inland cities just above Rancho Cucamonga (2.2). Its property crime rate of 27.5 incidents per 1,000 people was the fourth lowest above Rialto (27.5), Rancho Cucamonga (22.8) and Fontana (22.5) but well below Ontario (34.1).

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page x

Section 9. Inland Empire. To a large extent, the ebbs and flows of Corona’s economy are impacted by the success of the Inland Empire, one of America’s most competitive and fastest growing places. From 2000-2020, the wider area’s population is expected to go from 3.26 mil-lion to 5.39 million, up 2.12 million or more than will be added by 44 of the 50 states. Interest-ingly, from 2005-2020, the area is expected to add 1.49 million people, above Los Angeles County (1.12 million) or San Diego, Orange, Ventura and Imperial counties combined (1.23 mil-lion). In January 2007, its population of 4.1 million people was above 24 states, starting with Oregon (3.75 million). Its $112 billion total personal income during 2006 was just above Iowa and more than 21 states. Researchers attribute the Inland Empire’s strong performance to the way Southern California’s geography and economic behavior interact. Since World War II, the region has grown outward from central Los Angeles. At various times, this has made places like Orange County its hotspots for growth. Inevitably, once coastal county congestion caused their land, space and housing costs to rise, this activity was forced into the Inland Empire.

This pattern underlies the Inland Empire’s job performance. From 1990-1994 and 2001-2002, recessions caused Southern California’s job base to decline, but the Inland Empire continued growing. Only with 2008’s severe housing downturn has that not been true. Thus, from 1990-2008, the inland area has added 532,689 jobs versus 337,483 in San Diego County and 327,100 in Orange County. From 2005-2020, it is forecasted to add 653,388 jobs or more than Los An-geles County (357,700) or San Diego, Orange, Ventura and Imperial counties combined (617,381). In 2008, housing difficulties have caused the Inland Empire to suffer its first job loss in at least 44 years (–19,100), an issue also affecting Orange (-22,817) and Los Angeles (-12,000) counties.

That said, the long term reasons for the Inland Empire’s economic strength remain intact. It is the last area of Southern California with large tracts of undeveloped land. This available “dirt” creates a location advantage for both high-end and affordable home buyers and indus-trial/commercial developers. Put simply, the Inland Empire’s space will always be more avail-able and less expensive than coastal markets with homes and facilities built on it selling or leas-ing for much less than in neighboring Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties. In the resi-dential market, these facts show up in coastal county median home prices that remained over $150,000 above the Inland Empire’s level ($271,000) in 2nd quarter 2008: San Diego ($426,000), Los Angeles ($435,000), Orange ($540,000). When housing recovers from its current difficul-ties, families wanting to buy homes they can afford will again find they have little choice but to migrate inland.

In a similar fashion, the Inland Empire’s industrial property enjoys a competitive price advan-tage. By June 2008, 400,000 square feet of space leased for $2,060,000 a year. That was a sav-ings of $340,000 versus the lowest coastal county alternative (City of Industry). At a 5% return on sales, a firm would need $6.8 million in extra revenue to make up for this difference. Also, 10,000 square feet of inland office space leases for $262,400 a year, a savings of $11,600 com-pared to Los Angeles County’s cheapest alternative (South Bay near LAX). At a 5% return on sales, a firm would need $232,000 in extra revenue for that difference.

Rapid population growth, clogged freeways and $4 gasoline have created another advantage for firms locating in inland cities like Corona. People will work for less to avoid commuting to coastal counties. This has been particularly true for high-end workers making over $60,000 a year in coastal counties. Firms can hire them for 9.2% less than in Orange County, 7.6% less than L.A. County, and 6.5% less than San Diego County. Importantly, as shown, the availability

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page xi

of inland workers with Bachelors or higher degrees has increased dramatically from 2000-2006, rising from 312,257 to 441,4912, up 129,234 or 41.4%.

Corona also gains favorably from the fact that nearly all cargo that flows into and out of South-ern California passes through the Inland Empire because it contains Cajon Pass (I-15, BNSF rail-road) and San Gorgonio Pass (I-10, UP railroad), the principal trucking and rail routes to the balance of the United States. Even cargo leaving San Diego County must move up the I-15 freeway. This location advantage, combined with available inexpensive land is the reason so many manufacturers have located in the city and distribution activity is steadily increased.

Meanwhile, air quality in the Inland Empire has improved dramatically over the past two dec-ades with ozone levels over the increasingly strict California limit (.09 ppm) dropping from 233 days in 1981 to 96 in 2007. Often, people and firms locate in Southern California for its extraor-dinary climate. The Corona area’s wintertime temperature falls to an average of just 58 degrees. Its summer average high is 98 degrees in July.

Section 10. Tourism. As the Inland Empire has expanded, one of its missing ingredients continues to be marquee destinations capable of regularly drawing tourists. In Corona, the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts, which opened in June 2002, is helping to fill this void. This 33,000 square foot facility is a cooperative project between the city, the redevelopment agency and the Fender Musical Instrument Company. Anyone who has listened to popular mu-sic during the past 40 years has heard music coming from Fender Guitars. Nearly every rock & roll legend from the 1950s to the present has performed on Fender instruments: Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix and countless others. The Fender Museum of Music and the Arts is dedicated to displaying their custom-made instruments and playing their songs.

The museum contains galleries of artist memorabilia and the history of the Fender Musical In-strument Company. It is also a teaching facility where an estimated 1,200 children per week learn how to play a wide variety of musical instruments including guitars, drums, keyboards, strings and horns. Other aspects of music education including voice, drama and dance are being added. The facility has a full digital recording studio and a 300 seat performance amphitheater.

Over time, the project’s tourist potential is being enhanced as stars donate their historic guitars in person, and perform concerts for selected audiences as part of the ceremony. The hope is to ul-timately create traditions such as the Baseball Hall of Fame induction or the dedication of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Southern California visitors are already fascinated by the re-gion’s ties to the entertainment industry. This facility fits that mold.

Corona and the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts are well situated. The city is the site of much of the firm’s current and historic guitar production. It sits on the 91 freeway, adjacent to Orange County and is easily accessible to L.A. County via SR 71 and I-15. Metrolink has opened a super station within easy walking distance of the Museum on North Main Street and Blaine. In 2005, depending on traffic, there were 7.8 million people living within 30-45 minutes of Corona. By 2010 the Southern California Association of Governments expects this to grow to 8.5 million and 9.0 million by 2015. Within one to 1¼ hours, SCAG estimates there were 17.0 million people in 2005. By 2010, this should reach 18.4 million and 19.3 million by 2015.

Leisure time activities are very much within the financial reach of the wider market area’s fami-lies. Their 2008 median income (50% above & below) is a very healthy $55,100. And, their combined personal income was a hefty $696 billion. That is $40,449 for each of over 17 million residents. Tourist spending in Riverside County, where Corona is located, was $6.2 billion in 2007. The estimate was $3.8 billion for neighboring San Bernardino County. In adjacent Or-

Introduction

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page xii

ange County, tourist spending is predicted at $8.9 billion for 2007. The figure was $11.3 billion in San Diego County and $23.9 billion in Los Angeles County. Altogether, there thus was $54.1 billion in tourist spending within one to 1¼ hours of the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts in 2007, up from $38.8 billion as recently as 2004. The uniqueness of the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts, together with Corona’s location, have created the opportunity for Corona to compete for these families and those tourist dollars.

Summary. Corona’s location adjacent to Orange County, on the migration route into the Inland Empire, together with close attention to economic development policies, have recently made it one of Southern California’s newly prosperous communities. As indicated above, its median income now surpasses Orange County and ranks above six of that area’s eight largest cities. The payroll released by firms and agencies in Corona is at a record level as is the city’s average pay per job. Corona’s industrial market has shown continued strength with an unusually low vacancy rate. Its elementary, middle and high school students have consistently been testing above California’s averages on the Academic Performance Index. And, the city’s crime rate re-mains one of the state’s lowest.

True, Corona has experienced the housing difficulties affecting Southern California. That said, its retail sales while down somewhat in 2007 were still at $3.54 billion, just below the $3.58 bil-lion record of 2006. The greatest difficulty has been with home prices, which surged throughout 2004-2006, but have now fallen back to their 2004 level. Fortunately, increased affordability has begun to affect housing sales which began 2008 up over 20%, an important step toward recov-ery. Corona’s office market, which had benefited from the inland migration of residential con-struction, escrow, title and insurance firms, has paralleled that of Orange County with the va-cancy rate jumping as these firms have had to cutback. Its recovery will occur once the region’s housing market begins to heal.

Looking long term, the competitive advantages that have caused Corona to become a prosperous city and made the Inland Empire one of America’s most dynamic economies continue to exist. Southern California continues to add people. This will give the region the need to house them as well as providing it with a labor force to accommodate significant long term job growth. The location of the housing and buildings for this growth will have to be in the inland counties sim-ply because there is no where else to put it.

Demographic Characteristics

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 2 Corona Page 1

CORONA SECTION 2

DEMOGRAPHICS Demographically, Corona has become the equivalent of a large and prosperous Orange County city. This is the case as it is the nearest inland community to that coastal county along the SR-91 freeway. It has thus been increasingly populated by families migrating inland from that prosper-ous but congested and expensive coastal county. One key comparison distinguishing the two places is the fact that Corona’s median age is 30.0 while it is 35.3 in Orange County. Another is that the 2006 (half above & below) median income of Corona was $72,162 compared to Orange County’s $70,232. The implication is that younger well educated technicians, professionals and executives have migrated inland, many to Corona. Orange County’s average income is higher at $94,601 versus $84,641 because 8.0% of that county’s workers earned over $200,000 versus 4.1% in the city. Corona’s incomes are more evenly spread, indicative of a well paid but younger workforce.

Ultimately, the reason for this inland migration has been the difference between median home prices between Corona and Orange County. In first quarter 2008, the city’s prices were $387,000 versus Orange County’s $575,250 (existing) and $490,000 versus $527,250 (new). Families with an ambition for upscale homes can save substantially by migrating inland. This has been a long term trend and has altered the nature of Corona’s population.

Population Growth. From 2000-2008, Corona added 22,462 people to reach a population of 147,428. The city’s 18.0% growth in this period was a much less than that of Riverside County (35.1%) as Corona is beginning to run out of residential sites (Exhibit 1). The result has been seen in developers specializing in executive neighborhoods. The city’s 2000-2008 absolute growth ranked tenth among the Inland Empire’s 48 cities, after being ranked first as recently as 2003 (Exhibit 3). Its 2008 population ranked seventh in the Inland Empire, behind Ontario (176,690) and above Victorville (107,408) (Exhibit 4). The city is in an unique niche. It is alone in being smaller than the inland area’s largest cities, but much larger than the cluster of commu-nities around 100,000. In 2008, Corona’s merchants have access to a market area of 292,601 people that is expected to reach 314,060 by 2010 (up 27,146) and 347,669 by 2020 (up 55,068) (Exhibit 3).

Income. As indicated, Corona is an upper middle class community. In 2006, its median house-hold income of $72,162 was just above Orange County ($70,232) and far above Riverside County ($53,508). It ranked 6th highest of the Inland Empire’s 48 cities (Exhibit 8). Total per-sonal income in 2006 was $4.0 billion (Exhibit 7). That ranked third among inland cities behind Riverside ($6.3 billion) and Rancho Cucamonga ($4.5 billion) but ahead of larger cities: Fontana ($3.1 billion), Moreno Valley ($3.0 billion), and Ontario ($2.9 billion). Significantly, 32.7% of Corona’s families now earn $100,000 or more just below the 33.1% in Orange County and far above the 20.6% in Riverside County. Its next largest groups earned 50,000-$74,999 (16.7%), $75,000-$99,999 (16.4%) and $35,000-$49,999 (15.1%) revealing a relatively even in-come distribution (Exhibits 5-6).

Corona’s success is seen in that its 2006 median income ($72,162) was higher than six of Orange County’s eight cities with over 100,000 people: Orange ($67,915), Fullerton ($62,124), Costa



Mesa ($61,535), Garden Grove ($59,149), Anaheim ($55,720), Santa Ana ($54,050). Only the median incomes in Orange County’s large beach cities exceeded Corona: Huntington Beach ($75,896), Irvine ($84,270).

Ethnicity. Like most Southern California cities, Corona is an ethnically diverse community. In 2006, those who culturally classify themselves as Hispanic were 42.4% of the city in 2006, an increase from 35.7% in 2000 (Exhibits 9-10). Ranked second were the 41.9% of city residents who were White, a decrease from 47.0% in 2000. Asians and Pacific Islanders represented 8.1% of the city’s residents, a gain from 7.7% in 2000. That fact reflected Corona’s proximity to Or-ange County where the share was 16.2%. At 4.8%, the city’s share of the African-Americans was down from 6.2% in 2000. The 2006 county shares were distributed a little differently: Whites (43.0%), Hispanics (42.2%), African American (5.8%), Asians & Pacific Islanders (5.3%).

Education. Corona’s educational levels are benefiting from local educational efforts and the migration of upscale families from Orange County. In 2006, the share of Corona’s population aged 25 and over with a bachelor’s degree or higher was 23.2% placing it above Riverside (18.9%) or San Bernardino (17.4%) counties and just below Los Angeles County (27.7%). However, it was still well below San Diego (33.3%) and Orange (34.8%) counties (Exhibits 12-13). On the other hand, the share of the city’s adults who stopped their formal educations at high school was 46.0%. That was below Los Angeles (48.0%), Riverside (50.9%) and San Bernar-dino (52.1%) counties, though it was above Orange (36.9%) and San Diego (36.3%) counties.

Age. Corona is a young city by Southern California standards. The city’s 2006 median age was 30.0, below all of the surrounding counties: San Bernardino (30.6), Riverside (32.5), Los Ange-les (33.9), San Diego (34.0) and Orange (35.3) (Exhibits 13-14). Just 12.5% of Corona’s popula-tion was 55 and over, far below Southern California’s counties which ranged from 16.0% to 20.5%. Its largest population groups were divided closely between the two groups of parents: 25-34 (16.6%) and 35-44 (16.7%) and the two groups of their children: 0-9 (16.3%) and 10-19 (16.6%). In all four cases, these were greater shares than found in Southern California as a whole.

Summary. To summarize demographically, Corona has become the equivalent of a large, pros-perous Orange County city. With 147,428 people, it would rank ranked sixth in that county ver-sus seventh in the Inland Empire. Its median income ranked above six of the eight Orange County cities with over 100,000 people. The city’s median income also ranked above eight of the ten inland cities in that category. The people earning these incomes are relatively young by Southern California’s standards with its median age of 30.0 and a population balanced almost evenly between children under 19 and adults 25-44. Only 12.5% of the city’s people were 55 or older. All of Southern California’s counties had older median ages, led by Orange County. They also had smaller share in the under 19 years old and 25-44 ranges, and far more people aged 55 and up. Corona’s educational profile is roughly the equivalent of Los Angeles County and shows people 25 and over with better educations than in the inland counties. However, it is less well educated than Orange or San Diego counties. Ethnically, the city is quite diverse and becoming more so, a fact found throughout Southern California.



Exhibit 1.-Population, Corona, Corona Area & Riverside County, 1990-2008 Year Corona Corona Area Riverside County 1990 75,943 168,852 1,170,413

1991 80,900 6.5% 180,223 6.7% 1,228,301 4.9%

1992 86,900 7.4% 189,912 5.4% 1,275,515 3.8%

1993 91,000 4.7% 196,607 3.5% 1,312,315 2.9%

1994 93,300 2.5% 200,467 2.0% 1,340,240 2.1%

1995 96,100 3.0% 204,169 1.8% 1,365,465 1.9%

1996 100,200 4.3% 210,549 3.1% 1,391,775 1.9%

1997 105,800 5.6% 219,450 4.2% 1,420,415 2.1%

1998 112,200 6.0% 230,163 4.9% 1,451,475 2.2%

1999 118,500 5.6% 240,009 4.3% 1,490,445 2.7%

2000 124,966 5.5% 250,603 4.4% 1,545,387 3.7%

2001 129,708 3.8% 258,910 3.3% 1,589,950 2.9%

2002 134,576 3.8% 267,751 3.4% 1,652,537 3.9%

2003 138,478 2.9% 275,012 2.7% 1,723,976 4.3%

2004 143,806 3.8% 284,212 3.3% 1,803,742 4.6%

2005 144,428 0.4% 286,911 0.9% 1,882,812 4.4%

2006 145,235 0.6% 289,187 0.8% 1,962,801 4.2%

2007 146,147 0.6% 290,659 0.5% 2,034,840 3.7%

2008 147,428 0.9% 292,601 0.7% 2,088,322 2.6%

2000-2008 22,462 18.0% 41,998 16.8% 542,935 35.1%

Note: Corona Area =Corona, Norco, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Woodcrest

Source: CA Department of Finance, E-5 Reports, 1990-2008

Population Growth ...

Corona’s rapid population growth stems from the fact that it is the nearest Inland Empire community to Orange County and sits at the Route 91 & I-15 junction. From 2000-2008, its population grew from 124,966 to 147,428, a gain of 22,462people or 18.0%. For that same period, Riverside County expanded by 35.1%, while the western inland area including Corona grew 16.8% (Exhibit 1).

In 2005, the population of the Corona area (including Corona, Norco, Canyon Lake, El Cerrito, Eastvale, Woodcrest,) reached 286,911 (Exhibit 2). Looking forward, the Southern California Association of Govern-ments forecasts that by 2010, merchants located in the city should be marketing to an area with 314,060 people. By 2020, it is expected to rise to 347,669.

286,911314,060

334,138347,669 361,376 373,064 384,112

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Corona Market = Corona, Norco, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Woodcrest & other unincorporated areasSource: Southern California Association of Governments, 2008

Exhibit 2.-Population ForecastCorona Market Area, 2005-2035



Exhibit 3.-20 Fastest Growing Cities Inland Empire, 2000-2008

City 2000 2008 Change % Change 1 Fontana 128,928 188,498 59,570 46.2%

2 Murrieta 44,282 100,173 55,891 126.2%

3 R. Cucamonga 127,743 174,308 46,565 36.5%

4 Victorville 64,029 107,408 43,379 67.7%

5 Temecula 57,716 101,057 43,341 75.1%

6 Riverside 255,166 296,842 41,676 16.3%

7 Moreno Valley 142,379 183,860 41,481 29.1%

8 Indio 49,116 81,512 32,396 66.0%

9 Hesperia 62,590 87,820 25,230 40.3%

10 Corona 124,966 147,428 22,462 18.0%

11 Lake Elsinore 28,930 49,807 20,877 72.2%

12 San Bernardino 185,382 205,493 20,111 10.8%

13 Beaumont 11,384 31,477 20,093 176.5%

14 La Quinta 23,694 42,958 19,264 81.3%

15 Coachella 22,724 40,517 17,793 78.3%

Source: CA Department of Finance, E-5 Reports

Population Growth, 2000-2008 . . .

From 2000-2008, the migration of families from Orange County caused Corona to be the Inland Empire’s tenth fastest growing city. It added 22,462 people to reach a population of 147,428 (Exhibit 3). As recently as 2003, it had ranked first. However, in recent years, it has had less available undeveloped residential land. The fastest growing cities in this period were Fontana (59,570) and Murrieta (55,891), both of which saw numerous tracts of homes built in the last few years. Also, both recently undertook major annexations. Nearby Lake Elsinore was the next slowest adding 20,877.

Corona’s 18.0% population gain during the 2000-2008 period ranked 17th of the 25 Inland Empire cities with over 50,000 people. Murrieta (126.2%) and Temecula (75.1%) led the region as people migrated to them from San Diego County.

In 2008, Corona (147,428) was the seventh largest city of the 48 communities within the Inland Empire (Ex-hibit 4). Its size was unique being much smaller than Ontario (173,690), the next largest city but much larger than Victorville (107,408), the next smallest. The largest population in the area was in Riverside (296,842).

296,842205,493

188,498183,860

174,308173,690

147,428107,408

101,057100,17399,767

87,82082,67081,512

78,95775,13774,185

71,80770,092

53,605

RiversideSan Bdno

FontanaMoreno ValleyR. Cucamonga

OntarioCorona

VictorvilleTemeculaMurrieta

RialtoHesperia

ChinoIndio

Chino HillsUplandHemet

RedlandsApple Valley

PerrisSource: CA Department of Finance, E-5 Reports

Exhibit 4.-Population, Top 20 CitiesInland Empire Cities, January 2008



Exhibit 5.-Household Income Distribution, Corona & Riverside County, 2006 Low High Corona Riverside County Orange County

$0 $9,999 1,515 3.2% 32,775 5.1% 43,940 4.5%

$10,000 $14,999 1,675 3.5% 31,517 4.9% 30,688 3.2%

$15,000 $24,999 3,305 7.0% 71,656 11.1% 76,234 7.8%

$25,000 $34,999 2,540 5.4% 68,197 10.6% 73,653 7.6%

$35,000 $49,999 7,153 15.1% 96,766 15.0% 112,544 11.6%

$50,000 $74,999 7,911 16.7% 128,274 19.9% 177,593 18.3%

$75,000 $99,999 7,752 16.4% 81,316 12.6% 134,816 13.9%

$100,000 $149,999 10,977 23.2% 85,932 13.4% 172,408 17.8%

$150,000 $199,999 2,584 5.5% 26,539 4.1% 71,453 7.4%

$200,000 & Up 1,946 4.1% 20,267 3.2% 77,879 8.0%

Total 47,358 100.0% 643,239 100.0% 971,208 100.0%

Median household income $72,162 $53,508 $70,232

Total Household Income (000) $4,008,443 $44,043,218 $91,877,248

Average Household Income $84,641 $68,471 $94,601

Per Capita Income $25,806 $22,737 $31,869

Source: U.S. Census Bureau , American Community Survey

Income Distribution, 2006 . . .

Corona’s 2006 median income of $72,162 was above Orange County ($70,232) and well above Riverside County ($53,508). Its average household income reached $84,641 in 2006. That was below Orange County, but roughly $16,000 above Riverside County’s average of $68,471 (Exhibit 5).

In 2006, it is estimated that the largest share of Corona’s households, 32.7%, earned $100,000. That was just below the 33.1% in Orange County and well above the 20.6% Riverside County (Exhibit 6).

Corona’s second and third largest groups were the 16.7% from $50,000-$74,999 and the 16.4% of the city’s families earned from $75,000 to $99,999. Similarly, Orange County’s second largest group were the 18.3% earning $50,000-$74,999 followed by the 13.9% making $75,000-$99,999. For Riverside County, the second largest group was the 19.9% earning $50,000-$74,999 but the 15.0% making $35,000-$49,999 ranked third.

$0-$14,9996.7%

$15,000-$24,9997.0%

$25,000-$34,9995.4%

$35,000-$49,99915.1%

$50,000-$74,99916.7%

$75,000-$99,99916.4%

$100,000 & UP32.7%

Corona

$0-$14,99910.0%

$15,000-$24,99911.1%

$25,000-$34,99910.6%

$35,000-$49,99915.0%

$50,000-$74,99919.9%

$75,000-$99,99912.6%

$100,000 & UP20.6%

Riverside County

$0-$14,9997.7%

$15,000-$24,9997.8%

$25,000-$34,9997.6%

$35,000-$49,99911.6%

$50,000-$74,99918.3%

$75,000-$99,99913.9%

$100,000 & UP33.1%

Orange County

Source: 2007 American Community Survey, Census Bureau

Exhibit 6.-Income DistributionCorona & Riverside County, 2006



$6,332

$4,528

$4,008

$3,123

$2,972

$2,929

$2,894

$2,593

$2,543

$2,159

Riverside

R. Cucamonga

Corona

Fontana

Moreno Valley

Ontario

San Bernardino

Chino Hills

Murrieta

Temecula Source: 2007 American Community Survey, Census Bureau

Exhibit 7.-Total Spendable Income (millions)Inland Empire, Top 10 of 48 Cities, 2006

Income, 2006 . . .

Corona’s $4.0 billion in 2006 personal income was the third highest in the Inland Empire (Exhibit 7). Its total income was below those in Riverside ($6.3 billion) and Rancho Cucamonga ($4.5 billion). Given Corona’s population (147,128), the next two largest incomes were in much larger cities: Fontana ($3.1 billion; 188,498 people) and Moreno Valley ($3.0 billion; 183,860 people).

Corona’s 2006 estimated median income of $72,162 ranked sixth among Inland Empire’s 48 cities, behind Ran-cho Cucamonga ($75,429) and Murrieta ($75,102) and above Temecula ($71,754) (Exhibit 8).

Again, Corona’s median income is now higher than that of Orange County ($70,232). Among Orange County cities with over 100,000 people, it was above six Orange ($67,915), Fullerton ($62,124), Costa Mesa ($61,535), Garden Grove ($59,149), Anaheim ($55,720), Santa Ana ($54,050). Only the median incomes in the two large beach cities exceeded Corona: Huntington Beach ($75,896), Irvine ($84,270).

$120,074$100,394

$84,270$78,434

$75,896$75,429$75,102

$72,162$71,754

$71,127$70,994

$70,106$69,806

$67,915$64,894

$63,463$62,652

$61,789$62,124

$61,535

Indian WellsChino Hills

IrvineRancho Mirage

Huntington BeachRancho Cucamonga

MurrietaCorona

TemeculaLaQuinta

ChinoCanyon Lake

Grand TerraceOrangeUpland

RedlandsNorco

Palm DesertFullerton

Costa MesaSource: 2007 American Community Survey

Exhibit 8.-Median Income, Top 15 Inland Cities &Top 5 Orange Co. Cities Over 100,000 People, 2006



Exhibit 9.-Ethnic Distribution, 2000 & 2006 Corona & Riverside County

Ethnicity 2006 Percent 2000 Percent 2000-2006 Riverside Co.

Hispanic 68,627 42.4% 44,569 35.7% 24,058 42.2%

White 67,800 41.9% 58,784 47.0% 9,016 43.0%

Asian & Pacific 13,043 8.1% 9,592 7.7% 3,451 5.3%

African American 7,771 4.8% 7,704 6.2% 67 5.8%

Native American 593 0.4% 490 0.4% 103 0.5%

Other 4,164 2.6% 3,827 3.1% 337 3.2%

Total 161,998 100.0% 124,966 100.0% 37,032 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and American Community Survey, 2006

Ethnicity, 2000 vs. 2006 . . .

In 2006, Corona was one of numerous inland cities without a majority group. The largest share of the popula-tion was the 42.4% (68,627) who culturally identified themselves as Hispanic. The share was 35.7% in 2000. For Riverside County, this group constituted 42.2 % of the population. (Exhibits 9-10). The number of His-panics grew by 24,058 from 2000-2006.

In 2006, Corona’s second largest group were those who were White 41.9% (67,800). This was down from 47.0% in 2000. Whites constituted 43.0% of Riverside County’s population. The number of Whites grew by 9,016 from 2000-2006.

Asians and Pacific Islanders were 8.1% of Corona’s population in 2006 (13,043), up from 7.7% in 2000. This was the highest share in Riverside County and well above the share in the county (5.3%). This was to be ex-pected due to the city’s proximity to Orange County where the share was 16.2% in 2006. The number of Asians grew by 3,451 from 2000-2006.

In 2006, African-Americans represented 4.8% of Corona’s population (7,771). This was down from 6.2% in 2000. It was below the share for Riverside County (5.8%). The number of African-Americans increased by 67 people from 2000-2005.

Hispanic68,62742.4%

White67,80041.9%

Asian & Pacific13,0438.1%

African American7,7714.8%

Other4,1642.6%

Native American593

0.4%

Corona

Hispanic855,40842.2%

White870,61443.0%

Asian & Pacific107,431

5.3%

African American117,202

5.8%

Other65,5083.2%

Native American10,6400.5%

Riverside County


Exhibit 10.-Ethnic DistributionCorona & Riverside County, 2006



Exhibit 11.-Educational Attainment, 2006 Corona & Adjacent Counties, Adults 25 & Up

Highest Education Level Corona San Bdno Co. Riverside Co. L. A. Co. Orange Co. San Diego Co.

Less 9 Years 11.2% 10.7% 10.4% 14.3% 9.5% 7.6%

9 to 12 Years Non-graduate 9.3% 12.7% 11.4% 10.7% 7.8% 7.5%

High School Diploma/GED 25.5% 28.7% 29.1% 23.0% 19.6% 21.2%

Some College 21.9% 22.5% 22.8% 17.6% 20.2% 22.1%

Associated Arts 8.9% 8.1% 7.4% 6.7% 8.1% 8.3%

Bachelor Degree 16.1% 11.7% 12.3% 18.3% 22.8% 20.6%

Graduate Degree 7.1% 5.6% 6.5% 9.4% 12.0% 12.7%

TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006

Educational Levels, 2006 . . .

In 2006, Corona had a relatively well educated population with 54.0% of Corona’s adults 25 and over having at least attended some college (Exhibit 11). This was above San Bernardino (47.9%), Riverside (49.1%) and Los Angeles counties (49.1%), but below Orange (63.1%) and San Diego counties (63.7%).

During this period, 23.2% of Corona’s adults 25 and over had a Bachelor’s Degree or higher (Exhibit 14). This was more than San Bernardino (17.4%) and Riverside (18.9%) counties. It was less than Los Angeles (27.7%), San Diego (33.3%) and Orange (34.8%) counties.

In 2006, 46.0% of Corona’s adults 25 and over had stopped their formal educations with high school (Exhibit 12). The rate was below the 52.1% in San Bernardino County, 50.9% in Riverside County and 48.0% in Los Angeles County. However, it was above the 36.9% in Orange County and the 36.3% in San Diego County.

46.0%

52.1% 50.9%48.0%

36.9% 36.3%

23.2%

17.4% 18.9%

27.7%

34.8% 33.3%

Corona SB County Riv County Los Angeles Co. Orange Co. San Diego Co.

College Graduates High School or Less


Exhibit 12.-College Graduate or High School/LessCorona & Southern California Counties, 2006



Exhibit 13.-Age Distribution, Corona & Adjacent Counties, 2006 Age Group Corona Riverside Co. San Bdno Co. Los Angeles Co. Orange Co. San Diego Co.

0-9 16.3% 15.8% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.2%

10-19 16.6% 17.2% 15.8% 15.4% 14.5% 14.4%

20-24 8.2% 8.1% 7.8% 7.3% 6.8% 8.2%

25-34 16.6% 15.8% 16.7% 14.3% 13.5% 14.7%

35-44 16.7% 14.5% 14.4% 15.6% 15.9% 14.8%

45-54 13.1% 12.8% 12.0% 13.6% 14.1% 13.6%

55-64 7.6% 7.9% 7.6% 9.1% 9.7% 8.9%

65-74 2.4% 4.4% 5.4% 5.3% 5.6% 5.3%

75 & Up 2.5% 3.7% 5.8% 4.9% 5.1% 5.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006

Age Distribution, 2006 . . .

In 2006, the largest share of Corona’s population was the 16.7% in the 35-44 old age group (Exhibit 13). Among adults, this was just larger than the 16.6% aged 25-34. In both cases, these levels were generally larger than those found in Southern California’s counties where 35-44 year olds ranged from 14.4% to 15.9%, and the 25-34 year old group was 13.5% to 16.7%.

Corona’s 10-19 year olds (16.6%) tied as its second largest group. The share was higher in San Bernardino County (17.7%). It was lower in the Southern California’s other counties (15.8% to 17.2%). Ranked next in Corona were young children 0-9 at 16.3%. That was a greater share than any of the counties (14.2% to 15.8%).

In 2006, only 12.5% of Corona’s population was 55 and over. That was well below Southern California’s counties which ranged from 16.0% to 20.5% (Exhibit 14).

Corona emerges as a very young city by Southern California standards. With the two groups of children 0-19 and their parents 25-44 each averaging roughly 16.5% of the population. The city’s median age in 2006 was 30.0, below the surrounding counties: San Bernardino (30.6), Riverside (32.5), Los Angeles (33.9), San Diego (34.0) and Orange (35.3).

14.6%15.3%

7.5%

14.6%15.3%

13.5%

8.9%

5.3% 5.1%

16.3% 16.6%

8.2%

16.6% 16.7%

13.1%

7.6%

2.4% 2.5%

0-9 10-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 & Up

Corona So. California


Exhibit 14.-Age DistributionCorona & Southern California, 2006

Housing Information


CORONA

SECTION 3 RESIDENTIAL

Corona’s housing markets have reflected the essential forces impacting the Inland Empire’s housing markets for the past two decades. From the mid-1990s until late 2003, volume soared and prices rose rapidly as Southern California saw rising demand for homes but few areas other than the Inland Empire could offer an expanding supply. Starting in early 2004, speculators jumped into the markets to take advantage of this appreciation and drove prices to unsustainable levels throughout the Southland. Sub-prime financing helped enable this to occur. When the high prices caused demand to dry up, the speculative bubble broke and prices began falling. Speculators and families who bought from 2004-2006 found they often owed more than their homes were worth. Many found themselves unable to sell their properties, first, because of the falling prices, later, due to the lack of available financing for potential buyers (see: page 14 bul-let 3 on frozen secondary markets). The falling values and lack of financing sources also made it very difficult for them to re-finance when sub-prime mortgages reset to very high rates. The re-sult has been an increase in foreclosures from 3,100 in March to 6,212 in the Inland Empire in May 2008 (Exhibit 40).

In volume terms, demand is picking up as the market shows that at lower prices, the demand for homes still exists. In terms of prices, as long as the housing market is dominated by distressed sales and foreclosure sales, prices will continue to drop. However, once the market reaches a level where voluntary sellers are the dominate source of supply, there will be a price bump.

Home Sales. With the decline in prices and difficulties in finding mortgage financing, Corona’s existing home volume fell to 2,788 units in 2006 and 1,831 in 2007 (Exhibit 15). In seasonally adjusted terms, volume declined from 984 unit record in 4th quarter 2005 to a decade low of 340 units in 2nd quarter 2007 before bouncing back to 540 sales in 1st quarter 2008. That jump oc-curred as the decline in prices from distressed sellers and foreclosures brought buyers back into the market. In 2007, Corona had the Inland Empire’s third highest existing home sales behind the larger markets in Riverside (2,652) and San Bernardino (2,043) (Exhibit 17). The city’s 957 unit decline in volume (Exhibit 18) ranked in the middle of the decreases universally impacting the inland area’s major markets. The greatest absolute falls were in Riverside (2,074; -43.9%) and San Bernardino (1,975; -49.2%). The smallest were in Temecula (-478; -29.9%), Rancho Cucamonga (-532; -32.5%) and Ontario (-567; -43.6%).

After bouncing off record levels in 2005 (3,065) and 2006 (3,031), Corona’s new home sales re-treated to 2,000 units in 2007 as pricing and mortgage difficulties impacted the sales (Exhibit 19). Seasonally adjusted data, show that the market began running short of easily developable land as early as first quarter 2002. Sales thus varied dramatically falling as low as 134 units in 2nd quarter 2004 but reaching 592 in 1st quarter 2006. Since then, volume has fallen steeply as new and existing home prices have plunged and demand and production have declined. 1st quar-ter 2008 sales were only 293 units (Exhibit 20). Among the Inland Empire’s major housing mar-kets, Corona had 2007 new home sales of 2,000 units. That ranked first among the area’s major cities and was nearly double the next highest: Riverside (1,056) and Temecula (1,003) (Exhibit 21). Despite this fact, Corona’s new home market was off 1,031 units or –34.0% from 2006

Housing Information


(Exhibit 22). That was the second largest absolute decline after Murrieta (-1,471; -78.9%). The next steepest decreases were in Riverside (-846; -44.5%) and Fontana (-722; -44.0%). Note that each of the comparable cities had larger percentage decreases.

Home Prices. Corona’s home prices have been a reflection of the forces impacting the Inland Empire’s housing markets for two decades. From the mid-1990s until late 2003, prices rose rap-idly as Southern California’s housing demand outstripped supply with few areas other than the Inland Empire could offering new tracts. In early 2004, speculators jumped into the markets to take advantage of this appreciation and pushed prices to unsustainable levels with sub-prime fi-nancing acting as an enabler. When demand dried up, the speculative bubble broke and prices began falling. Many speculators and families who bought from 2004-2006 found they often owed more than their homes were worth. Many were unable to sell their properties or refinance due to the difficulties in the secondary mortgage market (see: page 14 bullet 3 on frozen secon-dary markets). The decrease accelerated due to the resulting distress sales and foreclosures.

In this environment, Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 existing median home price was $387,268, down –29.0% from 1st quarter 2007 and the lowest level since 1st quarter 2004 ($382,867) (Exhibits 23-24). Earlier, the price had peaked at $554,414 with the decline from there of–30.1%. As in-dicated, prices will continue falling until the market becomes dependent on willing sellers. An upward price bump should occur at that point. Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 price ranked second among the Inland Empire’s major markets, below Rancho Cucamonga ($455,437) and above Temecula ($357,782) and Murrieta ($327,231) (Exhibit 25). From 1st quarter 2007-2008, Co-rona’s decline of –29.0% ranked fourth largest among the Inland Empire’s major markets. The largest were in San Bernardino (-30.4%), Murrieta (–33.1%) and Moreno Valley (-37.4%). The smallest were in Rancho Cucamonga (–14.2%) and Temecula (-21.7%) (Exhibit 26).

With Southern California’s housing markets in a steep recession, Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 me-dian new home price was $489,900, down –27.8% from the $678,927 record in the 4th quarter 2005. Prices will continue falling as long as new home developers have available inventory and foreclosure and other distressed sales provide competition from the existing home market (Ex-hibits 27-28). The city’s first quarter 2008 price was the third highest among the Inland Em-pire’s major markets (Exhibit 29). Among major markets, Riverside ($499,832), and Rancho Cucamonga ($493,258) were more expensive; Fontana was the next highest ($477,030). From 1st quarter 2007-2008, Corona’s median new home price fell $148,384 or -23.2%, the largest ab-solute decrease among the Inland Empire’s major markets. Ranked next were declines in Fontana (-$145,823), Temecula (-$90,794) and Murrieta (-76,436) (Exhibit 30).

By coastal county standards, Corona’s housing markets remain a relative bargain. Its existing home median price of $387,000 (rounded) was $188,000 below Orange County ($575,000), $78,000 below San Diego County ($465,000), and $45,500 under Los Angeles County ($432,500) (Exhibit 31). Its median new home price of $490,000 (rounded) was $37,250 less than Orange County ($527,250) and $30,000 less than San Diego County ($520,000), but $30,000 more than Los Angeles County ($460,000). Interestingly, in May 2008, Corona’s me-dian new and existing home median price of $375,000 was less than seven of the eight Orange County cities with over 100,000 people (Exhibit 32). Santa Ana was the exception ($340,000). The nearest to Corona were Garden Grove and Santa Ana ($400,000). The other major Orange County cities were much more expensive led by Irvine ($610,000), Fullerton ($602,500) and Huntington Beach ($602,000).

Housing Information


Multi-Tenant Market. Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 average monthly apartment rental rate of $1,217 was unchanged from 2007. The city had the Inland Empire’s third highest rate after Chino-Chino Hills ($1,410) and Ontario-Rancho Cucamonga ($1,344) (Exhibit 33). Its 6.3% vacancy rate was up from 4.3% in 1st quarter 2007 but below the Inland Empire’s 7.0% average. Coachella Valley (5.6%) had the lowest rate; San Bernardino-Highland (9.0%) had the highest.

Composition of Housing Stock. In 2008, Corona had 45,485 dwelling units. This was up from 39,258 in 2000, an increase of 6,227 (15.9%). This included 5,641 more single family units (90.6% of change), 227 more attached units and 331 more mobile homes (Exhibit 34). In this period, the population increased by 89.7% indicating that density is also increasing. In 2006, the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey found that Corona’s owner occupied homes rep-resented 63.7% of its housing stock. That ranked sixth of the nine major Inland Empire markets. Another 32.6% of the city’s dwellings were rentals, fourth highest among those nine markets. (Exhibit 35).

Looking at other measures, in 2008, 3.6% of Corona’s dwellings of all kinds were vacant (Ex-hibit 36). This compared to 9.9% in 1990 and was the second lowest share for the Inland Em-pire’s major city above Rancho Cucamonga (3.0%). Corona’s 3.35 people per occupied dwell-ing in 2008 was in the mid-range among the major inland cities. It was up from 3.17 in 1990. Fontana was the highest (3.97); Murrieta was the lowest (3.05) (Exhibit 37). In terms of turn-over, 12.1% of Corona’s existing homes were sold in 2007, down from 17.7% in 2006 but still the highest home turnover rate of the Inland Empire’s major cities. Next were Temecula (8.2%), San Bernardino (6.4%) and Fontana (6.2%) (Exhibit 38). Finally, in 2007, 617 single family housing permits were issued in Corona. That was 6.3% of the permits in Riverside County. The number was up from 554 in 2006 which represented a 2.7% share of the county (Exhibit 39).

Note: Discussion of Exhibit 40 on page 1, first paragraph.

Housing Information


1,2091,533

1,125 1,109 1,1161,269 1,304 1,197

1,577 1,536

2,0502,246 2,228

2,6362,929

3,3633,131

3,542

2,788

1,831

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 15.-Existing Home SalesCorona, 1988 - 2007

Existing Home Sales . . . Corona’s existing home sales volume peaked at 1,533 units in 1989 before declining to the low of 1,109 in

1991. Volume remained static until 1996 when it began to pick up. From 1998-2005, sales soared and reached a record of 3,542 units in 2005. Since that time, volume has plunged as speculators and sub-prime financing drove prices to unsustainable levels. With the decline in prices and the difficulty of finding mortgage financ-ing, volume fell to 2,788 units in 2006 and 1,831 in 2007 (Exhibit 15).

Looking at quarterly existing home sales, adjusted for seasonal variations, Corona’s sales began a sustained increase in mid-1998. After a dip in late 2004, sales soared to an all time high for seasonally adjusted sales of 984 units in 4th quarter 2005 (Exhibit 16). Volume then plunged to a decade low of 340 units in 2nd quarter 2007 before bouncing up to 540 sales in 1st quarter 2008.

In 1st quarter 2008 ($387,268), Corona’s lowest existing home price since 1st quarter 2004 ($382,867) has brought buyers back into the city’s existing home market. The message appears to be that the key problem in the housing sector has been the very high prices brought about by the combination of speculation plus the sub-prime financing that allowed prices to reach such high levels. When prices return to more reasonable levels, the demand for homes re-emerges, provided buyers can obtain financing (see page 14, bullet 3).

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Source: Dataquick, Economics & Politics, Inc. Seasonality

Exhibit 16.-Existing Home SalesCorona, Seasonally Adjusted, By Quarter, 1988-2008

Housing Information


2,652

2,043

1,831 1,548 1,483

1,2031,123 1,123 1,103

Riverside San Bdno Coron Fontana Moreno_V Murrieta Temecula R. Ontario

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 17.-Existing Home SalesMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2007

Existing Home Sales . . .

Corona’s 2007 existing home sales were 1,831 units. That ranked third among the Inland Empire’s major real estate markets behind the two cities with the largest housing stocks: Riverside (2,652) and San Bernardino (2,043). Behind Corona were Fontana (1,548) and Moreno Valley (1,483) (Exhibit 17).

Corona saw its existing home sales fall by 957 units (-34.3%) from 2006 to 2007. That was in the middle range of the absolute declines among the Inland Empire’s major cities. The greatest absolute decreases were in Riv-erside (2,074; -43.9%) and San Bernardino (1,975; -49.2%). The smallest were in Temecula (-478; -29.9%), Rancho Cucamonga (-532; -32.5%) and Ontario (-567; -43.6%) (Exhibit 18).

Each of the Inland Empire’s major home markets saw volume fall as the speculative pricing took values to ex-treme levels. Even with prices falling, demand has had difficulty re-emerging due to the freezing of the secon-dary mortgage market that has made it difficult for buyers to make purchases and homeowners to refinance. Normally, loan originators make home loans and, in turn, sell the mortgages on the secondary market to groups like insurance firms, brokerage firms or Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. This allows them to get their money back so they can make more loans. The originators make their money servicing mortgages (collecting pay-ments, checking insurance), not holding them. However, with so many mortgages in trouble, secondary market lenders are refusing to buy mortgages contributing to the decline in home volume. A further downward pres-sure on price is because many homeowners are losing their houses since they cannot refinance out of over-priced loans.

(478) (532) (567) (567)

(957)

(1,544)

(1,856)(1,975) (2,074)

Temecula R_Cuca Ontario Murrieta Corona Fontana Moreno_V San Bdno Riverside

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 18.-Existing Home Sales GrowthMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2006-2007

Housing Information


876

1,174

786

433 508 461

790 806

1,292

1,7592,008

1,569 1,5321,669

2,1842,351 2,278

3,065 3,031

2,000

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 19.-New Home SalesCorona, 1988 - 2007

New Home Sales . . . In 2005 and 2006, Corona’s new home sales where at all time highs of 3,065 and 3,031 units (Exhibit 19).

This retreated to 2,000 units in 2007 with the price and mortgage difficulties that have emerged in the Southern California’s housing markets.

On a quarterly basis, Corona’s seasonally adjusted new home sales set a record of 664 units during the first quarter of 2002. In a sense, that was the year when large tracts of easily developed land began to disappear in Corona. From that point, new home production and sales declined to just 134 units in 2nd quarter 2004 before bouncing back to as high as 592 units in 1st quarter 2006. Since then, sales have fallen off as new home prices have plunged from $678,927 in 4th quarter 2005 to $489,900 in 1st quarter 2008 and demand and production have fallen steeply. In first quarter 2008, Corona’s quarterly seasonally adjusted new home volume was only 293 units (Exhibit 20).

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

DataA

Source: Dataquick, Economics & Politics, Inc. Seasonality

Exhibit 20.-New Home SalesCorona, Seasonally Adjusted, By Quarter, 1988-2008

Housing Information


2,000

1,056 1,003919

728

479 474394

110

Corona Riverside Temecula Fontana R_Cuca San Bdno Moreno_V Murrieta Ontario

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 21.-New Home SalesMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2007

New Home Sales . . .

In 2007, Corona had new home sales of 2,000 units. That ranked first among the Inland Empire’s major cities and nearly double the sales in the next highest cities: Riverside (1,056), Temecula (1,003), Fontana (919) (Ex-hibit 21).

Despite this strong performance in relationship to other inland cities, Corona’s new home market was down 1,031 units or –34.0% from 2006 (Exhibit 22). That was the second largest absolute decline after Murrieta (-1,471; -78.9%). The next steepest declines were in Riverside (-846; -44.5%) and Fontana (-722; -44.0%). Each of the comparable cities had larger percentage decreases.

(120)(259)

(435) (476)

(705) (722)(846)

(1,031)

(1,471)

R_Cuca Ontario Temecula San Bdno Moreno_V Fontana Riverside Corona Murrieta

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 22.-New Home Sales GrowthMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2006-2007

Housing Information


1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

$500,000

$550,000

$600,000

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 23.-Existing Home Prices, QuarterlyCorona, Not Seasonally Adjusted, By Quarter, 1988-2008

$554,414

$387,268

Existing Home Prices . . . At $387,268, Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 existing median home price was down –29.0% from 1st quarter 2007

and the lowest level since 1st quarter 2004 ($382,867) (Exhibits 23-24). Earlier, Corona’s median existing home prices had peaked at $554,414 in 3rd quarter 2006 before falling –30.1% to the 1st quarter 2008 level. Prices will continue to decline as long as foreclosure and other distressed sales dominate the market. There will then be a bounce back in price when the market must depend on willing sellers.

Corona’s existing home prices have been a reflection of the essential forces impacting the Inland Empire’s housing markets. From the mid-1990s until late 2003, prices rose rapidly as Southern California saw rising demand for homes but few areas other than the Inland Empire could offer an expanding supply. Starting in early 2004, speculators jumped into the markets to take advantage of this appreciation and drove prices to un-sustainable levels. Sub-prime financing helped enable this to occur. When demand dried up, the speculative bubble broke and prices began falling. Speculators and families who bought from 2004-2006 found they often owed more than their homes were worth. Many found themselves unable to sell their properties or refinance them due to the difficulties in the secondary mortgage market (see: page 14 bullet 3 on frozen secondary mar-kets).

Exhibit 24.-Existing Home Prices, Corona, Quarterly, 1988-2008 Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg. Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg. Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg. Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg.

1st-88 $115,211 1st-93 $153,219 -5.1% 1st-98 $143,595 7.6% 1st-03 $287,484 23.4%

2nd-88 $124,796 2nd-93 $155,465 0.7% 2nd-98 $151,681 10.8% 2nd_03 $313,687 23.6%

3rd-88 $127,772 3rd-93 $153,014 -0.5% 3rd-98 $154,811 9.5% 3rd_03 $338,296 25.0%

4th-88 $135,910 4th-93 $141,748 -9.8% 4th-98 $158,397 11.9% 4th_03 $346,348 25.6%

1st-89 $145,044 25.9% 1st-94 $145,277 -5.2% 1st-99 $164,293 14.4% 1st-04 $382,867 33.2%

2nd-89 $151,041 21.0% 2nd-94 $144,022 -7.4% 2nd-99 $170,038 12.1% 2nd-04 $424,471 35.3%

3rd-89 $156,289 22.3% 3rd-94 $142,265 -7.0% 3rd-99 $174,577 12.8% 3rd-04 $441,328 30.5%

4th-89 $150,841 11.0% 4th-94 $142,986 0.9% 4th-99 $174,840 10.4% 4th-04 $447,514 29.2%

1st-90 $162,320 11.9% 1st-95 $135,802 -6.5% 1st -00 $182,547 11.1% 1st-05 $455,938 19.1%

2nd-90 $159,197 5.4% 2nd-95 $137,556 -4.5% 2nd-00 $192,848 13.4% 2nd-05 $485,138 14.3%

3rd-90 $158,225 1.2% 3rd-95 $133,437 -6.2% 3rd-00 $197,505 13.1% 3rd-05 $509,748 15.5%

4th-90 $157,088 4.1% 4th-95 $132,011 -7.7% 4th-00 $200,060 14.4% 4th-05 $544,633 21.7%

1st-91 $159,497 -1.7% 1st-96 $132,721 -2.3% 1st -01 $206,085 12.9% 1st-06 $547,146 20.0%

2nd-91 $165,032 3.7% 2nd-96 $136,385 -0.9% 2nd-01 $215,034 11.5% 2nd-06 $540,357 11.4%

3rd-91 $165,508 4.6% 3rd-96 $133,608 0.1% 3rd-01 $229,289 16.1% 3rd-06 $554,414 8.8%

4th-91 $160,189 2.0% 4th-96 $141,612 7.3% 4th-01 $226,933 13.4% 4th-06 $548,531 0.7%

1st-92 $161,495 1.3% 1st-97 $133,486 0.6% 1st -02 $232,969 13.0% 1st-07 $545,120 -0.4%

2nd-92 $154,327 -6.5% 2nd-97 $136,888 0.4% 2nd-02 $253,891 18.1% 2nd-07 $523,060 -3.2%

3rd-92 $153,832 -7.1% 3rd-97 $141,336 5.8% 3rd-02 $270,636 18.0% 3rd-07 $508,010 -8.4%

4th-92 $157,127 -1.9% 4th-97 $141,568 -0.0% 4th-02 $275,769 21.5% 4th-07 $416,766 -24.0%

Housing Information


Source: Dataquick 1st-08 $387,268 -29.0%

Exhibit 25.-Existing Home Price ComparisonMajor Inland Empire Cities, 1st Qtr. 2008

$455,437

$387,268

$357,782

$327,231

$321,265

$309,270

$306,202

$240,464

$229,683

R_Cuca

Corona

Temecula

Murrieta

Fontana

Riverside

Ontario

Moreno_V

San Bdno Source: Dataquick

Existing Home Prices . . .

In 1st quarter 2008, Corona’s median existing home price of $387,268 ranked second among the Inland Em-pire’s major markets (Exhibit 25). This price was less than Rancho Cucamonga ($455,437) and above Temec-ula ($357,782) and Murrieta ($327,231).

From 1st quarter 2007-2008, Corona’s median existing home price was down –29.0% (Exhibit 26). That was the fourth largest decrease among the Inland Empire’s major markets. The largest declines were in San Bernar-dino (-30.4%), Murrieta (–33.1%) and Moreno Valley (-37.4%).

The smallest declines were in Rancho Cucamonga (–14.2%) and Temecula (-21.7%).

The steep declines in all of the Inland Empire’s major markets show that the difficulties facing Corona are im-pacting the entire area.

-14.2%

-21.7%-25.2% -25.7%

-28.8% -29.0% -30.4%-33.1%

-37.4%

R_Cuca Temecula Fontana Riverside Ontario Corona San Bdno Murrieta Moreno_V

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 26.-Existing Home Percent Price ChangesMajor Inland Empire Cities, 1st Qtr. 2007-2008

Housing Information


1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

$60,000$100,000$140,000$180,000$220,000$260,000$300,000$340,000$380,000$420,000$460,000$500,000$540,000$580,000$620,000$660,000$700,000

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 27.-New Home Prices, QuarterlyCorona, Not Seasonally Adjusted, By Quarter, 1988-2008

$678,927

$489,900

New Home Prices . . . With Southern California’s housing markets experiencing a serious recession, Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 median

new home price was $489,900. That was down –27.8% from the record of $678,927 in the 4th quarter 2005. Again, prices will continue declining as long as new home developers have available inventory and foreclosure and other distressed sales provide competition from the existing home market (Exhibits 27-28).

Earlier, Corona’s median new home price reached $234,431 in 1989 before falling to a low of $153,484 in early 1995 at the end of the Post-Cold War recession. The city’s new home prices then soared, rising in almost every quarter to reach the record of $678,927 in 4th quarter 2005. Since that time, prices have fallen steeply as people who used sub-prime financing to buy homes at prices driven up by speculation have found it difficult to maintain their mortgage payments. It will take sometime for the market to work its way through this issue.

Exhibit 28.-New Home Prices, Corona, Quarterly, 1988-2008 Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg. Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg. Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg. Quarter Sales 1-Yr Chg.

1st-88 $144,414 1st-93 $186,458 1.2% 1st-98 $164,036 -0.8% 1st-03 $339,273 9.7%2nd-88 $153,604 2nd-93 $181,486 0.9% 2nd-98 $182,653 13.4% 2nd-03 $357,052 14.5%3rd-88 $157,306 3rd-93 $172,148 -5.8% 3rd-98 $171,425 6.6% 3rd-03 $370,061 17.5%4th-88 $165,372 4th-93 $183,978 9.1% 4th-98 $186,839 15.3% 4th-03 $427,114 31.4%1st-89 $166,514 15.3% 1st-94 $181,786 -2.5% 1st-99 $195,490 19.2% 1st-04 $469,544 38.4%2nd-89 $179,709 17.0% 2nd-94 $184,547 1.7% 2nd-99 $207,283 13.5% 2nd-04 $462,928 29.7%3rd-89 $209,649 33.3% 3rd-94 $166,349 -3.4% 3rd-99 $210,279 22.7% 3rd-04 $499,472 35.0%

4th-89 $234,431 41.8% 4th-94 $157,565 -14.4% 4th-99 $225,010 20.4% 4th-04 $501,355 17.4%

1st-90 $213,590 28.3% 1st-95 $153,484 -15.6% 1st-00 $253,020 29.4% 1st-05 $560,997 19.5%

2nd-90 $204,000 13.5% 2nd-95 $158,141 -14.3% 2nd-00 $269,961 30.2% 2nd-05 $551,957 19.2%

3rd-90 $208,420 -0.6% 3rd-95 $154,046 -7.4% 3rd-00 $259,520 23.4% 3rd-05 $630,152 26.2%

4th-90 $214,292 -8.6% 4th-95 $156,280 -0.8% 4th-00 $261,089 16.0% 4th-05 $678,927 35.4%

1st-91 $201,500 -5.7% 1st-96 $161,473 5.2% 1st-01 $273,944 8.3% 1st06 $607,732 8.3%

2nd-91 $219,367 7.5% 2nd-96 $161,167 1.9% 2nd-01 $273,132 1.2% 2nd-06 $650,346 17.8%

3rd-91 $214,167 2.8% 3rd-96 $163,458 6.1% 3rd-01 $276,844 6.7% 3rd-06 $650,842 3.3%

4th-91 $183,865 -14.2% 4th-96 $162,509 4.0% 4th-01 $282,797 8.3% 4th-06 $616,030 -9.3%

1st-92 $184,167 -8.6% 1st-97 $165,415 2.4% 1st-02 $309,191 12.9% 1st-07 $638,284 5.0%

2nd-92 $179,880 -18.0% 2nd-97 $161,050 -0.1% 2nd-02 $311,925 14.2% 2nd 07 $596,207 -8.3%

3rd-92 $182,820 -14.6% 3rd-97 $160,876 -1.6% 3rd-02 $314,823 13.7% 3rd-07 $558,555 -14.2%

4th-92 $168,589 -8.3% 4th-97 $162,032 -0.3% 4th-02 $324,980 14.9% 4th-07 $518,058 -15.9%

Source: Dataquick 1st-08 $489,900 -23.2%

Housing Information


$499,832

$493,258

$489,900

$477,030

$431,067

$423,365

$393,509

$369,074

$341,307

Riverside

R_Cuca

Corona

Fontana

Murrieta

Temecula

San Bdno

Ontario

Moreno_V Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 29.-New Home Price ComparisonMajor Inland Empire Cities, 1st Qtr. 2008

New Home Prices . . .

Corona’s $489,900 median new home price in first quarter 2008 was the third highest among the Inland Em-pire’s major markets (Exhibit 29). It was the highest in 2007. Among the large markets, Riverside ($499,832), and Rancho Cucamonga ($493,258) were more expensive. Fontana was the next highest ($477,030).

From 1st quarter 2007-2008, Corona’s median new home price was down $148,384 or -23.2%. This absolute decrease was the largest among the Inland Empire’s major markets,. The next greatest declines were also along the I-15 freeway: Fontana (-$145,823), Temecula (-$90,794) and Murrieta (-76,436) (Exhibit 30). The increase in Ontario was due to the fact the city has been built-out with only infill homes being built. However in 1st quarter 2008, this changed as tract development in its former dairy preserve began.

$71,944

($31,188)

($41,505)

($63,000)

($68,085)

($76,439)

($90,794)

($145,823)

($148,384)

Ontario

Moreno_V

Riverside

R_Cuca

San Bdno

Murrieta

Temecula

Fontana

Corona

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 30.-New Home Price ChangeMajor Inland Empire Cities, 1st Qtr. 2007-2008

Housing Information


(30,000)

30,000 37,250 45,50078,000

188,000

$490,000$460,000

$520,000 $527,250

$387,000$432,500

$465,000

$575,000

Corona Los Angeles San Diego Orange Corona San Diego Los Angeles Orange

Home Price Difference

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 31.-Corona Price AdvantageMedian Prices So. California Counties, 1st Quarter 2008

Existing HomesNew Homes

Southern California Home Price Comparisons. . .

In the new home market, Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 median price of $490,000 (rounded) was $37,250 less than Orange County ($527,250) and $30,000 less than San Diego County ($520,000), but $30,000 more than Los Angeles County ($460,000).

Corona’s existing home median price of $387,000 was $188,000 below Orange County ($575,000), $78,000 below San Diego County ($465,000), and $45,500 under Los Angeles County ($432,500) (Exhibit 31).

In May 2008, the median price of new and existing homes sold in Corona was $375,000. That was less than seven of the eight Orange County cities with 100,000 or more people. Santa Ana ($340,000) was less expen-sive. Garden Grove and Santa Ana ($400,000) were just above Corona. The other major Orange County cities were much more expensive led by Irvine ($610,000), Fullerton ($602,500) and Huntington Beach ($602,000). Price differentials like these are the reason that families have migrated to Corona in the past and will in the fu-ture (Exhibit 32).

$610,000

$602,500

$602,000

$525,000

$480,500

$400,000

$400,000

$375,000

$340,000

Irvine

Fullerton

Huntington Beach

Costa Mesa

Orange

Anaheim

Garden Grove

Corona

Santa Ana Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 32.-New & Existing Home Median PricesCorona & Orange County Cities Over 100,000 People, May 2008

Housing Information


Exhibit 33.-Apartment Vacancy & Rental Rates, Inland Empire, 1st Qtr 2008 Market Vacancy Rates Average Rent: 50 Plus Units

2007 2008 2007 2008 Percent

Chino/Chino Hills 5.0% 5.9% $1,400 $1,410 0.7%

Ontario-R. Cucamonga 4.6% 6.2% $1,305 $1,344 3.0%

Corona 4.3% 6.3% $1,217 $1,217 0.0%

Upland/Montclair 3.8% 6.0% $1,186 $1,214 2.4%

Temecula Valley 8.4% 8.0% $1,158 $1,176 1.6%

Riverside 7.3% 7.8% $1,162 $1,173 0.9%

Moreno Vly-Pass Area 6.5% 7.8% $1,075 $1,173 9.1%

Inland Empire Market 5.4% 7.0% $1,128 $1,154 2.3%

Colton/G. Terrace/Loma Linda 3.7% 6.7% $1,011 $1,039 2.8%

Fontana/Rialto 5.6% 7.0% $994 $1,018 2.4%

San Bdno/Highland 4.7% 9.0% $935 $976 4.4%

Coachella Valley 5.6% 5.6% $928 $958 3.2%

Perris Hemet 4.7% 6.7% $883 $879 -0.5%

Source: Hendricks & Partners, Inc.

Apartment Rents & Vacancy Rates . . . Corona’s 1st quarter 2008 average monthly apartment rental rate of $1,217 was unchanged from 1st quarter

2007. The city had the third highest rate in the Inland Empire after Chino/Chino Hills ($1,410) and Ontario-Rancho Cucamonga ($1,344) (Exhibit 33).

Corona had a 6.3% vacancy rate in 1st quarter 2008, up from 4.3% in 1st quarter 2007. The rate was below the Inland Empire’s average of 7.0%. The lowest was 5.6% in the Coachella Valley. The highest was 9.0% in San Bernardino-Highland.

39,258

45,485

1,282 1,613

9,808 10,063

28,168

33,809

2000 2008

Single Family

Multi-Tenant

Mobile Home

Total

Sources: Census 2000, CA Department of Finance, 2008

Exhibit 34.-Types Of HousingCorona, 2000 - 2008

Dwelling Units . . . In 2000, Corona had 39,258 dwelling units. The total reached 45,485 in 2008. That was an increase of 6,227

(15.9%) (Exhibit 34).

From 2000-2008, the city added 5,641 more single family detached units. That represented 90.6% of the in-crease in its housing stock.

An additional 227 units were added in multitenant projects and 331 mobile home units were added. Together, these units represented 9.4% of the city’s new dwellings.

Housing Information


Exhibit 35.-Dwelling Units Major Inland Empire Cities, 2006 & 2008

Type San Bdno Riverside Ontario R_Cuca Moreno_V Corona Fontana Murrieta Temecula

Occupied-Owners 31,774 54,262 26,800 34,505 33,649 31,331 31,373 24,084 17,822

Share 48.0% 54.0% 57.4% 65.1% 67.3% 63.7% 66.8% 72.9% 64.9%

Occupied-Renters 29,842 41,889 17,467 15,291 13,852 16,027 12,661 4,992 8,113

Share 45.1% 41.7% 37.4% 28.9% 27.7% 32.6% 26.9% 15.1% 29.6%

Vacant 4,569 4,421 2,459 3,169 2,470 1,848 2,957 3,961 1,511

Total-2006 66,185 100,572 46,726 52,965 49,971 49,206 46,991 33,037 27,446

Vacant 2008 11.0% 4.5% 3.7% 3.0% 6.0% 3.6% 5.3% 4.6% 4.1%

Density-2008 3.35 3.06 3.79 3.19 3.67 3.35 3.97 3.05 3.25

Source: 2006 American Community Survey & 2008 CA Finance Department

Dwelling Units . . . In 2006, the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey found that Corona’s owner occupied homes repre-

sented 63.7% of its housing stock. That ranked sixth of the nine major Inland Empire markets (Exhibit 35).

Another 32.6% of the city’s dwellings were rentals. That ranked fourth of the nine major inland markets.

11.0%

6.0%5.3% 4.6% 4.5% 4.1% 3.7% 3.6% 3.0%

San Bdno Moreno_V Fontana Murrieta Riverside Temecula Ontario Corona R_Cucamonga

Source: CA Department of Finance

Exhibit 36.-Residential Vacancy RateMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2008

In 2008, 3.6% of Corona’s dwellings of all kinds were vacant (Exhibit 36). This compared to 9.9% in 1990 and

was the second lowest share for any large Inland Empire city just above Rancho Cucamonga (3.0%).

3.97 3.79 3.673.35 3.35 3.25 3.19 3.06 3.05

Fontana Ontario Moreno_V San Bdno Corona Temecula R_Cucamonga Riverside Murrieta

Source: CA Department of Finance

Exhibit 37.-Population Per Occupied Dwelling Of Any KindMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2008

Corona’s 3.35 people per occupied dwelling in 2008 was in the mid-range for the inland region’s major popula-

tion centers. It was 3.17 in 1990. Fontana was the highest (3.97); Murrieta was the lowest (3.05) (Exhibit 37).

Housing Information


12.1%

8.2%

6.4% 6.2% 6.0%5.1% 4.6%

3.8%3.1%

Corona Temecula San Bdno Fontana Riverside R_Cuca Moreno Valley Rialto Ontario

Source: Dataquick; CA Department of Finance

Exhibit 38.-Share of Housing Stock SoldMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2007

In 2007, 12.1% of Corona’s existing homes were sold. It was 17.7% in 2006 and the highest home turnover of

the Inland Empire’s major cities followed by Temecula (8.2%) and San Bernardino (6.4%) (Exhibit 38).

4.1%6.3%

8.9%6.7% 5.9% 6.8%

4.7% 3.6%2.0% 2.7%

6.3%

354

678

1,135

909980

1,410

1,1751,059

588 554617

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Corona Share of County

Source: Construction Industry Research Board

Exhibit 39.-Single Family Residential Building PermitsCorona, 1997-2007

In 2007, 617 single family housing permits were issued in Corona. That was 6.3% of the permits in Riverside

County. The number was up from 554 in 2006 which represented a 2.7% share of the county (Exhibit 39).

1,702 1,991 2,208 2,1312,795 2,656

3,151

4,732

3,7273,100

5,4516,212

Jun-

07Ju

l-07

Aug-0

7

Sep-0

7

Oct-07

Nov-0

7

Dec-0

7

Jan-

08

Feb-0

8

Mar-

08

Apr-0

8

May

-08

Source: ForeclosureRadar

Exhibit 40.-Foreclosure SalesInland Empire, Jun-07 to May-08

In May 2008, a record 6,212 homes were sold at foreclosure in the Inland Empire (Exhibit 40). For the 12-

months from June 2007 to May 2008, the total was 39,856. Of these, 97% were bought by the financial institu-tions that held the mortgages. They, in turn, sold 86% of these homes at discounts averaging 28%. As long as this flow of activity continues, prices in the housing market will remain abnormally low.

Employment .


CORONA SECTION 4

EMPLOYMENT Increasingly, Corona is emerging as the next chapter in the “Orange County story” as people and companies migrate to the city. This trend is being fueled by lack of space, higher costs and op-position to infrastructure improvements in Orange County. As a result, a rising demand for of-fices and high-end homes has been added to the continued migration of industrial firms to the city. Meanwhile, Corona’s rising incomes have fueled a serious expansion in its retail offerings. Thus, the city’s employment and payroll keep setting records while it also continues to outpace the expanding Inland Empire.

Employment. From 2000-2007, CA Employment Development Department data show that em-ployment within firms and agencies located in Corona went from 53,938 to 79,030, up 25,092

jobs or 46.5% (Exhibit 41). The city’s peak was at 80,681 jobs in 2006, with the small decline in 2007 brought on by the inland area’s housing difficulties. In most communities, retail trade is the largest sector. In 2007, however, 17,194 of Corona’s jobs were in construction due to the migration of headquarters operations into the city. Manufacturing was next with 15,366 jobs. Retailing was third at 13,311 (Exhibit 42). From 2000-2007, the city’s fastest job growth was in construction (7,012) due to the influx of headquarters and retailing (5,336) because of the open-ing of The Crossing and Dos Lagos. The continued migration and expansion of blue collar dis-tribution (3,190) and manufacturing firms (1,845) caused job gains in those sectors (Exhibit 43).

Until 2007, Corona’s job growth outpaced the rapidly growing Inland Empire in every year. In 2006, for instance, its growth was 5.2% versus the region’s 3.6%. However, in 2007, the city’s employment fell -2.0% due to the housing problem while the region was flat (0.0%) (Exhibit 44). From 2000-2007, construction (18.9% to 21.8%), retailing (14.8 to 16.8%) and distribution (8.7% to 10.0%) became increasingly important to Corona’s job base. While the manufacturing sector added jobs in the period it declined in share (25.1% to 19.4%) (Exhibits 45-46).

Payroll. Corona’s payroll growth has been more aggressive than its job growth. In 2000, city payrolls totaled $1.66 billion. By 2007, they nearly doubled to $3.23 billion, a $1.56 billion gain or 94.2% (Exhibit 47). Adjusting for a 26.7% increase in Southern California consumer prices, the payroll’s purchasing power still was up $1.12 billion or 67.5% (Exhibit 48). Construction ($824.8 million) had the city’s largest 2007 payroll followed by manufacturing ($683.0 million), distribution ($429.4 million) and retail trade ($291.3 million). The first three of these sectors are basic industries that bring new money to Corona from the outside world via their sales or con-struction borrowing (Exhibit 49).

From 2000-2007, Corona’s $491.7 million gain in construction payroll ranked ahead of the $253.5 million growth in manufacturing payroll and the $233.1 increase in distribution (Exhibit 50). Positive signs were seen in the tripling of payroll in the small but high-paying engineering & management sector and the doubling of payroll in the small aerospace sector.

Average Pay Per Worker. Pay per worker in Corona rose from $30,782 in 2000 to $40,804 in 2007, a 32.6% increase (Exhibit 51). The 2007 level was well above the Inland Empire’s aver-age of $33,679 but below Orange County’s $49,417. As Corona’s workers needed $8,217 of

Employment .


their $10,023 gain in average pay to offset the 26.7% increase in Southland prices, their net in-crease in purchasing power was $1,806 or 5.9% from 2000-2007 (Exhibit 52). That was a strong gain for Southern California where workers have struggled to increase their standards of living.

In 2007, Corona’s highest paying employers were in sectors where most jobs require advanced degrees or specialized training. The list includes government ($64,438), finance, insurance & real estate ($56,172), education ($54,727) and engineering and management ($48,460). Distri-bution ($54,299) paid well due to its increasingly use of information technology (Exhibits 53-54). The city’s largest number of jobs was in construction which had a high average pay levels due to the increasing presence of headquarters operations in Corona ($47,972). Aerospace workers made good money due to their skill levels ($45,219) as did those working in manufac-turing ($44,448), the city’s second largest sector. Among Corona’s largest sectors, only third ranked retailing ($21,883) did not pay relatively well.

Number & Size Of Firms. The average firm in Corona is relatively large. In 2000, the city had 2,470 companies with an average of 22.2 workers. In 2007, it had 3,692 firms averaging 21.4 employees (up 47.6%). By contrast, in 2007, the Inland Empire had an average of 12.6 workers per firm; it was 14.5 in Orange County. Looking at the details, the number of firms in Corona has moved through several plateaus. From 1991-1994, it fluctuated from 1,800-1,900 compa-nies, moving to 2,100 from 1995-1997. From 1998-2001, it jumped to 2,400-2,600. In 2003-2005, the average was about 3,200. Most recently, the number increased to a record 3,692 in 2007 (Exhibits 55-56). From 2000-2007, the most firms were added in distribution (209), con-struction (207) and retailing (176) (Exhibit 57). By 2007, no sector had a dominate number of firms. The largest sector was retailing with 583 companies (15.8%). Distribution accounted for 558 (13.6%). Construction was next with 515 (13.9%) followed by manufacturing with 391 (10.6%) (Exhibit 58).

As indicated, Corona’s firms are relatively large with the average number of workers at 21.4 in 2007 (Exhibit 59). Corona had several sectors with over 35 workers per firm: government (287.8), aerospace (101.8), part time agencies (87.3), education (63.9), utilities (43.9) and manu-facturing (39.3). Construction (33.4) was nearly that large. Retailing averaged 22.8. All other sectors averaged under 20 employees starting with health services (15.6) (Exhibit 60).

Occupations of Residents. In 2006, the Census Bureau indicated that the top sectors employing Corona’s residents were a little different than for the Inland Empire. The largest share of the city’s workers were other “consumer” services at 17.5%. This was similar though less than the 20.0% in the Inland Empire (Exhibit 61). A much greater share of city residents had jobs in manufacturing than for the inland area (15.5% v.11.8%). The opposite was true of finance, in-surance and real estate (4.8% v. 7.0%). Otherwise, there was a close correlation between the sectors employing workers in city and in the inland area.

By occupation, Corona’s residents were more likely than most of the Inland Empire’s residents generally to be in either sales and office occupations (29.4% v. 25.2%) or to work as profession-als and managers (28.2% v. 24.8%). On the other hand, the city’s residents were less likely to work in service positions (13.2% v. 16.0%), production and logistics jobs (12.1% vs. 13.9%) or construction occupations (9.6% v. 12.3%) (Exhibit 62).

Employment .


29,801 28,229 29,562 31,38635,078

37,295 39,03443,692

50,27153,938

57,62460,410

66,24071,551

76,70080,681 79,030

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: CA Employment Development Department

Exhibit 41.-EmploymentCorona 1991-2007

2000-2007up 25,092 46.5%

City Employment, 1991-2007 . . . In 2000, there were 53,938 jobs in Corona’s firms and agencies. By 2006, employment had reached a record at

80,681. However, in 2007, the number fell slightly to 79,030 due to problems in the housing sector (Exhibit 41). Still, the 25,092 job gain from 2000-2007 represented a 46.5% growth in the city’s job base. In that pe-riod, the Inland Empire’s job base had grown by 27.3%; Orange County was up 8.7%.

In 2007, construction was Corona’s largest sector with 17,194 jobs though the sector was responsible for much of the 2006-2007 slowdown in the city’s employment (Exhibit 42). Manufacturing ranked second with 15,366, though it had a small job loss from 2006-2007 due to the U.S. slowdown. Retail trade with 13,311 jobs ranked third with the continuing expansion of retail centers in the city.

Exhibit 42.-Employment by Sector, Corona, 1991-2007

Sector 1991 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000-7 %00-07

Construction 3,065 5,283 6,568 8,843 10,177 11,981 12,834 15,095 18,089 19,443 20,834 17,194 7,017 68.9%

Manufacturing 5,413 9,894 11,678 13,576 13,522 13,496 13,745 13,934 14,666 15,513 16,114 15,366 1,845 13.6%

Retail Trade 6,548 6,846 7,286 7,531 7,975 8,972 9,720 9,630 10,339 11,581 12,018 13,311 5,336 66.9%

Distribute/Transp. 3,487 4,235 4,354 4,536 4,718 5,094 5,965 6,582 6,839 7,247 7,359 7,908 3,190 67.6%

Education 2,425 3,041 3,356 3,546 3,827 3,823 2,972 3,048 3,329 3,400 3,491 3,704 (124) -3.2%

Health 1,767 2,624 2,655 2,671 2,833 2,791 3,033 3,206 3,238 3,262 3,325 3,701 869 30.7%

Other Services 1,270 1,505 1,719 1,971 2,091 2,036 2,221 2,535 2,661 2,868 2,989 3,211 1,120 53.6%

Help Agcy 654 975 782 1,349 1,756 1,625 1,583 1,436 1,576 1,832 1,829 2,852 1,096 62.4%

Bus. Services 775 840 1,024 1,081 1,132 1,127 1,264 1,949 2,000 2,291 2,405 2,579 1,448 127.9%

Fin., Ins., R.Est. 994 600 705 1,107 1,586 1,631 1,659 2,128 2,427 2,462 2,645 2,479 893 56.3%

Eng. & Mgmt 266 317 456 683 653 774 919 1,080 1,276 1,456 1,598 1,695 1,042 159.6%

Hotel & Amuse 1,035 629 683 779 903 999 1,139 1,133 1,023 1,230 2,004 1,215 312 34.6%

Government 817 776 826 851 881 1,177 1,231 1,526 1,105 1,076 1,105 1,151 271 30.7%

Utilities 264 100 267 358 379 454 378 801 833 786 1,146 1,038 659 173.8%

Agriculture 986 1,167 1,097 1,136 1,196 1,311 1,403 1,456 1,392 1,422 1,149 1,015 (181) -15.2%

Aerospace 35 201 235 252 310 333 344 700 757 830 671 611 301 97.2%

TOTAL 29,801 39,034 43,692 50,271 53,938 57,624 60,410 66,240 71,551 76,700 80,681 79,030 25,092 46.5%


Employment .


7,017

5,336

3,190

1,8451,448 1,120 1,096 1,042 893 869 659

312 301 271

(124) (181)

Constr

uctio

n

Retail

Trade

Distrib

ute/T

ransp

.

Man

ufac

turing

Bus. S

ervice

s

Other S

ervice

s

Help A

gcy

Eng. &

Mgm

t

Fin., I

ns., R

.Est.

Health

Utiliti

es

Hotel &

Amus

e

Aerosp

ace

Gover

nmen

t

Educa

tion

Agricu

lture


Exhibit 43.-Employment Gain By SectorCorona, 2000 - 2007

Employment Growth, 1991-2007 . . .

Even with recent difficulties from 2000-2007, the migration of construction office operations to Corona caused that sector to add 7,017 jobs into the city’s economy (Exhibit 43). Retail firms added 5,336 jobs in the city from 2000-2007. This occurred because of the opening of several power centers as well as two major shopping centers: The Crossing and Dos Lagos. Corona’s blue collar sectors continued to do well with distribution and transportation firms contributing 3,190 new jobs and manufacturing adding another 1,845. Industrial firms continued to migrate from Orange County to Corona to take advantage of its less expensive space, and the fact that many of the city’s workers are willing to work for a little less to avoid commuting.

Corona’s job growth has consistently exceeded that of the Inland Empire which itself has generally been Cali-fornia’s hottest job market. However, in 2007, the city’s job growth was –2.0% while the inland area was flat at 0.0%. With many firms related to the residential business now located in Corona, its economy has proven somewhat more vulnerable to the housing slowdown than other inland cities (Exhibit 44).

1.3%0.6%

2.3%3.7%

2.9%4.7% 4.7%

6.3%5.2%

4.0%3.2% 3.3%

5.3% 5.2%3.6%

0.0%

-5.3%

4.7%6.2%

11.8%

6.3%4.7%

11.9%

15.1%

7.3% 6.8%

4.8%

9.6%8.0%

7.2%

5.2%

-2.0%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Corona

Inland Empire


Exhibit 44.-Employment Growth RatesCorona 1991-2007

Employment .


Construction17,19421.8%

Manufacturing15,36619.4%

Retail Trade13,31116.8%

Smaller Sectors9,20411.6%

Distribute/Transp.7,90810.0%

Education3,7044.7%

Health3,7014.7%

Other Services3,2114.1%

Help Agcy2,8523.6%

Bus. Services2,5793.3%


Exhibit 45.-Employment Distribution By SectorCorona, 2007

Employment Distribution, 2007 & 2000 . . . In 2007, the construction sector had the greatest share of Corona’s job base with 21.8%, up from 18.9% in

2000. It added 7,017 positions in this period , in part, due to the migration of headquarters operations to the city. The next largest share was 19.4% of Corona’s jobs in manufacturing. This was down from a leading 25.1% share in 2000 despite 1,845 more jobs as the city’s economy became more diversified (Exhibits 45-46). Retailing grew to 16.8 % of jobs in 2007 from 14.8% in 2000 as the sector added 5,336 jobs.

Distribution sector grew to 10.0% of Corona’s jobs from 8.7% in 2000 as employment grew by 3,190 with blue collar firms continuing to migrate to the city. Education fell to 4.7% of Corona’s job base in 2007 from 7.1% in 2000 as 124 positions were lost due to the impact of the state budget on local jurisdictions.

Manufacturing13,52225.1%

Construction10,17718.9%

Retail Trade7,97514.8%

Smaller Sectors5,90811.0%

Distribute/Transp.4,7188.7%

Education3,8277.1%

Health2,8335.3%

Other Services2,0913.9%

Help Agcy1,7563.3%

Bus. Services1,1322.1%


Exhibit 46.-Employment Distribution By SectorCorona, 2000

Employment .


$673 $672 $708 $776$876

$964 $1,042$1,230

$1,458$1,660

$1,815$1,993

$2,246

$2,539

$2,842

$3,169 $3,225

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Exhibit 47.-PayrollCorona, 1991-2007 (millions)

2000-2007up $1.56 Billion 94.2%

Wage & Salary Payroll, 1991-2007 . . .

In 2000, the payroll for firms located in Corona was $1.66 billion. By 2007, it had nearly doubled to $3.23 billion. That was a gain of $1.56 billion or 94.2% in just seven years. (Exhibit 47).

The $1.56 billion increase in payroll, in part, represents a real increase in the purchasing power of workers in the city. It also represents additional pay needed to match inflation. The latter was 26.7% from 2000-2007, as measured by the Los Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside Consumer Price Index (Exhibit 48).

Thus, the $1.56 billion increase in payroll (94.2%) included $443 million needed to offset inflation (26.7%). The other $1.12 billion represented a 67.5% increase in the purchasing power of the payroll released into the community.

$1564 mil (94.2%)

$443 mil (26.7%)

$1121 mil (67.5%)

Nominal Growth Inflation Purchasing Power Growth


Exhibit 48.-Payroll Growth, Allowing For InflationCorona, 2000 - 2007

Employment .


Exhibit 49.-Payroll by Sector, Corona, 1991-2007 (millions) Sector 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000-7 %00-07

Construction $82.7 $204.7 $270.1 $333.2 $406.3 $465.1 $547.5 $690.4 $811.1 $941.7 $824.8 $491.7 147.6%

Manufacturing $139.8 $351.4 $420.5 $429.5 $451.0 $479.2 $512.2 $564.8 $613.7 $669.6 $683.0 $253.5 59.0%

Distribute/Transp. $94.5 $140.9 $158.1 $196.2 $191.3 $224.3 $243.0 $274.6 $306.0 $355.1 $429.4 $233.1 118.8%

Retail Trade $89.7 $128.1 $140.8 $158.1 $181.3 $206.5 $211.0 $222.2 $261.8 $263.7 $291.3 $133.1 84.2%

Education $69.3 $119.3 $132.8 $151.0 $155.2 $142.4 $141.5 $151.1 $162.4 $175.6 $202.7 $51.7 34.3%

Health $45.3 $78.7 $79.1 $87.6 $88.2 $102.1 $108.7 $112.6 $120.5 $128.5 $142.7 $55.1 62.9%

Fin., Ins., R.Est. $19.4 $27.3 $40.3 $61.2 $63.2 $70.7 $115.9 $133.0 $132.9 $145.6 $139.2 $78.1 127.5%

Other Services $17.7 $34.9 $42.7 $44.6 $40.4 $55.9 $66.7 $74.8 $81.0 $86.6 $96.0 $51.4 115.4%

Bus. Services $18.0 $31.1 $35.3 $43.6 $44.5 $36.7 $54.3 $56.5 $65.2 $76.0 $85.1 $41.5 95.2%

Eng. & Mgmt $9.3 $17.4 $25.8 $25.9 $31.4 $37.6 $46.2 $57.3 $67.8 $75.9 $82.1 $56.2 216.9%

Government $30.8 $34.0 $35.7 $41.4 $54.5 $64.4 $72.1 $62.2 $65.1 $66.9 $74.2 $32.8 79.4%

Help Agcy $8.7 $12.3 $15.9 $18.6 $27.6 $22.7 $17.9 $20.9 $25.2 $28.8 $52.9 $34.3 184.4%

Utilities $8.3 $7.4 $15.1 $14.2 $18.0 $14.8 $19.8 $26.6 $31.6 $48.1 $39.2 $24.9 175.3%

Agriculture $22.2 $24.6 $26.1 $27.6 $30.2 $33.3 $36.5 $35.5 $38.0 $31.7 $27.8 $0.2 0.8%

Aerospace $0.6 $8.2 $8.5 $12.1 $12.6 $15.2 $33.4 $38.0 $38.6 $33.4 $27.6 $15.6 129.1%

Hotel & Amuse $17.1 $9.2 $11.6 $15.7 $18.8 $22.1 $18.9 $18.2 $20.9 $41.7 $26.8 $11.1 71.0%

TOTAL $673.5 $1,458.3 $1,660.3 $1,814.7 $1,993.0 $2,245.7 $2,538.8 $2,841.8 $3,168.9 $3,224.8 $1,564.5 94.2% $1,229.6


Payroll Trends By Sector, 1991-2007 . . .

In 2007, Corona’s largest payroll was in the construction sector ($825 million), followed by manufacturing ($683 million), distribution & transportation ($429 million), retail trade ($291 million) and education ($203 mil-lion) (Exhibit 49).

From 2000-2007, Corona’s construction payroll grew $491.7 million (Exhibit 50). This reflected the aggres-siveness that was occurring in the city’s building sector and the recent migration of construction headquarters operations to the city. Corona’s manufacturing payroll was up $253.5 million from 2000-2007, with firms mi-grating to the city from Orange County. Similarly, that migration drove the growth in distribution, up $233.2 million.

Very positive signs for Corona were the growth in aerospace payroll which more than doubled from 2000-2007, up 129.1% to $27.6 million, and engineering & management which more than tripled, up 216.9% to $82.1 million. These sectors are bringing the type of high paying jobs that the city’s better educated works re-quire.

Employment .


$491.7

$253.5 $233.1

$133.1$78.1 $56.2 $55.1 $51.7 $51.4 $41.5 $34.3 $32.8 $24.9 $15.6 $11.1 $0.2

Constr

uctio

n

Man

ufac

turing

Distrib

ute/T

ransp

.

Retail

Trade

Fin., I

ns., R

.Est.

Eng. &

Mgm

t

Health

Educa

tion

Other

Service

s

Bus. S

ervice

s

Help A

gcy

Govern

ment

Utiliti

es

Aerosp

ace

Hotel &

Am

use

Agricu

lture


Exhibit 50.-Payroll Gain By Sector (million)Corona, 2000 - 2007

$22,599$23,803 $23,953 $24,731 $24,963 $25,853 $26,701

$28,143 $29,009$30,782 $31,493

$32,991 $33,903$35,482

$37,051$39,277

$40,804

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Exhibit 51.-Payroll Per JobCorona 1991-2007

Average Pay Per Job, 1991-2007 . . .

Corona’s jobs paid an average of $30,782 in 2000. By 2007, the average pay was $40,804, a 32.6% gain (Ex-hibit 51). The 2007 average was the city’s $3.22 billion payroll divided by 79,030 full and part time workers. Corona’s $40,804 average pay level was well above the Inland Empire’s average of $33,679 but below Orange County’s $49,417.

From 1991-2007, Corona’s average pay increase was $10,023 per job or 32.6%. Of this, $8,217 was needed to offset the 26.7% rise in the Los Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside Consumer Price Index. The other $1,806 repre-sented a true increase of 5.9% in the purchasing power of the workers in city firms and agencies (Exhibit 52).

Employment .


$10,023 (32.6%)

$8,217 (26.7%)

$1,806 (5.9%)

Nominal Growth Inflation Purchasing Power Growth


Exhibit 52.-Growth In Average Pay Per Job, Allowing For InflationCorona, 2000 - 2007

Exhibit 53.-Average Pay Per Job, by Sector, Corona, 1991-2007

Sector 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000-7 %00-07

Government $37,670 $41,215 $41,991 $46,956 $46,262 $52,318 $47,276 $56,252 $60,451 $60,563 $64,438 $17,483 37.2%

Fin., Ins., R.Est. $19,532 $38,740 $36,424 $38,581 $38,771 $42,632 $54,461 $54,817 $53,973 $55,033 $56,172 $17,591 45.6%

Education $28,585 $35,545 $37,446 $39,445 $40,602 $47,901 $46,432 $45,388 $47,749 $50,302 $54,727 $15,282 38.7%

Distribute/Transp. $27,110 $32,358 $34,859 $41,591 $37,548 $37,608 $36,927 $40,154 $42,226 $48,248 $54,299 $12,708 30.6%

Eng. & Mgmt $34,892 $38,149 $37,773 $39,696 $40,575 $40,903 $42,740 $44,859 $46,600 $47,477 $48,460 $8,764 22.1%

Construction $26,991 $31,162 $30,548 $32,735 $33,913 $36,241 $36,271 $38,170 $41,715 $45,201 $47,972 $15,237 46.5%

Aerospace $16,428 $34,827 $33,549 $38,922 $37,975 $44,354 $47,752 $50,239 $46,543 $49,783 $45,219 $6,297 16.2%

Manufacturing $25,832 $30,093 $30,972 $31,762 $33,419 $34,863 $36,759 $38,513 $39,562 $41,557 $44,448 $12,686 39.9%

Health $25,615 $29,649 $29,606 $30,929 $31,620 $33,654 $33,905 $34,769 $36,949 $38,654 $38,562 $7,633 24.7%

Utilities $31,506 $27,769 $42,249 $37,512 $39,720 $39,017 $24,718 $31,986 $40,164 $41,991 $37,720 $209 0.6%

Bus. Services $23,250 $30,312 $32,650 $38,518 $39,528 $29,021 $27,844 $28,256 $28,434 $31,589 $32,993 ($5,525) -14.3%

Other Services $13,934 $20,322 $21,676 $21,312 $19,866 $25,165 $26,323 $28,098 $28,247 $28,971 $29,888 $8,577 40.2%

Agriculture $22,471 $22,465 $22,930 $23,047 $23,028 $23,732 $25,054 $25,492 $26,761 $27,579 $27,391 $4,344 18.8%

Hotel & Amuse $16,563 $13,493 $14,832 $17,347 $18,869 $19,429 $16,677 $17,754 $16,953 $20,812 $22,044 $4,696 27.1%

Retail Trade $13,697 $17,580 $18,691 $19,830 $20,204 $21,249 $21,914 $21,494 $22,607 $21,943 $21,883 $2,053 10.4%

Help Agcy $13,318 $15,748 $11,753 $10,586 $16,960 $14,311 $12,442 $13,269 $13,760 $15,744 $18,539 $7,953 75.1%

TOTAL $22,599 $28,143 $29,009 $30,782 $31,493 $32,991 $33,903 $35,482 $37,051 $39,277 $40,804 $10,023 32.6%


Average Pay Per Job, By Sector, 1991-2007 . . . In 2007, the highest paying firms and agencies are in sectors where employees need advanced degrees or spe-

cialized technical training. Thus in 2007, government ($64,438), finance, insurance & real estate ($56,172), and education ($54,727) were among Corona’s best paying sectors. Distribution & transportation paid well ($54,299) as the sector is becoming increasingly dominated by the use of information technology, as did engi-neering and management ($48,460) (Exhibits 53-54).

The city’s largest number of jobs was in construction which paid well due to the presence of headquarters op-erations in Corona ($47,972). Aerospace workers made good money due to their skill levels ($45,219) as did those working in the city’s second largest sector: manufacturing ($44,448).

Employment .


Among Corona’s largest employing sectors, only third ranked retailing ($21,883) did not have a relatively high average pay level per job.

$64,438

$56,172 $54,727 $54,299$48,460 $47,972 $45,219 $44,448

$38,562 $37,720$32,993 $29,888 $27,391

$22,044 $21,883$18,539

Gover

nmen

t

Fin., I

ns., R

.Est.

Educa

tion

Distrib

ute/T

rans

p.

Eng. &

Mgm

t

Constr

uctio

n

Aeros

pace

Man

ufac

turing

Health

Utiliti

es

Bus. S

ervice

s

Other

Service

s

Agricu

lture

Hotel &

Am

use

Retail

Trade

Help A

gcy


Exhibit 54.-Average Pay Per Job By SectorCorona, 2007

1,875 1,877 1,927 1,903

2,144 2,160 2,099

2,3632,541 2,470 2,549

2,682

3,178 3,165 3,261

3,5133,692

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Exhibit 55.-Number of FirmsCorona 1991-2007

Number Of Firms, 1991-2007 . . . The number of firms reporting payroll within Corona rose from 2,470 in 2000 to 3,692 in 2007 (Exhibit 55).

That is a gain of 1,222 companies or 49.5%. These data exclude firms with no employees, and firms that are in Corona but report their data through a headquarters or accountant elsewhere. For this reason, the data on firms only provide an “order of magnitude” (less vs. greater) look at the economy, not an accurate guide to size. Even with this caveat, it is clear that there has been a surge in Corona based firms especially in recent years.

The largest number of firms were in retail trade (583), distribution & transportation (558) and construction (515) (Exhibit 56). Significant growth rates occurred in engineering & management (149.1%) and finance, in-surance & real estate (101.3%) firms due to the surge in Corona’s office and real estate markets.

Employment .


Exhibit 56.-Number of Firms, by Sector, Corona, 1991-2007

Sector 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000-7 %00-07

Retail Trade 367 400 417 407 405 421 443 429 477 514 583 176 43.2%

Distribute/Transp. 219 330 360 349 361 369 451 464 467 515 558 209 60.0%

Construction 245 298 319 308 355 369 445 465 475 509 515 207 67.3%

Manufacturing 214 319 336 323 328 348 403 407 406 394 391 69 21.3%

Other Services 168 232 258 243 240 289 340 321 308 326 330 87 35.7%

Fin., Ins., R.Est. 107 134 153 158 166 185 224 236 263 317 318 160 101.3%

Health 158 159 168 164 159 171 217 222 223 227 237 73 44.5%

Bus. Services 134 187 199 187 190 165 211 196 202 218 237 50 26.6%

Eng. & Mgmt 54 82 94 94 101 111 163 158 173 222 233 140 149.1%

Hotel & Amuse 34 48 55 56 53 53 65 58 65 79 86 30 53.0%

Agriculture 108 98 96 92 95 97 112 108 95 85 81 (12) -12.6%

Education 40 42 43 44 44 45 49 49 50 51 58 14 31.8%

Help Agcy 11 9 17 18 21 24 16 18 17 18 33 14 78.2%

Utilities 12 16 16 17 20 22 24 23 27 27 24 7 42.0%

Aerospace 4 7 8 9 8 9 11 8 8 7 6 (3) -33.3%

Government 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 2 100.0%

TOTAL 1,875 2,363 2,541 2,470 2,549 2,682 3,178 3,165 3,261 3,513 3,692 1,222 49.5%


209

207

176

160

140

87

73

69

50

30

14

7

6

2

(3)

(12)

Distribute/Transp.

Construction

Retail Trade

Fin., Ins., R.Est.

Eng. & Mgmt

Other Services

Health

Manufacturing

Bus. Services

Hotel & Amuse

Help Agcy

Utilities

Education

Government

Aerospace

Agriculture


Exhibit 57.-Number of FirmsCorona, 2000 - 2007

Number Of Firms By Sector, 2000-2007 . . .

Except for agriculture (-12) and aerospace (-3), every sector of Corona’s economy added firms from 2000-2007. Distribution & transportation had the largest gain with 209 mostly smaller new firms, followed by con-struction which added 207 companies including several new headquarters operations. Next was retailing with 176 more firms due to the openings of major centers. It was followed by finance, insurance and real estate (160) due to the expansion of activity related to the residential market. The growth of engineering and man-agement ranked fifth (140) as technology firms began moving to the city, some to help the residential sector ( Exhibit 57).

In Corona, the largest number of firms in one sector during 2007 were retailing representing 15.8% of the city’s firms. Distribution and transportation firms were next at 15.1%. Construction was third with a 13.9% share, manufacturing was 10.6% and other “consumer” services was fifth at 8.9% (Exhibit 58).

Employment .


Retail Trade583

15.8%

Distribute/Transp.558

15.1%

Construction515

13.9%Manufacturing

39110.6%

Other Services330

8.9%

Fin., Ins., R.Est.318

8.6%

Other291

7.9%

Health237

6.4%

Bus. Services237

6.4%

Eng. & Mgmt233

6.3%


Exhibit 58.-Distribution of Firms By SectorCorona, 2007

16.115.0 15.3

16.5 16.417.3

18.9 18.820.1

22.222.8 22.5

20.8

22.623.5 23.0

21.4

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Exhibit 59.-Average Workers Per FirmsCorona 1991-2007

Average Workers Per Firm, 1991-2007. . . The average number of employees per firm in Corona grew from 22.2 in 2000 to a high of 23.5 in 2005 before

falling off to 21.4 in 2007 (Exhibit 59). The average size of the city’s firms is above average for the Inland Empire, a region whose economy is based upon a large number of small, fast growing companies. In 2007, the inland region’s average was 12.6 jobs per firm; it was 14.5 in Orange County.

An unusually large number of sectors of Corona’s economy averaged over 35 workers per firm: government (287.8), aerospace (101.8), part time agencies (87.3), education (63.9), utilities (43.9) and manufacturing (39.3). Two other sectors had over 20 workers per firm: construction (33.4) and retailing (22.8). All other sectors averaged under 20 employees starting with health services (15.6) (Exhibit 60).

Exhibit 60.-Average Workers Per Firm, by Sector, Corona, 1991-2007

Employment .


Sector 1991 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000-7 %00-07

Government 817.3 412.8 425.6 440.3 441.5 369.2 416.2 368.4 322.9 276.2 287.8 -152.5 -34.6%

Aerospace 8.7 33.6 31.5 34.4 41.6 38.2 63.7 94.6 103.7 95.9 101.8 67.4 195.7%

Help Agcy 59.5 83.8 80.9 95.8 77.4 66.9 87.9 87.6 105.7 101.6 87.3 -8.5 -8.9%

Education 214.0 419.5 443.3 478.4 191.2 65.6 62.2 67.9 67.6 68.9 63.9 -414.5 -86.7%

Utilities 22.0 16.7 22.3 22.8 22.3 16.9 32.9 36.2 29.1 41.9 43.9 21.1 92.8%

Manufacturing 25.3 36.6 40.4 41.9 41.1 39.5 34.6 36.1 38.2 40.9 39.3 -2.6 -6.3%

Construction 12.5 22.1 27.7 33.1 33.8 34.8 33.9 38.9 41.0 40.9 33.4 0.3 1.0%

Retail Trade 17.9 18.2 18.1 19.6 22.2 23.1 21.7 24.1 24.3 23.4 22.8 3.2 16.5%

Health 11.2 16.7 15.9 17.3 17.5 17.7 14.8 14.6 14.6 14.6 15.6 -1.7 -9.6%

Hotel & Amuse 30.7 14.1 14.2 16.1 18.7 21.4 17.5 17.6 18.8 25.5 14.2 -1.9 -12.0%

Distribute/Transp. 15.9 13.2 12.6 13.5 14.1 16.1 14.6 14.7 15.5 14.3 14.2 0.6 4.7%

Agriculture 9.1 11.2 11.8 13.0 13.8 14.5 13.0 12.9 14.9 13.5 12.6 -0.4 -2.9%

Bus. Services 5.8 5.5 5.4 6.1 5.9 7.6 9.2 10.2 11.3 11.0 10.9 4.8 80.1%

Other Services 7.6 7.4 7.6 8.6 8.5 7.7 7.5 8.3 9.3 9.2 9.7 1.1 13.2%

Fin., Ins., R.Est. 9.3 5.3 7.2 10.0 9.8 9.0 9.5 10.3 9.4 8.3 7.8 -2.2 -22.3%

Eng. & Mgmt 5.0 5.6 7.3 7.0 7.7 8.3 6.6 8.1 8.4 7.2 7.3 0.3 4.2%

TOTAL 16.1 18.8 20.1 22.2 22.8 22.5 20.8 22.6 23.5 23.0 21.4 -0.8 -3.4%


20.0%

11.8%

14.6%12.4%

10.1% 9.3%

7.1% 7.0%

4.3%

2.1%1.2%

17.5%15.5%

13.9%11.8%

10.6%9.6%

8.7%

4.8% 4.0%2.3% 1.5%

Other S

ervice

s

Man

ufac

turing

Retail

trade

Constr

uctio

n

Gover

nmen

t

Hotel, R

ecrea

tion

Educa

tion,

Health

Fin., I

ns., R

E

Distrib

ute/T

ransp

.

Mgm

t, Pro

f., B

us. S

er

Agricu

lture

Corona Inland Empire

Source: 2006 American Community Survey

Exhibit 61.-Employment of Residents By SectorCorona & Inland Empire, 2006

Workers By Sector & Occupation, 2006 . . . In 2006, the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey found that the top sectors employing Corona’s

residents were a little different than the Inland Empire. The largest share of the city’s workers were other “con-sumer” services at 17.5%. This was similar though less than the 20.0% leading share for this group in the Inland Empire (Exhibit 61). A far greater share of city residents had jobs in manufacturing than for the inland area (15.5% v.11.8%). The opposite was true of finance, insurance and real estate (4.8% v. 7.0%). Otherwise, there was a close match between the sectors employing workers in city and in the inland area.

By occupation, Corona’s residents were more likely than Inland Empire’s residents generally to be in sales and office occupations (29.4% v. 25.2%) or work as professionals and managers (28.2% v. 24.8%). On the other hand, compared to the Inland Empire, the city’s residents were less likely to work in service positions (13.2% v.

Employment .


16.0%), production and logistics jobs (12.1% vs. 13.9%) or construction related occupations (9.6% v. 12.3%) (Exhibit 62).

25.2% 24.8%

16.0%13.9%

12.3%

7.4%

0.5%

29.4%28.2%

13.2%12.1%

9.6%

6.6%

1.0%

Sales & Office Mgmt/Professional Service Produce/Transport Construction Unemployed Agriculture

Corona Inland Empire


Exhibit 62.-Employment of Residents By SectorCorona & Inland Empire, 2006

Taxable Retail Trade


CORONA

SECTION 5 TAXABLE RETAIL TRADE

Corona’s taxable retail sales continue to set records and the city’s per capita sales have surpassed those of all but its most powerful neighbors. Historically, the city has derived its sales tax strength from a growing base of manufacturing, distribution and construction firms that sell retail goods directly to the public. It also has had a strong automotive sector. Now, the opening of several power centers throughout the community and The Crossings and Dos Lagos on the south I-15 are giving the city an expanding array of retail centers that are further powering its retail sales volume.

Total Sales. In 2007, Corona’s retail sales were $3.53 billion (Exhibit 63). This was down slightly from $3.58 billion in 2006, the first decline in the city’s activity since 1991 due to the difficulties emerging in the housing market. Corona’s sales have consistently out-performed Riverside County in recent years with the exception of the recession periods of 1992 and 2002 (Exhibit 64). In 2004, the city’s growth was 19% versus the county’s 16%. It was 15% to 12% in 2005 and 7% versus 6% in 2006. In the current downturn, the city’s decline was -1.1%, the county’s decline was –1.4%. California grew 0.2% in 2007.

In 2007, Corona ($3.5 billion) moved up to third among the 48 Inland Empire cities in retail sales after Ontario ($5.6 billion) and Riverside ($4.9 billion). Four cities with larger populations had lower sales than Corona: San Bernardino ($2.9 billion), Fontana ($2.41 billion), Ranch Cucamonga ($2.39 billion) and Moreno Valley ($1.3 billion) (Exhibit 65). Interestingly, Co-rona’s sales ranked behind just three of Orange County’s cities: Anaheim ($5.8 billion), Irvine ($5.0 billion) and Costa Mesa ($4.1 billion) (Exhibit 65)

Per Capita Sales. Given the importance of the retail sales tax to California municipalities, tax-able retail sales per capita is a good barometer of a community’s ability to provide services to its population. Corona fares very well by this standard. In 2007, its per capita sales reached $24,099 (Exhibits 67-68). This ranked eighth in the Inland Empire. Compared to large and nearby cities it was below Montclair ($32,885), Ontario ($32,128), Palm Desert ($31,468) and Temecula ($26,114). Of the large Orange County cities, it exceeded Orange ($22,695) and Ana-heim ($16,842) but was below Costa Mesa ($35,804) and was just below Irvine ($24,134).

From 2000-2007, Corona’s sales per capita rose by $10,499 (77.2%). In this period, Riverside County only grew $3,389 (21.3%). Thus in 2007, the city’s per capita sales were $9,879 higher (69.5%) than the countywide average of $14,220 (Exhibit 66). Importantly, the growth of Co-rona’s total sales (104.3%) and per capita sales (77.2%) from 2000-2007 far exceeded the 26.7% gain in prices. This means that the total and per capita physical volume of underlying goods be-ing traded has risen dramatically, as has the purchasing power of retail sales taxes collected.

Sales Growth By Sector. From 2000-2007, Corona’s retail trade more than doubled, rising $1.81 billion or 104.3%. By far, the largest share of this gain came from retail sales by non-retail outlets which rose $767 million (Exhibits 69-70). This group includes professional & ser-vice firms, construction contractors, and manufacturing & distribution firms selling directly to the public. It accounted for 42.5% of the city’s sales increase during this period. Other sectors



that accounted for large shares of the city’s growth were service stations (10.2%), general mer-chandise (10.0%) and the automotive sector (8.6%). General merchandise sales have grown more with the recent opening of a number of power centers plus The Crossings and Dos Lagos shopping centers in the city.

Share of Sales. These trends meant that Corona’s non-retail outlets went from a city leading 36.6% of sales in 2000 ($634 million) to 39.6% ($1.4 billion) in 2007. However, vehicle dealers and parts suppliers fell from 13.5% ($234 million) to 11.0% of sales ($389 million). From 2000-2007, general merchandise stores ranked third in Corona’s retail sales though their share fell slightly from 10.8% ($187 million) to 10.4% ($368 million). Service stations added share going from 7.1% of the city’s retail volume in 2000 ($122 million) to 8.6% in 2007 ($306 million). That group passed the building materials sector which fell from fourth largest ($181 million; 10.5%) to fifth largest ($301 million; 8.5%) (Exhibits 71-72).

Average Sales Per Outlet. Retail outlets in Corona generally outperformed those in other Inland Empire areas. Thus in 2007, the city’s average retail store had sales of $1.11 million (Ex-hibit 73). That was $188,314 (20.4%) more than the average for outlets in Riverside County ($921,583) and $226,981 (25.7%) more than the average in San Bernardino County ($882,916). In seven out of ten sectors, Corona’s outlets did better than Riverside County’s average. The largest was among the city’s service stations which had a $2,223,371 advantage over those in Riverside County. Next were building materials outlets which averaged $947,745 in sales more than the average for the county. The third widest per store sales advantage was for non-retail, non-store firms which averaged $518,913 more than the average for Riverside County’s outlets.

Elementary Sales Gap Analysis. In order to determine where major retail opportunities might occur in Corona, the city’s 2007 per capita taxable sales average for each sector were compared to those figures for Riverside and San Bernardino counties. This was done to determine the sec-tors in which the county’s per capita sales are larger than for the city. These would be the sec-tors where city residents are likely to spend a disproportionate amount of their money outside of the community.

Before this comparison was made, the per capita sales data for each county sector were adjusted upward to make up for the fact that city residents have, on average, more money than those in the county. Large upward adjustments were made equal to the percentage that city median in-comes exceeded county median incomes (Riverside County: up 34.9%; San Bernardino County: up 36.3%). This process revealed that there were some sectors where Corona’s merchants are losing sales to outside merchants, though there are fewer gaps and those are closing.

In 2007, Corona’s $24,099 per capita retail sales were well above the averages for Riverside ($19,178) and San Bernardino Counties ($20,509) after the large upward adjustments to the county figures were made (Exhibits 75-76). Looking at sectors, Corona sees an influx of money from surrounding communities in several sectors, with its strongest advantages in non-retail out-lets ($4,182) due to its many manufacturers and distributors, building materials ($659), and automotive ($431). The largest disadvantages existed in “other” retail (-$377) and food (-$323). Previous outflows in general merchandise ($95), apparel ($7) and restaurants (-$43) have been either closed or nearly eliminated due to centers like The Crossings and upscale Dos Lagos.



$793 $753 $767 $810 $903 $990 $1,074 $1,181$1,283

$1,503$1,732

$2,056$2,187

$2,454

$2,911

$3,356$3,577 $3,537

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007e

Source: CA Board of Equalization

Exhibit 63.-Total Taxable Sales (millions)Corona, 1990-2007e

Total Taxable Retail Sales . . . In 2007, Corona’s estimated taxable retail sales were $3.53 billion, off slightly from the all time record of $3.58

billion in 2006. (Exhibit 63). Even with this small decline, from 2000-2007, sales more than doubled from $1.73 billion to $3.53 billion, up $1,81 billion or 104.3%. As prices only rose 26.7% in this period, the physi-cal volume of goods being traded rose dramatically, as did the purchasing power of the city’s retail sales taxes.

Corona’s retail sales increased due to modest population growth, rising city incomes, and the fact that new cen-ters helped it capture an increase share of spending by its residents.

Corona’s retail sales growth has outperformed that of Riverside County for most of the 18 years. In 2007, its 1% decline was less than the 2% decline for the county (Exhibit 64). California’s sales were essentially flat in 2007, growing just 0.2%.

8%

-6%

4%

1%

6% 5%

8% 7%

10%

15%

13%

7% 7%

11%

16%

12%

6%

-2%

14%

-5%

2%

6%

12%

10%8%

10%9%

17%15%

19%

6%

12%

19%

15%

7%

-1%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007e

Corona Riverside County


Exhibit 64.-Total Taxable Sales GrowthCorona & Riverside County, 1990-2007e



$5,817,265$5,559,070

$4,959,135$4,853,614

$4,068,204$3,537,466

$3,164,447$2,940,756

$2,599,202$2,405,969$2,386,423

$2,018,517$1,585,276

$1,424,646$1,258,208

$1,209,592$1,139,525

$1,000,919$754,331

$510,014$504,136

AnaheimOntario

IrvineRiverside

Costa MesaCoronaOrange

San BernardinoTemecula

FontanaRancho Cucamonga

VictorvillePalm Desert

ChinoMoreno Valley

MontclairMurrietaUpland

Lake ElsinoreChino Hills

NorcoSource: CA Board of Equalization

Exhibit 65.-Total Taxable Sales (000)Corona & Major or Nearby Retail Centers, 2007e

Retail Sales Compared . . . Corona’s 2007 sales of $3.54 billion was above San Bernardino ($2.94 billion) with the city now ranking third

in volume among the Inland Empire’s 48 cities after Ontario ($5.56 billion) and Riverside ($4.85 billion). This was achieved despite having a population (147,428) that ranked seventh among the area’s major cities with over 100,000 people (Exhibit 65).

If Corona were an Orange County city, its retail sales would have ranked fourth after Anaheim ($5.8 billion), Irvine ($5.0 billion) and Costa Mesa ($4.1 billion) and above Orange ($3.2 billion).

Per capita sales growth is vital to city governments as the sales tax is a municipal government’s principal source of revenue. From 2000-2007, Corona’s taxable sales per capita rose from $13,600 to $24,099, up $10,499 or 77.2%. That was faster than the 26.7% rise in prices indicating that the sales tax revenue per person has in-creased in purchasing power. Riverside County’s per capita sales rose $3,389 or a much slower 31.3% in this period (Exhibit 66). As a result, the city’s per capita retail sales of $24,099 were $9,879 or 69.5% more than Riverside County’s $14,220. Note: In 2007, the city’s sales per person fell –1.8%; sales per capita in the county as a whole fell -4.7%.

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007e

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

$24,000

$26,000

Riverside County Corona


Exhibit 66.-Taxable Sales Per CapitaCorona & Riverside County, 1990-2007e



$35,804$32,885

$32,128$31,486

$26,114$24,134$24,099

$22,695$22,216

$20,163$20,077

$16,842$16,558

$15,477$14,843

$13,984$13,332

$13,013$11,539

$6,904$6,478

Costa MesaMontclair

OntarioPalm Desert

TemeculaIrvine

CoronaOrangeNorco

VictorvilleChino

AnaheimRiverside

Lake ElsinoreSan BernardinoR. Cucamonga

UplandFontanaMurrieta

Moreno ValleyChino Hills


Exhibit 67.-Taxable Sales Per CapitaCorona and Major & Nearby Retail Centers, 2007e

Taxable Retail Sales Per Capita . . . Given the importance of retail sales to city finances, sales per capita are a key measure of a municipality’s abil-

ity to provide services to its population. They give an estimate of the purchasing power per resident that this tax supplies to a city. Among the 48 Inland Empire cities, Corona’s per capita retail sales of $24,099 in 2007 ranked eighth highest. Among major and nearby cities, the city’s per capita sales ranked fifth after Montclair ($32,885), Ontario ($32,128), Palm Desert ($31,486) and Temecula ($26,114). It was ahead of Norco ($22,216), Victorville ($20,163) and Chino ($20,077) and Riverside ($16,558) (Exhibit 67).

Compared to the major Orange County cities, Corona’s per capita sales were below Costa Mesa ($35,804) and just under Irvine ($24,134) but above Orange ($22,695) and Anaheim ($16,842).

From 2000-2007, Corona’s per capita sales have increased by 77.2% to $24,099, the greatest increase among major inland cities. Neighboring Riverside had a 32.4% gain. Among nearby cities, the largest gains were in Fontana (61.8%), Rancho Cucamonga (52.8%), Ontario (50.8%) and Upland (51.7%) (Exhibit 68).

Exhibit 68.-Sales Per Capita, Inland Empire Cities Over 100,000 People, 1990-2007e Year Ontario Temecula Corona Riverside San Bdno Chino R. Cucamonga Upland Fontana

1990 $9,383 $0 $10,110 $9,799 $11,353 $8,383 $4,616 $8,500 $6,703

1991 $9,831 $14,457 $8,973 $8,748 $10,540 $7,920 $4,939 $7,948 $6,445

1992 $10,655 $15,592 $8,622 $8,600 $9,857 $7,900 $5,213 $7,507 $6,501

1993 $10,553 $15,059 $8,787 $8,505 $9,325 $8,056 $5,618 $7,370 $6,209

1994 $11,893 $14,879 $9,538 $8,907 $9,612 $9,619 $6,030 $7,492 $6,346

1995 $12,000 $15,243 $10,090 $8,928 $9,714 $11,427 $6,669 $7,593 $6,692

1996 $12,973 $16,765 $10,427 $9,344 $9,917 $11,615 $7,069 $7,966 $6,833

1997 $15,351 $17,488 $10,832 $9,691 $10,056 $12,520 $7,629 $7,735 $6,342

1998 $16,828 $18,364 $11,125 $10,481 $10,719 $12,983 $8,219 $7,675 $6,977

1999 $18,595 $20,547 $12,347 $11,540 $11,931 $15,980 $8,963 $8,322 $7,438

2000 $21,305 $23,620 $13,600 $12,502 $13,077 $20,890 $9,154 $8,788 $8,044

2001 $22,417 $24,056 $15,557 $12,845 $13,246 $17,273 $9,144 $9,349 $8,282

2002 $22,161 $24,948 $16,017 $13,427 $13,971 $18,373 $9,228 $9,682 $8,776

2003 $23,857 $27,840 $17,390 $14,306 $14,843 $20,236 $9,502 $9,860 $9,557

2004 $27,155 $30,228 $20,202 $16,297 $16,158 $21,447 $11,214 $10,449 $10,468

2005 $31,148 $29,907 $23,172 $17,279 $16,940 $22,342 $13,530 $12,021 $12,035

2006 $33,044 $28,128 $24,550 $17,408 $16,220 $21,973 $14,156 $13,478 $12,323

2007 $32,128 $26,114 $24,099 $16,558 $14,843 $20,077 $13,984 $13,332 $13,013

% Change 50.8% 10.6% 77.2% 32.4% 13.5% -3.9% 52.8% 51.7% 61.8%

Source: CA Board of Equalization; CA Department of Finance



Exhibit 69.-Taxable Sales By Retail Sector Corona, 1997-2007

Sector 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2000-7

Apparel $26,217 $27,055 $21,690 $19,187 $17,292 $14,678 $43,417 $53,671 $64,817 $81,190 $113,199 $94,012

Gen. Merch. $129,619 $140,824 $156,646 $187,257 $237,336 $268,648 $298,639 $336,096 $364,569 $377,648 $367,896 $180,639

Food Stores $54,544 $55,008 $61,914 $64,688 $64,958 $64,895 $70,489 $70,490 $78,659 $84,516 $84,899 $20,211

Eat & Drink $87,610 $97,517 $108,175 $120,627 $127,558 $133,680 $149,354 $180,624 $212,455 $228,546 $226,398 $105,771

Furniture $40,693 $40,636 $44,035 $48,176 $53,444 $60,206 $73,730 $104,503 $106,604 $86,219 $81,362 $33,186

Bldg Mtrl. $120,285 $129,313 $155,176 $181,340 $212,130 $231,478 $258,936 $335,229 $343,670 $357,056 $300,685 $119,345

Automotive $183,526 $202,052 $221,264 $233,599 $264,519 $313,956 $342,674 $397,718 $426,696 $369,623 $389,121 $155,522

Gas Station $89,795 $78,312 $104,480 $122,186 $121,112 $125,204 $146,437 $181,681 $259,851 $301,831 $304,222 $182,036

Other Retail $92,289 $96,271 $108,502 $120,637 $181,308 $172,699 $197,240 $236,922 $253,806 $272,805 $268,847 $148,210

Total Retail $824,578 $866,988 $981,882 $1,097,697 $1,279,657 $1,385,444 $1,580,916 $1,896,934 $2,111,127 $2,159,434 $2,136,629 $1,038,932

Non-Retail $356,102 $416,300 $521,187 $634,060 $776,113 $801,309 $873,551 $1,014,537 $1,244,949 $1,417,266 $1,400,836 $766,776

Total $1,180,680 $1,283,288 $1,503,069 $1,731,757 $2,055,770 $2,186,753 $2,454,467 $2,911,471 $3,356,076 $3,576,700 $3,537,466 $1,805,709

Source: CA Board of Equalization, 2007 estimates by Economics & Politics, Inc. based upon sixth month of sector level data

Retail Sales By Sector . . . Corona’s retail sales more than doubled from $1.7 billion in 2000 to $3.5 billion in 2007, up $1.8 billion

(104.3%) (Exhibits 69 & 70). In this period, prices were up 26.7% indicating a substantial growth in the under-lying physical volume of trade. This occurred despite the -$39 million, -1.1% decline from 2006-2007.

Non-retail outlets accounted for $767 million or 42.5% of Corona’s $1.8 billion gain in retail sales from 2000-2007 (Exhibit 70). These include retail sales by professionals & service firms, construction contractors, and in-dustrial & distribution firms selling directly to the public. The sector is growing because of the city’s success in drawing manufacturers, distributors and contractors that sell taxable goods directly to the public.

Oddly, the second greatest share of the increase was $182 million (10.2% share) from service stations. This was before the gasoline price increases. Ranked third was the gain in general merchandise sales, up $239.0 million or 10.0% of the city’s growth. The Crossings project is now fully completed and the Dos Lagos high-end retail development is now open. However, from 2006-2007, sales were down $9.8 million due to the se-vere difficulties that have emerged in the housing sector.

The automotive group gained $156 million or just a 8.6% share of the 2000-2007 gain due to a decline of $38 million in sales when they went from $426 million in 2005 to $389 million in 2007.

$20,211 $33,186$94,012 $105,771 $119,345

$148,210 $155,522 $180,639 $182,036

$766,776

Food Stores Furniture Apparel Eat & Drink Bld. Material Other Retail Automotive Gen. Merch. Serv. Sta. Non-Retail


Exhibit 70.-Taxable Sales Growth By Sector (000)Corona, 2000-2007e

Taxable sales rose $1.81 biillionfrom 2000-2007

Sales up 104.3% Prices Up 26.7%



Non-Retail$634,060

36.6%

Vehicle$233,599

13.5%

General Merchandise$187,257

10.8%

Building Materials$181,340

10.5%

Service Stations$122,186

7.1%

Other Retail$120,637

7.0%

Eating & Drinking$120,627

7.0%Food Stores

$64,6883.7%

Furniture & Appliances$48,176

2.8%Apparel$19,187

1.1%


Exhibit 71.-Taxable Sales, By SectorCorona - 2000

Share of Retail Sales . . . Then (2000) & Now (2007) of volume in Corona’s non-retail outlets caused the sector group to grow from a l

$634 million) to 39.6% ($1.4 billion) in 2007. As indicated, the ail trade growth from 2000-2007.

In 2000, new & used automobile dealers and automotive parts was the second largest retail orona’s sales ($234 million). By 2007, the group’s activity had fallen to 11.0%

he interim, it supplied only 8.6% of the sales growth (Exhibits 71-72).

2000-2007, general merchandise stores ranked third in Corona’s retail sales though 10.8% ($187 million) to 10.4% ($368 million). Service stations added share goiail volume in 2000 ($122 million) to 8.6% in 2007 ($304 million). That group passed t

r which fell from fourth largest ($181 million; 10.5%) to fifth largest ($301 million; 8.5%

The growth eading 36.6% of sales in 2000 ( sector accounted for 42.4% of the city’s ret

sector accounting for 13.5% of C of sales ($389 million). In t

From their share fell slightly from ng from 7.1% of the city’s ret he building materials secto ).

Non-Retail$1,400,836

39.6%

Vehicle$389,121

11.0%

General Merchandise$367,896

10.4%

Service Stations$304,222

8.6%

Building Materials$300,685

8.5%

Other Retail$268,847

7.6%

Eating & Drinking$226,398

6.4%Apparel

$113,1993.2%

Food Stores$84,899

2.4%Furniture & Appliances

$81,3622.3%


Exhibit 72.-Taxable Sales, By SectorCorona - 2007e



Exhibit 73.-Average Taxable Sales Per Outlet, By Sector Corona, San Bernardino & Riverside Counties, 2007e

Corona San Bernardino County Riverside County

Sector Per Outlet Per Outlet Corona less Co. Per Outlet Corona less Co.

Apparel $529,722 $382,208 $147,514 $494,493 35,228

General Merchandise $4,360,160 $2,606,044 1,754,117 $4,010,810 349,351

Food Stores $1,130,659 $1,284,865 (154,206) $1,418,415 (287,756)

Eating & Drinking $659,351 $610,127 49,224 $612,937 46,415

Furniture & Appliances $452,907 $532,643 (79,736) $474,815 (21,908)

Building Materials $4,234,994 $3,137,830 1,097,165 $3,287,249 947,745

Auto Dealers & Supplies $1,872,225 $1,591,323 280,902 $2,050,353 (178,128)

Service Stations $7,491,354 $5,288,832 2,202,522 $5,267,983 2,223,371

Other Retail $378,950 $368,057 10,893 $334,460 44,490

Total Retail $1,109,897 $882,916 $226,981 $921,583 $188,314

Non-Retail $752,148 $391,436 360,712 $233,235 518,913

Total All Outlets $933,980 $642,337 $291,643 $647,450 $286,531

Source: CA Board of Equalization, Economic & Politics, Inc.

Average Retail Sales Per Outlet . . .

In 2007, Corona’s sales per outlet exceeded Riverside County’s average in 7 of 10 sectors (Exhibit 73). Though the city has historically had gaps in apparel and general merchandise sales vis-à-vis the county, these have been closed with the expansion of retail centers in the city.

Corona’s service stations exceeded the average sales for Riverside County by the widest margin: $2,223,371. The second largest advantage among Corona’s retail groups was among building materials stores which aver-aged $947,745 in sales more than the average for the county. The third widest per store sales margins were re-corded by Corona’s non-retail, non-store firms with sales that averaged $518,913 more than the among average Riverside County’s outlets.

Corona’s 2007 sales per in-store retail outlet averaged $1.11 million. This exceeded Riverside County ($921,583) by 20.4% and San Bernardino County ($882,916) by 25.7% (Exhibit 74). Including non-store out-lets the average of $933,980 in Corona far exceeded Riverside ($647,450) and San Bernardino ($642,337) counties.



$933,980

$642,337 647,450

$1,109,897

82,916$921,5

$

$883

Corona San Bernardino Co. Riverside Co.

Retail Outlets

All Outlets


Exhibit 74.-Total Taxable Sales Per OutletCorona & San Bernardino-Riverside Counties, 2007e

Exhibit 75.-Taxable Sales Per Capita By Sector (income adjusted) Corona and Riverside & San Bernardino Counties, 2007e

Corona San Bernardino County1 Riverside County1

Sector Sales Per Capita Sales Per Capita Corona-Co. Sales Per Capita Corona-Co. Apparel $771 $680 $91 $764 $7

General Merchandise 2,506 2,322 185 2,411 95

Food Stores 578 929 (351) 901 (323)

Eating & Drinking 1,542 1,576 (33) 1,585 (43)

Furniture & Appliances 554 560 (6) 559 (5)

Building Materials & Farm 2,048 1,331 718 1,389 659

Auto Dealers & Supplies 2,651 2,292 359 2,220 431

Service Stations 2,073 2,123 (50) 1,778 294

Other Retail 1,832 2,578 (747) 2,209 (377)

Total Retail $14,556 $14,391 $165 $13,817 $739

Non-Retail 9,543 6,118 3,425 5,361 4,182

Total All Outlets $24,099 $20,509 $3,590 $19,178 $4,922

Note: Riv. Co. changed by +34.9% & San Bdno. Co. data changed +36.3% for amount their median incomes different than Corona

Source: CA Board of Equalization, Economics & Politics, Inc.

Retail Sales Gap By Sector . . . Corona’s 2007 per capita taxable sales of $24,099 was above Riverside County ($19,178) and San Bernardino

County ($20,509) after the latter were adjusted upward for their lower median income levels compared to the city (Exhibit 75).

Upward adjustments to the Riverside County (34.9%) and San Bernardino County (36.3%) per capita sales data were made in order to allow for the fact that Corona’s median family income, and thus resident purchasing power, was that much higher than for the two counties. After these adjustments, in sectors where city per cap-ita sales exceeded county sales, the city is gaining retail sales taxes from surrounding jurisdictions. The reverse is also true.

Corona’s per capita sales advantages were in non-retail outlets ($4,182) due to its many manufacturers and dis-tributors, building material sales ($659) due its negotiated relationship with a major building materials supplier, and automotive ($431). The largest disadvantages existed in other retail (-$377) and food (-$323). Generally, the city has been closing these gaps. Thus, general merchandise ($95) and apparel ($7) used to be sectors with



serious leakages. No longer. With the opening of centers like The Crossings and Dos Lagos, spending in these sectors is being retained in the city as well as a small in-flow from nearby cities (Exhibit 76).

$4,182

$659 $431 $294 $95 $7($5) ($43)

($323) ($377)

Non-R

etail

Buildi

ng M

ateria

ls

Autom

otive

Servic

e Stat

ions

Genera

l Mer

chan

dis

Appare

l

Furnit

ure

Eating

& D

rinki

ng

Food S

tores

Other

Retail

Note: Riverside Co. data changed 34.9% for amount its median income is different than CoronaSources: CA Board of Equalization, CA Department of Finance, Economics & Politics, Inc.

Exhibit 76.-Retail Sales Gap By SectorCorona Per Capita Sales (less) Adjusted Riverside Co., 2007e

Industrial Real Estate

Section 6 Corona Page 47

CORONA SECTION 6

INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE Corona has had one of the Inland Empire’s strongest industrial real estate markets. This has been true since the mid-1980’s when Orange County began running out of industrial sites. At that time, developers came to the city because of its supply of flat, industrial zoned vacant land along the SR-91 and I-15 freeways. They also liked the access it provides to LA-Ontario Inter-national Airport. Today, Corona is the hub of an important manufacturing economy. However, its 26.2 million square feet (sq. ft.) of industrial space has nearly exhausted its available land. The city’s future industrial expansion must largely come from redevelopment of older, underuti-lized areas.

Location Advantages. Industrial firms have been coming to Corona, in part, because of its lo-cation next to Orange County. Also, the city offers modern facilities at reasonable lease rates and its labor costs are competitive. Firms located in the city have uncongested access to trans-portation centers including LA-Ontario International Airport (ONT) with its huge UPS hub and direct flights to China. Soon, UPS will handle DHL’s air cargo at the airport. Also, a new air cargo cross-dock to handle international carriers has now been authorized. In 2008, ONT will handle 530,00 tons of air cargo with volume forecasted at 2.6 million tons by 2030 (Exhibits 89-90).

Inland from Corona, the city’s manufacturers are close to Yellow Freight Lines cross-docking hubs in Bloomington and San Bernardino and FedEx Ground’s hub in Rialto. These are sites where cargo is trans-loaded from local to interstate trucks. In addition, Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) has a huge intermodal rail yard in San Bernardino where over 550,000 containers a year were moved between trucks and trains in 2005-2007. In addition, BNSF has recently built a trans-loading facility in Fontana to move non-containerized cargo between trucks and trains. Meanwhile, manufacturers located in Corona have access to the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor brine line to take their non-toxic wastewater to the ocean.

Along with these location factors, firms considering Corona find a community with policies and procedures designed to increase the efficiency with which businesses interact with the municipal government. Their success is seen by the fact that successful firms, like Fender Guitar and Wat-son Pharmaceauticals, have elected to remain in Corona and others like Robertsons Ready Mix have chosen to transfer their headquarters to the city.

Market Conditions. From late 2004 through early 2008, a rough average of 20 million square feet (sq. ft.) of industrial space has been absorbed in the Inland Empire over any running 4-quarter period (Exhibit 77). Absorption is actually down from the 48 million sq. ft. of 2001 since construction did not keep up with the demand for space and vacancies fell to just 3.0% from 2003-2006. Of late however, the rate moved up to 7.9% in second quarter 2008 as construction has recently switched to outpacing demand (Exhibit 83). New space has largely been built east of the I-15 freeway as the area in and around Corona is running out of industrial sites. Thus in June 2008, just 2.3 million sq. ft. or 12.6% of the inland area’s 18.4 million sq. ft. of construction was along the western edges of the inland counties, including Corona. This was down from



63.6% as recently as 2001 (Exhibit 87). Similarly, just 26.9% of industrial space absorbed from 2006-2008 was in this market versus 75.0% from 1995-2001 (Exhibit 84).

With the falling value of the dollar, American exports have suddenly become a bargain to the rest of the world. Export volume is thus up at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, grow-ing by 366,000 twenty foot equivalent container units (teus) in 2007, a record for at least the past decade (Exhibit 88). This could be very helpful to Corona since its industrial space is largely devoted to manufacturers who now have new potential markets. This is in contrast to the typical inland city where most industrial space is composed of warehouses oriented towards processing imports entering via the two ports. That volume dropped –7.3% in 2007-2008. The fall in the value of the dollar is thus offering Corona a new export based economic strategy via the ports and ONT.

Corona’s Industrial Space. Grubb & Ellis shows Corona with 26.2 million sq. ft. of industrial space in June 2008, (25.7 million complete; 417,000 under construction) or 6.1% of the inland market’s 430.2 million sq. ft. (Exhibit 78). The city’s share was just less than San Bernardino (27.3 million sq. ft.) and above Moreno Valley/Perris (21.2 million sq. ft.). The configuration of Corona’s space is unusual in that it is oriented to manufacturing, not distribution. When current construction is completed, medium sized facilities (25,000-99,999 sq. ft.) used by manufacturers and smaller distributors will be 42.7% of its space. Smaller spaces (5,000-24,999 sq. ft.) will be 25.2% of its space. It is often purchased and tends to accommodate smaller manufacturers, en-trepreneurs and some office operations. The large buildings (100,000- 350,000 sq. ft. & up) pri-marily used by national distributors will only be 32.2% of the city’s industrial space (Exhibit 79).

In June 2008, Corona had 2.4 million square feet of space either vacant, becoming available or under construction but not leased. Only two major inland markets had less available space: Rancho Cucamonga (2.4 million sq. ft.) and Chino (2.1 million sq. ft.). (Exhibit 80). The city’s 9.3% space availability rate equaled Ontario and was well below the inland region’s average of 13.4%. Among major markets, only Rancho Cucamonga (6.6%) and Chino (5.4%) were below it. Looking only at vacant completed space, Corona’s vacancy rate was 4.8%. Again, the only major markets below it were Rancho Cucamonga (3.9%) and Chino (2.8%) (Exhibits 81-82).

Pricing. In March 2008, the asking rate for Corona’s industrial space averaged $0.50 a square foot per month (nnn) or $2,408,000 a year for 400,000 square feet. This was the same as in Los Angeles County’s least expensive location in and near the City of Industry. In Orange County, the cheapest market was $0.63 per square foot/month in the western area ($3,024,000) (Exhibit 85). With ONT near Corona, it should be noted that space with access to a major airport varied from $0.75 per square foot/month in Orange County ($3,600,000) to $0.68 in Los Angeles County’s South Bay ($3,264,000).

Note: The fact that 400,000 square feet of space in Corona near ONT would average $2.41 mil-lion vs. $3.60 million near John Wayne Airport ($1.19 million savings) or $3.26 million near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) ($856,000 savings) can have important budgetary consid-erations for firms dependent on air cargo. If a company had a 5% return on sales, it would need $23.8 million in extra revenue to pay for the John Wayne Airport location and $17.1 million to cover the extra cost of the LAX location.

Corona’s asking rate of $0.50 per sq. ft./month was third highest in the Inland Empire (Exhibit 86). Its lease rate was below SW Riverside County ($0.63 sq. ft./mo.) and Chino ($0.51 sq. ft./mo.) but more expensive than Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga ($0.46 sq. ft./mo.). The least



expensive inland space was in Perris/Moreno Valley ($0.40 sq. ft./mo.), Riverside ($0.39 sq. ft./mo.) and San Bernardino ($0.38 sq. ft./mo.).


1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

7,500,000

12,500,000

17,500,000

22,500,000

27,500,000

32,500,000

37,500,000

42,500,000

47,500,000

Source: Grubb & Ellis & Economics & Politics, Inc.

Exhibit 77.-Industrial Space Gross AbsorptionInland Empire, 1991-2008 (moving 4-quarter total)

Total Industrial Absorption & Space Available . . . The Inland Empire industrial real estate market, of which Corona is a part, is among the strongest in the United

States. Industrial space absorption soared from 1998 to 2001, reaching an annualized level of 48 million square feet. It slowed in 2002-2004 due to difficulties in manufacturing plus a low vacancy rate that reduced the area’s ability to accommodate distributors faced with handling a growing volume of imported goods. From late 2004 to early 2008, space absorption remained stable at roughly 20 million square feet, as construction and absorption were nearly equal (Exhibit 77; with each point showing the space absorbed in the 4-quarters ended at that time to smooth out fluctuations.)

Altogether, the Inland Empire’s industrial market in which Corona competes had a total of 430.2 million sq. ft. of space in existence or under construction as of June 2008. Of this, 26.1 million sq. ft. were located in Corona (6.1%). This includes sites with over 5,000 square feet (Exhibit 78). The city’s share of the industrial inven-tory was just less than San Bernardino (27.3 million sq. ft.) and above Moreno Valley/Perris (21.2 million sq. ft.).

97,006,171

42,367,212

39,180,337

37,590,190

36,621,101

33,516,486

27,330,770

26,189,281

21,229,866

17,649,210

17,140,064

10,469,963

7,664,038

7,343,377

4,712,547

2,977,395

1,218,778

Ontario

Fontana

Chino/Chino Hills

Riverside

RanchoCucamonga

Mira Loma

San Bernardino/Loma Linda

Corona

Moreno Valley/Perris

Redlands

Rialto/Colton

Temecula

Victor Valley

Montclair/Upland

East

Murrieta

Lake Elsinore/WildomarSource: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 78.-Industrial Space, Existing or Under ConstructionInland Empire, June 2008, By Market

Total Industrial Space430.2 million square feet




Exhibit 79.-Industrial Sites: Existing, Under Construction, Available Corona, By Size Range, June 2008

Size Range Existing Construction Total Share Available Percent

5,000-9,999 1,708,932 0 1,708,932 6.5% 94,257 5.5%

10,000-24,999 4,837,251 28,473 4,865,724 18.6% 183,103 3.8%

25,000-49,999 4,634,181 66,836 4,701,017 18.0% 240,705 5.1%

50,000-74,999 4,184,441 0 4,184,441 16.0% 208,139 5.0%

75,000-99,999 2,250,107 0 2,250,107 8.6% 166,619 7.4%

100,000-149,999 2,718,993 0 2,718,993 10.4% 305,100 11.2%

150,000-249,999 3,958,364 0 3,958,364 15.2% 892,885 22.6%

250,000-349,999 594,337 321,700 916,037 3.5% 321,700 35.1%

350,000 Plus 805,556 0 805,556 3.1% 0 0.0%

Total 25,692,162 417,009 26,109,171 100.0% 2,412,508 9.2%

Source: Grubb & Ellis

Industrial Space Available, June 2008 . . . Corona’s location at the intersection of Route 91 and the I-15 freeway and adjacent to Orange County, plus the

importance of nearby LA-Ontario International Airport have made it a key location for industrial firms. In June 2008, Grubb & Ellis estimated that Corona’s 26.1 million square feet of space included 25.9 million that was completed and 417,009 being built (Exhibit 79). The configuration of this space is unusual for the Inland Em-pire in that it does not stress large distribution facilities. Rather, it is manufacturing oriented. When construc-tion is completed, medium sized facilities used by manufacturers and smaller distributors will be 42.7% of the space, including: 25,000-49,999 sq. ft. (18.0%), 50,000-74,999 sq. ft. (16.0%), and 75,000-99,999 sq. ft. (8.6%).

Also smaller spaces that are often purchased and usually accommodate smaller manufacturers, entrepreneurs and some office operations will be 25.2% of the city’s industrial buildings, including: 10,000-24,999 sq. ft. (18.6%) and 5,000-9,999 sq. ft. (6.5%). The large buildings used primarily by national distributors will account for just 32.2% of the city’s industrial space, including: 150,000-249,999 sq. ft. category (15.2%), 100,000 to 149,999 sq. ft. (10.4%), 250,000-349,999 sq. ft. (3.5%) and 350,000 & up square feet sq. ft. (3.1%).

The availability of space is important to a city as it allows it to accommodate new firms. In June 2008, Corona (2.4 million sq .ft.) had a relatively low amount of industrial space that was either vacant, becoming available or under construction but not leased (Exhibit 80). Only two major inland markets had less available space: Ran-cho Cucamonga (2.4 million sq. ft.) and Chino (2.1 million sq. ft.).


9,022,9657,509,696

7,385,1226,250,538

4,774,1964,726,047

4,379,1053,436,784

2,444,5522,424,645

2,113,9101,754,912

909,056249,715199,561129,192100,543

00

OntarioSan Bernardino/Loma Linda

RiversideFontana

Rialto/ColtonRedlands

Moreno Valley/PerrisMira Loma

CoronaRanchoCucamongaChino/Chino Hills

EastVictor Valley

TemeculaMurrieta

Lake Elsinore/WildomarMontclair/Upland

Victor ValleyEast


Exhibit 80.-Available Industrial Space: Existing & Under ConstructionInland Empire, By Market, June 2008

Total Industrial Space57.8 million square feet

37.2%

27.9%27.5%

26.8%20.6%

19.6%14.8%

13.4%11.9%

10.6%10.3%

9.3%9.3%

6.7%6.6%

5.4%2.4%

1.4%

East

Rialto/Colton


Redlands


Riverside

Fontana

Inland Empire

Victor Valley

Lake Elsinore/Wildomar

Mira Loma

Corona

Ontario

Murrieta

RanchoCucamonga

Chino/Chino Hills

Temecula

Montclair/UplandSource: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 81.-Availability Rate, Existing or Under ConstructionInland Empire, By Market, June 2008

Industrial Vacancy Rate, June 2008 . . .

For Corona, the long term difficulty within the industrial market will be the fact that its available industrially zoned land is essentially saturated. As a result, most new sites must be made available through the redevelop-ment of existing in-fill parcels. However, the city appears to still have space available in the mid-sized build-ings needed by manufacturers and specialized logistics operations. The latter is important given its role as a major alternative for Orange County’s manufacturers looking for an inland location to save on space and labor costs.

In June 2008, the share of Corona’s industrial space that was available was 9.3%. This included facilities that were vacant, leased but becoming available, or under construction and not leased. The market was well below the Inland Empire’s average (13.4%). Among major markets, only Rancho Cucamonga (6.6%) and Chino-Chino Hills (5.4%) had tighter markets (Exhibit 81). Looking at just existing vacant space, Corona’s rate was 4.8%, equal to Ontario and well below the Inland Empire’s 7.9% (Exhibit 82). The same two major markets were below the city: Rancho Cucamonga (3.9%), Chino-Chino Hills (2.8%).



21.9%

19.8%16.1%

15.8%14.0%

9.6%9.5%

9.2%7.9%

4.8%4.8%

4.6%4.5%

3.9%3.0%

2.8%1.3%

1.0%


Redlands

Rialto/Colton


Riverside

Fontana


Victor Valley

Inland Empire

Corona

Ontario

Murrieta

East

RanchoCucamonga

Mira Loma

Chino/Chino Hills

Temecula

Montclair/UplandSource: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 82.-Vacancy Rate, Completed FacilitiesInland Empire, By Market, June 2008

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0%2%

4%

6%

8%10%

12%

14%

16%18%

20%

22%

24%26%


Exhibit 83.-Industrial Space Availability RateInland Empire, 1991-2008

Inland Empire Market . . . In 1991, the Inland Empire’s industrial space vacancy rate was 24%. Once the early 1990s recession ended, a

large number of firms moved to the inland region due to its newer space and lower costs. The vacancy rate plunged into the 7%-10% range until 2003. Vacancy rates then bounced off lows as far down as 2.7% until early 2006. Recently, industrial construction has outpaced net absorption and the vacancy level has moved up to 7.9%, highest since early 2003 (Exhibit 83). A slowdown in U.S. imports at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is likely playing a role in the vacancy rate increase as demand is being suppressed (see Exhibit 88).

Location of Industrial Absorption Changing . . . A key fact showing the transition of Corona’s economy from one specializing in blue collar job growth to one

concerned with office development and higher-end jobs is the migration of industrial absorption east of the I-15 freeway. From June 2006-2008, occupied space along the Inland Empire’s western edge, including Corona, was up 13.8 million sq. ft. That was 26.9% of the inland area’s 51.4 million sq. ft. growth (Exhibit 84). That contrasts with this area’s 75.0% share from 1995-2001. With 73.1% of the Inland Empire’s new industrial oc-



cupancy now locating deeper inland, Corona and cities north of it along the I-15 are clearly going through the historic transition that occurs when an area begins running out of vacant industrial property and begins to spe-cialize in office development for its economic growth.

21,490,525 (41.8%)

14,528,215 (28.3%) 13,807,769 (26.9%)

915,360 (1.8%) 645,079 (1.3%)

East Valley March JPA Westend SW Riverside Co. High Desert

Source: Economics & Politics Inc. using Grubb & Ellis data

Exhibit 84.-Location of Changes In Industrial OccupancyInland Empire Sub-Markets, June 2006-June 2008 (Sq. Ft.)

$0.93

$0.88

$0.82

$0.75

$0.74

$0.70

$0.68

$0.67

$0.65

$0.63

$0.60

$0.60

$0.50

0.50

$0.43

Orange-South

San Diego-Carlsbad

San Diego-Escondido

Orange-Airport

San Diego-San Marcos

San Diego-Vista

L.A. - South Bay

L.A. - North

Orange-North

Orange-West

L.A. - Mid Cities

San Gabriel Vly

LA-Central

Corona

Inland Empirennn=net of taxes, insurance, common area fees


Exhibit 85.-Industrial Space CostsSouthern California, Sub-Markets, 400,000 SF, March 2008

Industrial Lease Rates (NNN) . . . In March 2008, Grubb & Ellis reports that the asking rate for Corona’s industrial space averaged $0.50 a square

foot per month (nnn) or $2,408,000 a year for 400,000 square feet. This was the same as in Los Angeles County’s least expensive location around City of Industry. In Orange County, the cheapest market was $0.63 per square foot/month in the western area ($3,024,000) (Exhibit 85). With ONT near Corona, it should be noted that space with access to a major airport varied from $0.75 per square foot/month in Orange County ($3,600,000) to $0.68 in Los Angeles County’s South Bay ($3,264,000).

In March 2008, Corona’s asking rate of $0.50 per sq. ft./month was third highest in the Inland Empire (Exhibit 86). Space cost was below SW Riverside County ($0.63 sq. ft./mo.) and Chino ($0.51 sq. ft./mo.) but more ex-pensive than Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga ($0.46 sq. ft./mo.). The least expensive inland space was in Per-ris/Moreno Valley ($0.40 sq. ft./mo.), Riverside ($0.39 sq. ft./mo.) and San Bernardino ($0.38 sq. ft./mo.).

In addition to competitive space costs, Corona location offers manufacturers a wide array of logistical advan-tages. It is near Orange County on the SR-91 freeway and at the junction with the I-15. It is close to Ontario



International Airport with its UPS/DHL hub. It is close to the hubs of several major “Less Than Load” trucking firms. It is traversed by the lines of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads and is reasonably near BNSF’s intermodal yard in San Bernardino. The city also has its own general aviation airport.

$0.63

$0.51

$0.50

$0.46

$0.46

$0.43

$0.43

$0.43

$0.40

$0.39

$0.38

SW Riv. Co.

Chino

Corona

Ontario

Rancho Cucamonga

Fontana

Colton & Rialto

Inland Empire

Perris/Moreno Vly

Riverside

Redlands-San Bernardino Source: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 86.-Industrial Space Costs, Sq. Ft./MonthInland Empire, Sub-Markets, March 2008

March JPA Area8,424,533

45.8%

SB East Valley7,580,54341.2%

Westend2,319,59312.6%

SW Riv. Co.42,9640.2%

SCLA Area30,4400.2%

Source: Economics & Politics Inc. using Grubb & Ellis data

Exhibit 87.-Industrial ConstructionInland Empire Sub-Markets, June 2008 (Sq. Ft.)

Industrial Construction In June 2008, 18.4 million square feet of industrial space was under construction in the Inland Empire. The

largest share (8.4 million square feet, 45.8%) was on the I-215 freeway around March Air Reserve Base. Next was along the I-10 freeway from Fontana to Redlands (7.6 million square feet, 41.2%). Third was along the western edge of the two counties from San Bernardino County’s Westend to Corona (2.3 million square feet, 12.6%). Small amounts were in Southwest Riverside County (42,964 square feet, 0.2%) and the High Desert (30,440, 0.2%) (Exhibit 87). Interestingly, the western area was 63.6% of the market as recently as 2001.

International Export Trade: A Potential Corona Industrial Driver

With the falling value of the dollar, American exports have suddenly become a bargain to the rest of the world. As a result, export volume through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach grew by 366,000 twenty foot equivalent container units (teus) in 2007, a record for at least the past decade (Exhibit 88). This is potentially



helpful to Corona since its industrial space is largely devoted to manufacturers who now have new potential markets. This is in contrast to most inland cities where industrial space is comprised of warehouses oriented towards processing imports entering the two ports. That volume has dropped –7.3% in 2007-2008. The fall in the value of the dollar thus offers Corona a new export based economic strategy via the ports and ONT.

(220)

1 178

32

(51)

16397

245 199 366

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), collected from Vessel

Exhibit 88 .-Growth of Exported ContainersPorts of Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1998-2007 (000)

272,

638

282,

558

306,

973

353,

302

379,

911

386,

953

437,

139

461,

747

454,

238

488,

774

510,

721

462,

006

547,

461

571,

892

605,

211

576,

791

545,

483

532,

865

530,

090

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008e

Based On Jan-May 2008Source: Ontario International Airport

Exhibit 89.-Air Cargo TonnageLA-Ontario International Airport, 1990-2008e

LA-Ontario International Airport’s Air Cargo Operations . . .

LA-Ontario International Airport (ONT) with its UPS international air cargo hub offers a competitive advantage to Corona due to the connections in provides to the rest of the U.S. and Asia, especially with export trade now a greater possibility. However, air cargo tonnage through the facility has slowed since its 2004 peak of 605,211 tons. In 2008, volume is running at a 530,090 annual rate, off –12.4% from its record level (Exhibit 89).

With Los Angeles International Airport’s (LAX) air cargo volume at 2.09 million tons in 2007, that facility re-mains near its forecasted capacity of 2.34 million tons. As a result, ONT has been slated by Los Angeles World Airports, the owner of LAX and ONT, to expand to become Southern California’s next major air cargo hub. By 2030, it is forecasted that ONT will handle 2.25 million tons of air cargo and be larger than LAX is today (Exhibit 90). Note that in 2007, ONT handled 533 million tons and was at just 23.7% of its capacity.

Two major changes have recently affected ONT. To facilitate the migration of air cargo to ONT, LAWA has authorized construction of a major cross-docking facility at the airport. This will make it possible for air cargo



firms to more easily transfer to the facility. Meanwhile, DHL recently announced plans to shutdown its opera-tions at March Air Reserve Base and has contracted with UPS to handle their volume via ONT.

43 87 128 137

504

1,024 1,092 1,117

2,2522,340

JWA BUR PSP LGB SCLA PMD SBD MAR ONT LAX

Source: SCAG 2004 Regional Transportation Plan

Exhibit 90,-Air Cargo Tonnage For SCAG Area Airports2030 Constrained Demand (1,000s tons)

2007:2,07888.8%

2007:533

23.7%


Commercial Office Market


CORONA SECTION 7

OFFICE MARKET Corona is a major player in the Inland Empire’s office market. In the past few years, that market has been reacting to major forces impacting the demand for its office space. Prior to 2003, the market was relatively dormant. That year, the area’s large and growing population and economy began causing firms to migrate inland as it was becoming difficult to serve the market from the coastal counties. Net office absorption reached nearly 1.2 million sq. ft. in 2003, then paused due to lack of available space in 2004, and shot up to nearly 2 million sq. ft. in 2006 (Exhibit 92). The 2005-2006 phase was partly because the inland area handled 54% of Southern California’s new home market in 2006 and firms began migrating inland, many to Corona, to serve the resi-dential sector (Exhibit 102). The recent steep decline of the housing market, plus the resulting slowdown in population and economic growth, caused the office sector’s absorption to decline dramatically in 2007 and 2008 at the same time that several new office projects were completed.

Paralleling these trends, the Inland Empire’s vacancy rate, which was 25.6% in 1991, plunged to a plateau at roughly 7.0% from 2005 to early 2007, third lowest in the U.S. This occurred de-spite aggressive office development in this period. With the end of the last housing cycle, the decline in the demand for space by housing related firms in 2007-2008, plus the completion of several new projects caused vacancies to reach 17.5% in second quarter 2008 (Exhibit 95). As a result, the Inland Empire’s vacancy rate fell to 45th in the U.S. by first quarter 2008 (Exhibit 96). Looking ahead, there will be a period of difficulty in the inland area’s office market until the next housing cycle. At that point, the lack of residential land in Orange and San Diego counties will again force housing related activity into inland offices.

Corona’s Office Market. When construction is completed, Grubb & Ellis reports in June 2008 that the Inland Empire will have 27.2 million sq. ft. of office space representing 7.0% of the space in Southern California. The market is relatively small compared to adjacent Los Angeles (189.0 million sq. ft.), Orange (85.6 million sq. ft.) or San Diego (70.4 million sq. ft.) (Exhibit 91). With 2.25 million sq. ft. of office space and an 8.3% share, Corona ranked fifth among the 20 inland city markets. Rancho Cucamonga was the next highest (3.57 million sq. ft.; 13.2%). The region was led by Riverside (6.05 million sq. ft.; 22.4%), Ontario (4.28 million sq. ft.; 15.8%) and San Bernardino (3.74 million sq. ft.; 13.8%) (Exhibit 93). Corona’s space includes 1.94 million sq. ft. of completed space and 307,758 sq. ft. being built. Of the total, 994,852 sq. ft. is either vacant, becoming available or under construction and not pre-leased. Most of the city’s space is in facilities of 20,000 sq. ft. & up (1.84 million sq. ft.; 81.8%) (Exhibit 94).

For a city to add firms, it needs available space. In June 2008, Corona’s 994,852 sq. ft. of avail-able space was 14.9% of that in the Inland Empire and ranked third after Riverside (1.49 million sq. ft.; 22.3%) and Ontario (1.13 million sq. ft.; 16.9%) (Exhibit 101). The city’s vacancy rate for completed office space was 31.7%, compared to the Inland Empire’s 17.5% in second quarter 2008 (Exhibit 98). If space becoming available plus space under construction but not pre-leased are included, the city’s availability rate was 44.2% versus the region’s average of 24.8%. Among other major markets, the rates were: Ontario (26.5%), Riverside (24.7%), Rancho Cucamonga (18.6%) San Bernardino (17.1%) (Exhibit 97).

Office Asking Lease Rates. Riverside-Corona’s average asking office lease rate for Class A space was $2.42 per square foot a month in June 2008. That was below the prices for all but one



coastal market: Mid-Wilshire ($1.88 per sq. ft./mo.). The least costly Orange County space was $2.65 per sq. ft. in its western area (Exhibit 99). In the nearby San Gabriel Valley, the rate was $2.74 per sq. ft. Of the Inland Empire’s 20 city markets, Corona’s $2.06 per sq. ft. a month blended asking rate for all office space ranked third (Exhibit 100). Among major inland markets, it was just above Ontario ($2.04 per sq. ft./mo.). Other major markets included Rancho Cuca-monga ($1.79 sq. ft./mo.), Riverside ($1.69 sq. ft./mo.) and San Bernardino ($1.51 sq. ft./mo.).

Population & Business Serving Firms. While the Inland Empire’s office market has recently faced difficulties, the long term forces that have recently propelled it still exist. With the vast bulk of Southern California’s undeveloped land in the area, there is really no where else for the bulk of the region’s housing stock to be built in the next housing cycle. While $5.00 gasoline may somewhat slow the migration of population, it will likely accelerate the need for office firms to be in the midst of its large population and economy.

In 2007, the Inland Empire had only 6.6 square feet of office space per capita, far below Los An-geles (18.3), San Diego (22.6) and Orange (27.6) counties. It also has just 21.2 square feet of office space per job versus Los Angeles (45.8), San Diego (53.4) and Orange (56.4) counties (Exhibit 103). Clearly, office firms have been serving the area from their coastal locations. But, this cannot continue with $5.00 gasoline and clogged freeways. Meanwhile, the Inland Empire now has 4.2 million people and 1.85 million jobs, making it difficult for office firms to compete by serving it from remote locations. This situation will worsen, given the 2005-2020 forecast that the inland area will add far more people (1.5 million), jobs (653,388) and companies (42,898) than any other Southern California market (Exhibit 104).

High-End Labor. Meanwhile, Corona is benefiting from the fact that the Inland Empire is at-tracting increasing numbers of executives, professionals and technology workers. This has occurred because upscale home prices in the coastal counties continue to be beyond the reach of middle and upper middle class families who to want the lifestyle they imply. From 2000-2006, the American Community Survey found a gain of 129,234 or 41.4% in the number of inland residents with Bachelor’s or higher degrees (Exhibit 105). In addition, 30.1% of the workers in the Corona were managers or professionals in 2006, somewhat under the 32.9% in Los Angeles County (Exhibit 106). When office firms migrate inland, they also run into the fact that local workers will often work for less to stop commuting and that much of their own labor force is al-ready in the area and they can often compete for their competitor’s best workers.

Airport. Office firms locating in Corona have easy access to LA-Ontario International Airport. It ranks second only to LAX in passengers and is a compelling alternative for business travelers wishing to avoid congestion there. In 2008, its volume is forecasted at roughly 7.0 million pas-sengers. By 2030, the Southern California Association of Governments forecasts that it will handle 30 million passengers and be Southern California’s second major air gateway.

Colleges & Universities. Office firms locating in Corona can access the research, interns and graduates of 16 four year colleges. Harvey Mudd College and Keck Graduate School of Applied Life Sciences conduct serious engineering and biotechnical work. Cal Poly Pomona trains the bulk of engineers in the Western states. University of California Riverside is a research center for biotechnology, environmental science, engineering and information technology. Loma Linda University is one of the world’s top medical schools. Cal State San Bernardino is the state’s fastest growing CSU campus. University of La Verne School of Law is in Corona. Nationally known private, liberal arts schools include the Claremont Colleges and University of Redlands.


189,039,581

85,571,69370,434,551

27,206,401

Los Angeles Orange San Diego Inland Empire


Exhibit 91.-Office Space, Existing & Under Construction, June 2008Southern California Markets (Square Feet)

Total Office Space Inventory, June 2008 . . .

In June 2008, Grubb & Ellis indicated that the Inland Empire had 27.2 million square feet of office space in existence or under construction. It is a small suburban market with 7.0% of the space in Southern California (Exhibit 91). The bulk of the region’s space is in Los Angeles (189.0 million square feet: 51.0%), Orange (85.6 million square feet: 23.1%) and San Diego (70.4 million square feet: 18.9%) counties. The inland area’s of-fice market, which was largely dormant from 1990-2002, has undergone an aggressive change in recent years. Its population and economy are now large enough to require more office firms to locate in the area. Its large base of available residential land caused many firms working in that arena to start migrating to the area. Mean-while, the area’s lower labor, its growing number of skilled workers, and uncongested LA-Ontario International Airport offer competitive advantages to technology, professional and corporate headquarters.

Starting in late 2002, the Inland Empire’s net office space absorption began to climb as firms needed space in the area to serve its growing population and economy. The growth stalled in mid-2003 to mid-2004 when the vacancy rate plunged and there was no space to accommodate much of the growth. This led to an office build-ing boom and soaring absorption. However, part of that growth was fueled by firms supplying office services to the residential market. When it faltered, the demand for space began to plunge. Ultimately, when that sector revives, the office market will recover since over 50% of new home sales will be in the inland area in the next housing cycle. (Exhibit 92 Note: each point shows the space absorbed in the 4-quarters ended at that time to smooth out quarterly fluctuations.)

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

(400,000)(200,000)

0200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,0001,800,0002,000,000

Source: Grubb & Ellis & Economics & Politics, Inc.

Exhibit 92.-Office Net Space AbsorptionMoving 4-quarters, Inland Empire, 1991-2008



6,050,913

4,276,467

3,737,008

3,570,528

2,248,516

1,468,299

1,092,191

828,051

772,206

692,292

675,548

660,004

514,881

112,641

104,627

63,900

56,900

37,892

25,300

Riverside

Ontario

San Bernardino

R. Cuca.

Corona

Temecula

Redlands

Murrieta

Colton

Chino/Chino Hills

High Desert

Upland


Norco

Montclair


Fontana

Loma Linda

HemetSource: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 93.-Total Office Space, Existing & Under ConstructionInland Empire Markets, June 2008

Total Market27 million sq. ft.

Inland Empire Office Supply . . .

Corona had the fifth largest amount of office space in the Inland Empire in June 2008 with 2.25 million sq. ft. either in existence or under construction. Its 8.3% share of the market ranked next behind Rancho Cuca-monga’s 13.2% (3.57 million sq. ft.). The inland area was led by Riverside (6.05 million sq. ft.; 22.4%), Ontario (4.28 million sq. ft.; 15.8%) and San Bernardino (3.74 million sq. ft.; 13.8%) (Exhibit 93).

Corona’s 2.25 million sq. ft. of office space included 1.94 million sq. ft. that is completed and 307,758 sq. ft. that is under construction. Most of its space, 81.8% (1.84 million sq. ft.) is in buildings that have over 20,000 sq. ft. of space, leaving just 18.2% in buildings from 5,000-19,999 sq. ft. (409,882 sq. ft.) (Exhibit 94).

Similarly, the total office space available in Corona (994,852 sq. ft.) is divided between 859,832 sq. ft. in facili-ties of 20,000 or more sq. ft. and 135,020 sq. ft. in smaller buildings

Exhibit 94.-Total Office Space, Existing & Under Construction Corona, June, 2008

Size Range

Existing Space

Under Construction

Total Space

Share Total Space Available

Percent Available

5,000-9,999 387,582 22,300 409,882 18.2% 135,020 32.9%

10,000-24,999 1,553,176 285,458 1,838,634 81.8% 859,832 46.8%

Total 1,940,758 307,758 2,248,516 100.0% 994,852 44.2%




1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

0%2%4%

6%8%

10%12%

14%16%18%

20%22%

24%26%28%


Exhibit 95.-Office Space Availability RateInland Empire, 1991-2008

Vacancy Rates & Trends, 2008 . . .

In 1991, the Inland Empire’s office vacancy rate was 25.6%. Until mid-1997, lack of absorption kept it near this high level. Starting in 1998, the rate began falling steadily, reaching a plateau of roughly 7.0% from 2005 to early 2007. Since 2007, the decline in the demand for space by the residential development industry, plus the completion of several projects caused the rate to soar to 17.5% (Exhibit 95).

In 2005, Grubb & Ellis found that Inland Empire’s 7% office vacancy was third lowest suburban rate in the U.S. By first quarter 2008, the rate was 14.6% and ranked 45th (Exhibit 96). Orange County (14.9%) was higher; Los Angeles (9.6%) and San Diego (12.8%) counties were lower.

7.0%7.5%8.3%

8.9%9.0%9.0%

9.4%9.6%9.7%9.7%

10.0%10.1%

10.5%10.5%10.5%10.7%10.7%

11.3%11.4%11.4%

11.7%11.8%

12.0%12.1%12.2%

12.5%12.5%

12.8%13.0%13.0%13.1%

13.3%13.3%13.4%13.6%13.7%13.8%13.9%14.0%14.1%

14.4%14.4%14.5%14.5%14.6%14.7%14.7%

14.9%15.0%15.2%

Santa FeBakersfield

NYC Outer AreasOklahoma City

Kalispell, MTBozeman, MT

San JoseLos Angeles

Colorado SpringsLong Island

NashvilleAlbuquerque

FresnoBoise

MiamiBroward Co., FL

SeattleSouth Bend

RichmondWichita

St. LouisSan Francisco

MobileBaltimore

Tampa BaySan Antonio

Appleton, WISan Diego

JacksonvilleWashington DC

S. New JerseyHoustonOrlando

Portland, ORFairfield, CTMinneapolis

East BayLincoln, BE

PittsburgMemphis

BostonIndianapolis

MilwaukeeRaleigh

Inland EmpireReno

OmahaOrange Co.

Greenville, SCLas Vegas


Exhibit 96.-U.S. Office Market Vacancy Rates, 1st Quarter 2008



80.3%

63.6%

54.0%

44.2%

33.1%

32.1%

26.5%

24.8%

24.7%

20.5%

19.9%

18.6%

17.1%

16.4%

15.7%

13.7%

11.0%

7.3%

6.9%

0.0%


Norco

Murrieta

Corona

Chino/Chino Hills

Redlands

Ontario

Inland Empire

Riverside

Fontana

Temecula

R. Cuca.

San Bernardino


Loma Linda

High Desert

Colton

Montclair

Upland

HemetSource: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 97.-Office Space Availability RateInland Empire, Completed & Under Construction, June 2008

Availability & Vacancy Rates, June 2008 . . .

With several major office projects recently completed, Corona has 994,852 sq. ft. of office space available for occupancy by firms seeking competitive locations in June 2008. When vacant existing space or space becom-ing available is added to space available in the projects under construction, 44.2% of the city’s supply is available for leasing. That ranked fourth in the Inland Empire, far above the area’s average availability level of 24.8%. Among major inland markets, the rates were: Ontario (26.5%), Riverside (24.7%), Rancho Cucamonga (18.6%) and San Bernardino (17.1%).

In June 2008, Corona had 615,895 sq. ft. of vacant completed office space available for leasing. It’s vacancy rate was 31.7%. This was also fourth highest in the Inland Empire’s markets and above the 17.5% rate for the Inland Empire (Exhibit 98). Among major inland markets, the rates were: Ontario (16.8%), Riverside (16.6%), Rancho Cucamonga (14.8%) and San Bernardino (14.8%).

59.9%

40.1%

32.0%

31.7%

28.8%

19.5%

19.1%

17.5%

17.1%

16.8%

16.6%

16.4%

14.8%

14.8%

12.6%

12.4%

8.3%

6.7%

4.3%


Norco

Murrieta

Corona

Chino/Chino Hills

Fontana

Redlands

Inland Empire

Temecula

Ontario

Riverside


San Bernardino

R. Cuca.

Loma Linda

High Desert

Colton

Upland

MontclairSource: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 98.-Office Space Vacancy RateInland Empire, Completed & Vacant Only, June 2008



$4.70

$3.35

$3.31

$3.20

$3.14

$3.02

$2.95

$2.75

$2.74

$2.73

$2.65

$2.46

$2.42

$2.19

$1.88

West Los Angeles

San Diego-Central

San Diego-North

Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena

John Wayne Airport

South Orange Co.

Downtown Los Angeles

Central Orange Co.

San Gabriel Valley

Orange-North

West Orange Co.

South Bay

Riverside-Corona

Inland Empire Avg.

Mid-Wilshire Source: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 99.-Asking Office Space Lease CostSouthern California Markets, June 2008

Office Lease Rates . . .

In June 2008, Grubb & Ellis found that the Corona-Riverside market’s average asking lease rate per sq. ft. for Class A office space was $2.42 a month. That was below the range of prices for all but one of Southern Cali-fornia’s coastal markets. Comparable space in Los Angeles County’s closest market, San Gabriel Valley, was $2.74 per sq. ft. a month. It was $2.65 per sq. ft. in Orange County’s western market (Exhibit 99).

The blended rate for all office space in Corona in June 2008 was $2.06 per sq. ft. a month (Exhibit 100). This ranked third among the Inland Empire’s 20 city markets. Higher costs were found in Norco ($2.23 sq. ft./mo.) and Murrieta ($2.07 sq. ft./mo.). Among major inland markets, it was above Rancho Cucamonga ($1.79 sq. ft./mo.), Riverside ($1.69 sq. ft./mo.) and San Bernardino ($1.51 sq. ft./mo.).

Office operations needing access to a major airport like LA-Ontario International Airport or John Wayne Air-port will find a competitive advantage by locating in Corona. Back office operations, such as those of large insurance companies, will find the city a bargain compared to the coastal counties. As the closest inland city to Orange County, when the housing industry recovers, Corona will also provide developers, engineers, planners, escrow, title and finance operations with reasonably priced space.

$2.23$2.07

$2.06$2.04

$1.95$1.94

$1.91$1.90

$1.79$1.74$1.73

$1.69$1.63

$1.57$1.51

$1.35$1.32

$1.27$1.27

$1.11

NorcoMurrietaCoronaOntario

ChinoChino Hills

MontclairTemeculaR. Cuca.Redlands

UplandRiverside

VictorvilleLoma Linda

San BernardinoFontanaColton

Lake ElsinoreApple Valley

Moreno ValleySource: Grubb & Ellis

Exhibit 100.-Asking Office Space Lease RatesInland Empire Markets, June 2008



1,491,966

1,133,931

994,852

662,516

639,966

447,164

350,843

292,413

229,483

92,698

84,811

84,214

71,599

51,322

45,308

11,687

7,663

5,963

0

467,000

375,436

307,758

109,238

0

258,672

113,571

1,024,966

758,495

687,094

553,278

639,966

188,492

237,272

292,413

199,518

1666966

1308931

1169852

823278

789966

597164

512272

442413

379483

217698

209811

209214

196599

176322

170308

136687

107663

105963

100000

RiversideOntario

CoronaR. Cuca.

San BernardinoMurrietaRedlands

TemeculaChino/Chino Hills

High Desert

ColtonMoreno Valley/Perris

NorcoLake Elsinore/Wildomar

Upland

FontanaMontclair

Loma Linda

Hemet

ExistingAvailable

Data B


Exhibit 101.-Available Office Square FootageInland Empire Markets, Existing & Under Construction, June 2008

Total Market Availability7.0 million sq. ft.

Available Office Square Footage, June 2008 . . . It is important for cities to have office space that can house companies interested in locating in the Inland Em-

pire. In June 2008, Corona area had 994,852 sq. ft. of office space available for occupancy, the third largest amount in the Inland Empire after Riverside (1,491,966 sq. ft.) and Ontario (1,133,931 sq. ft.). Its supply in-cluded 687,904 sq. ft. of space either vacant or becoming available (yellow or lighter) plus 307,758 sq. ft. under construction but not pre-leased (green, darker). The city’s total of 994,852 sq. ft. represented 14.9% of the 6.70 million square feet available in the region (Exhibit 101).

Housing Market Share, Inland Empire . . . At the 2006 end of the last housing cycle, 54% of Southern California’s (San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, Ven-

tura, Riverside, San Bernardino counties) new homes where built and sold in the Inland Empire (Exhibit 102). It was also responsible for 32% of the area’s existing home sales. As a result, an increasing number of housing related professionals were taking offices in the area. This included housing related developer headquarters, civil engineers, architects, planners, escrow, title, finance and insurance. With the slowdown in housing, that migration stopped. However, in the next cycle, the availability of land in the inland area will again see the area dominate new home construction with these firms aggressively seeking office space in the market.

20

%

22

%

22

%

21

% 24

%

26

%

26

%

27

%

28

%

28

% 31

%

32

%

32

%

28

% 32

%33% 32%34% 34%

37% 36% 37%40%

45%48% 50% 52% 54%

45% 45%

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

ytd

New Homes Existing Home

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 102.-Share of Southern California Home SalesInland Empire, 1994-2008



316

487

778

910

21.2

45.853.4 56.4

6.6

18.322.6

27.6

Inland Empire L.A. County San Diego Co. Orange County

Per Person

Per Job

Per Firm

Sources: Grubb & Ellis, CA Employment Development Dept., CA Dept. of Finance

Exhibit 103.-Exhibit Office Space Per Capita & Per JobSouthern California Areas, 2007

Population & Business Serving Firms . . .

In 2007, the Inland Empire had 6.6 square feet of office space per person versus 18.3 in Los Angeles County, 22.6 in San Diego County and 27.6 in Orange County. This indicates that many companies are still serving the area’s population from coastal facilities. With an inland population of 4.1 million people, this is becoming more difficult. It is one reason for the recent increased demand for the Inland Empire’s office space by firms like tax preparers, insurance agents and health professionals that serve the area’s large and rapidly growing population. Over time, firms will need to open inland offices or lose customers to inland competitors. With 1.5 million more people expected in the Inland Empire from 2005-2020 (38.2%), this pressure and the demand for inland space will ultimately grow (Exhibits 103-104).

In 2007, the square feet of office space per job in the Inland Empire was 21.2 square feet versus 45.8 in Los Angeles County, 53.4 in San Diego County and 56.4 in Orange County. This implies the need for more office space for the lawyers, CPA’s, insurance agencies, copying shops and computer centers that serve companies in the inland area. The fact that the Inland Empire is forecasted to add 653,388 jobs from 2005-2020, or more than San Diego (216,300), Orange (281,416) or Los Angeles (357,700) counties, underscores this fact.

A similar result is found in looking at a forecast of firms with the Inland Empire expected to add 42,898 or more than San Diego (14,201), Orange (18,476) or Los Angeles (33,641) counties.

42,898

33,641

18,476

14,201

653,388

357,700

281,416

216,300

1,489,126

1,122,809

473,988

515,850

Inland Empire

Los Angeles Co.

Orange Co.

San Diego Co. Population Jobs Firms

Firms: LA at 2005 Avg. Jobs/LA Firms ; Other Counties @ 2005 Avg. Jobs/Other Counties' Firms Source: So. Calif. Association of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments

Exhibit 104.-Forecasts by MarketPeople, Jobs & Firms, 2005-2020



41.4%312,257

441,491

129,234

2000 2006 2000-2006 Percent

Source: 2000 Census & 2005 American Community Survey

Exhibit 105.-BA Or Higher EducationAdults 25 & Up, Inland Empire, 2000-2006

High-End Firm Expansion & Migration . . .

Technology, corporate office and professional firms need a high-end labor force. Fortunately for Corona and the Inland Empire, the region has recently seen the share of its population with Bachelor’s and higher degrees grow dramatically. From 2000-2006, the number of people 25 and over with these educational levels has gone from 312,257 to 441,491, a gain of 129,324 or 41.4% (Exhibit 105). This has occurred because the prices of upscale housing in Southern California’s coastal counties is beyond the levels that younger, well-educated workers can afford. This remains the case, even with the recent downward shift in prices throughout the region.

By 2006, the American Community Survey of the Census Bureau found that 30.1% of workers in Corona were in managerial or professional occupations (Exhibit 106). This share was somewhat under that of Los Angeles County (32.9%) and below Orange County’s (38.1%) level. That said, the share the city’s share in these sectors is moving in the direction of the coastal counties. This fact indicates that the Corona area is developing a resi-dent workforce that can support the migration of office operations into the city and nearby communities.

38.6% 38.1% 37.5%34.6% 32.9% 32.3% 30.1% 27.8%

25.3% 25.0% 23.4%

San D

iego C

o.

Orange

Co.

Ventur

a Co.

SW R

iv. C

o.

Los A

ngele

s Co

Wes

tend

Coron

a

Riversi

de-M

V

Coach

ella V

ly

East S

B Vall

ey

High D

esert


Exhibit 106.-Management, Professional and Related JobsSouthern California Areas, 2006


Quality of Life


CORONA SECTION 8

QUALITY OF LIFE As a rapidly growing community, Corona has devoted an increasing amount of community re-sources to education, parks and law enforcement. The results have been significant. The com-munity’s students are performing well, its citizens enjoy a substantial number and variety of parks, and the city’s crime rate is one of the lowest among the Inland Empire’s major cities.

Education. Corona’s young people attend classes in the Corona-Norco Unified School District. In academic year 2007-2008, this district became Riverside County’s largest with 51,334 pupils, up 1,469 or 2.9% students from the prior year (Exhibit 107). It was larger than the Riverside dis-trict (43,593) and the Moreno Valley district (37,126).

Of the Corona-Norco Class of 2007, 22.9% completed college preparatory classes for the Uni-versity of California-Cal State University systems (Exhibit 111). This was well below the aver-ages for Riverside County (27.3%) and California (35.0%). Meanwhile, Corona-Norco’s Class of 2007 scored an average of 1,429 on the Scholastic Assessment Test, the sixth highest in the county. This score was above the 1,418 average for Riverside County but below the 1,497 aver-age for California (Exhibit 112).

Reflecting the community’s diversity in 2007-2008, 49% of Corona-Norco District students were Hispanic and 33% were White (Exhibit 108). At the same time, 8% were Asian and 6% were Afro-American (Exhibit 109). These percentages were in the middle range for Riverside County districts except for the third highest percentage of Asians. The school district’s student body is somewhat less diverse than that of Riverside County: Hispanic (56%), White (25%), Asian (5%), African-American (7%).

On the Academic Performance Index now used to measure overall school performance, Corona-Norco’s schools at all levels have nearly improved in every year from 1999-2007. They were up in 2007, with scores that were above the state averages at the elementary (806 vs. 761), middle school (743 vs. 720), and high school (718 vs. 689) levels (Exhibit 110).

Corona-Norco District’s students were in the upper tier of students in Riverside County’s 21 dis-tricts on the 2007 California Standardize Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests. For 3rd graders, the percent of students at or above the national 50% threshold ranked 4th in math and spelling, and 5th in reading and language (Exhibits 113-114). They outperformed the state averages on all four tests and exceeded the U.S. 50% threshold in language (50%), math (60%) and spelling (60%), but were below the U.S. in reading (40%). The city’s seventh graders tested 4th in lan-guage and math and 3rd in reading and spelling compared to Riverside County’s 21 largest dis-tricts. They tested above California averages on all four tests. They were above the U.S. 50% level in math (55%) and spelling (60%), but below the U.S. in reading (49%) and language (49%) (Exhibit 115-116).

Within a 45 minute drive of Corona, residents and business leaders have access to a large array of private and public colleges & universities (Exhibits 117-118). Altogether, there are 22 cam-puses with a combined 2007 enrollment of 188,881 students. The list includes nationally known private, liberal arts schools like the Claremont Colleges and the University of Redlands. Impres-

Quality of Life


sive scientific work is being conducted at Harvey Mudd College, California State Polytechnic University at Pomona, the Keck Graduate School of Applied Life Science and the University of California, Riverside. Loma Linda University boasts one of the top medical schools in the world. California State University San Bernardino has an excellent School of Business. And, there are five nearby community colleges including Riverside Community College, Norco.

Recreation. Corona has 37 parks covering 346.6 acres (Exhibit 119) or one acre of park land for each 425 residents. That is fewer people per park acre than the Inland Empire’s major cities ex-cept Riverside and Temecula. Designated “Tree City USA” by the National Arbor Day Founda-tion, the system includes urban forests, regional and sports facilities, plus neighborhood parks.

A family oriented community, Corona provides an extensive youth program, including: seasonal nerf and youth flag football, basketball, indoor soccer, t-ball and junior baseball, and peewee sports. An After School Kids Club Program is available at eight city elementary schools, and a K-6th graders Year Round Kids Camp Program is available at the City Park Community Center. There is an extensive summer aquatics program at three city and school swimming pools. Adults can participate in basketball, volleyball and softball leagues, as well as 75 different recreation classes and 40 annual excursions. The Corona Senior Center provides multiple services and rec-reation outlets for the community’s older citizens.

A Very Safe City. Corona is one of the safest major cities in the Inland Empire. Its crime rate has plunged dramatically in recent years. From 1993-2007, the U.S. Department of Justice re-ports that city crime per 1,000 residents fell by 58.2% to just 29.9 incidents (Exhibits 120-121). In this period, the number of reported crimes decreased by 2,110 (–32.5%) even though the city’s population grew by 54,638 people (59.3%). In 2007, the rate was down –0.7% after -9.1% and –1.8% declines in 2005-2006. According to the Justice Department, the city’s 2007 violent crime rate per 1,000 people was at just 2.3 incidents per 1,000 people, down 56.0% from 1993 (Exhibit 122). Its property crime rate was off 57.8% from 1993-2007 with the number of inci-dents down 1,965 or –32.7% (Exhibit 123).

Regionally, Corona’s safety record places it third lowest among the eight Inland Empire cities with over 100,000 people. Its rate of 30.0 incidents per 1,000 people was only above Rancho Cucamonga (25.0) and Fontana (27.4) (Exhibits 124-125). Corona’s violent crime rate of just 2.3 incidents per 1000 people was the second lowest among major inland cities just above Ran-cho Cucamonga (2.2). Its property crime rate of 27.5 incidents per 1,000 people was the fourth lowest above Rialto (27.5) Rancho Cucamonga (22.8) and Fontana (22.5) but well below Ontario (34.1), the next highest (Exhibits 126-127).

Quality of Life


51,334

43,593

37,126

29,439 28,80724,374 23,583 22,113 21,226 20,664 19,993 19,548

Coron

a-Nor

co

Riversi

de

Mor

eno V

alley

Temec

ula

Desert

San

ds

Palm S

pring

s

Hemet

Lake E

lsino

re

Mur

rieta

Juru

pa

Alvord

Val Verd

e

Source: CA Department of Education

Exhibit 107.-Enrollment In 12 Largest DistrictsRiverside County, 2007-2008

School District Enrollment, 2007-2008 . . . In academic year 2007-2008, the Corona-Norco Unified School district had 51,334 students, up 1,469 or 2.9%

students from 2006-2007.

The Corona-Norco Unified School District’s 51,334 students gave it the highest enrollment in Riverside County, ahead of the Riverside district (43,593) and the Moreno Valley district (37,126) (Exhibit 107).

School Enrollment Ethnicity, 2007-2008 . . . School enrollment tells a great deal about the future diversity of the Inland Empire’s communities.

In academic year 2007-2008, Hispanics made up 49% of Corona-Norco students. This was a below Riverside County’s share of 56%. The state’s average was 49% (Exhibit 108). Among the county’s large districts, the highest percent was in the Jurupa District (76%) and the lowest was in Temecula (21%).

White students were 33% of those enrolled in Corona-Norco schools. This was the fifth highest percentage among the large Riverside County districts. The highest share was in Temecula (52%). The lowest was in the Moreno Valley at 13%. Riverside County’s average was 28% and California’s average was 29%.

18% 15%19%

26%

13%

28%31%

38%

29%33%

42%

50% 52%

76%72% 71%

65%61%

56% 53% 50% 49% 49%44%

23% 21%

Juru

pa

Alvord

Palm S

pring

s

Desert

San

ds

Mor

eno V

alley

Riversi

de C

o.

Riversi

de

Lake E

lsino

re

Califo

rnia

Coron

a-Nor

coHem

et

Mur

rieta

Temec

ula

Hispanic White


Exhibit 108.-Percentage of Hispanic & White StudentsLargest Districts, Riverside County, 2007-2008

Quality of Life


5% 5%

12%

5%3%

8% 9%

4% 4% 5%

10%

2% 2%

20%

9% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2%

Mor

eno V

alley

Riversi

de

Califo

rnia

Riversi

de C

o.

Hemet

Coron

a-Nor

co

Mur

rieta

Palm S

pring

s

Lake E

lsino

re

Alvord

Temec

ula

Juru

pa

African American Asian American


Exhibit 109.-Percentage of Asian & African American StudentsLargest Districts, Riverside County, 2007-2008

School Enrollment Ethnicity (continued), 2007-2008 . . . Asian students made up 8% of Corona-Norco students. This was the third highest percentage among Riverside

County major districts, behind Temecula at 10% and Murrieta at 9%. The county average was 5%; the state’s was 12%.

In academic year 2007-2008, 6% of Corona-Norco students were African American. Among major Riverside County districts, this was in the middle range. The averages in the county and California were 7% (Exhibit 109).

Academic Performance Index, 1999-2007 . . . Each year, the testing scores for California’s school districts are used to create an index of how well their stu-

dents are performing. Since the advent of this system, the Corona-Norco schools have improved in most years at the elementary, middle and high school level including 2007. Their 2007 scores were above state averages at the elementary (806 vs. 761), middle school (743 vs. 720), and high school (718 vs. 685) levels (Exhibit 110).

651683 705 716

760 764 784 795 806761

633674 691 680 690

728 732 739 743 720

619647 634 636

661 685 707 714 718689

Elemen

tary

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

CA 2007

Mid

dle S

choo

l19

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

07

CA 2007

High S

choo

l19

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

0620

07

CA 2007


Exhibit 110.-Academic Performance IndexCorona-Norco Unified School District, 1999-2007

Quality of Life


42.9%35.0% 35.0% 34.3%

28.8% 27.3% 25.1% 23.4% 22.9% 21.8% 21.7% 18.5%

Temec

ula

Mur

rieta

Califo

rnia

Riversi

de

Desert

Cen

ter

Riversi

de C

o.

Palm S

pring

s

Lake E

lsino

re

Coron

a-Nor

co

Perris

Union

Mor

eno V

alley

Hemet


Exhibit 111.-UC & CSU Required Course CompletionRiverside County, Largest Districts, Class of 2007

University & State University Requirements Completed, Class of 2007 . . .

In 2007, 22.9% of the Corona high school seniors completed the courses required for entrance into the Univer-sity of California or the California State University systems (Exhibit 111). This ranked seventh among the larg-est districts in Riverside which was led by after Temecula (42.9%), Murrieta (35.0%) and Riverside (34.3 %). The city’s schools were below California’s average of 35.0% and the county’s average of 27.3%.

SAT Scores, Class of 2007 . . . The average Scholastic Assessment Test score for Corona’s Class of 2007 taking the test was Riverside

County’s sixth highest at 1,429. Their average score was above Riverside County’s average of 1,418 but well below California’s average of 1,497 (Exhibit 112).

Among Riverside County’s major districts, the highest average score was 1,526 in Temecula. The lowest was 1,343 in the Moreno Valley district.

1,526 1,497 1,483 1,461 1,449 1,436 1,429 1,429 1,418 1,391 1,389 1,343

Temec

ula V

alley

Califo

rnia

Mur

rieta

Valley

Hemet

Desert

San

ds

Lake E

lsino

re

Coron

a-Nor

co

Riversi

de

Riversi

de C

ounty

Palm S

pring

s

Perris

Union

Mor

eno V

alley


Exhibit 112.-SAT Total ScoreRiverside County, Largest Districts, Class of 2007

Quality of Life


Exhibit 113.-CA Achievement Tests, 3rd Grade

Riverside County, Share Above National 50% Level, 2007 3rd Grade Reading Language Math Spelling 3rd Grade Reading Language Math Spelling

Alvord 26% 34% 49% 49% Murrieta 52% 59% 67% 66%

Banning 31% 38% 45% 53% Nuview 25% 32% 43% 41%

Beaumont 44% 54% 64% 65% Palm Springs 26% 33% 45% 53%

Coachella Valley 12% 18% 25% 32% Palo Verde 31% 35% 49% 51%

Corona-Norco 40% 50% 60% 60% Perris 20% 27% 39% 46%

Desert Sands 38% 45% 55% 56% Riverside 37% 45% 54% 50%

Hemet 32% 38% 50% 55% Romoland 36% 36% 47% 50%

Jurupa 28% 37% 48% 46% San Jacinto 22% 32% 39% 43%

Lake Elsinore 37% 48% 57% 56% Temecula 57% 64% 72% 70%

Menifee 45% 53% 59% 59% Val Verde 26% 36% 52% 50%

Moreno Valley 28% 38% 46% 54%

Corona of 21 5 5 4 4

Riv. County 35% 43% 53% 54% Corona-RV Co. 5% 7% 7% 6%

California 38% 46% 56% 58% Corona-Calif. 2% 4% 4% 2%


Testing Scores, 3rd Graders, 2007 . . .

Under the California Standardize Testing and Reporting (STAR), students are tested in four subjects. One re-porting method is the percentage of students in a class that score at or above the 50% level among the students taking the test nationally. California students are testing above the national average in the 3rd grade on two of the four tests: math (56%) and spelling (58%), but below the U.S. in reading (38%) and language (46%).

Among 3rd graders, the percentage of Corona-Norco reaching the 50% threshold were above average among of Riverside County’s 21 districts, ranking 4th in math and spelling, and 5th in reading and language (Exhibit 113).

Corona-Norco’s 3rd graders tested above California’s average on all four tests. They were above the national 50% level in math (60%) and spelling (60%), equal to it in language (50%), but below it in reading (40%) (Ex-hibit 114).

38%

46%

56% 58%

40%

50%

60% 60%

Reading Language Math Spelling

Corona-Norco CALIF.


Exhibit 114.-California Achievement Test Scores, 3rd GradeCorona-Norco & California, 2007

Quality of Life


Exhibit 115.-CA Achievement Tests, 7th Grade Riverside County, Share Above National 50% Level, 2007

7th Grade Reading Language Math Spelling 7th Grade Reading Language Math Spelling

Alvord 37% 38% 42% 49% Murrieta 59% 58% 66% 63%

Banning 25% 27% 34% 41% Nuview 40% 43% 53% 48%

Beaumont 40% 39% 51% 58% Palm Springs 38% 37% 38% 51%

Coachella Valley 27% 26% 27% 45% Palo Verde 31% 29% 31% 43%

Corona-Norco 49% 49% 55% 60% Perris 28% 30% 32% 46%

Desert Sands 42% 42% 44% 51% Riverside 47% 44% 53% 55%

Hemet 41% 40% 47% 49% Romoland 35% 35% 37% 53%

Jurupa 40% 36% 45% 50% San Jacinto 31% 29% 38% 46%

Lake Elsinore 45% 42% 48% 52% Temecula 65% 64% 70% 68%

Menifee 45% 53% 59% 59% Val Verde 35% 34% 38% 52%

Moreno Valley 34% 34% 36% 50%

Corona of 21 3 4 4 3

Riv. County 43% 42% 47% 53% Corona-RV Co. 6% 7% 8% 7%

California 47% 45% 51% 59% Corona-Calif. 2% 4% 4% 1%


Testing Scores, 7th Graders, 2007 . . .

As indicated, under the California Standardize Testing and Reporting (STAR), students are tested in four sub-jects. One reporting method is the percentage of students in a class that scored at or above the 50% level among the students taking the test nationally. California’s 7th grade students have begun testing above the na-tional average on the spelling test (59%) and math (51%), but below the U.S. in reading (47%) and language (45%).

Among 7th graders, the percentage of Corona-Norco reaching the 50% threshold were above average among of Riverside County’s 12 largest districts, ranking 4th in language and math and 3rd spelling and reading (Exhibit 115).

Corona-Norco’s 7th graders tested above California averages on all four tests. They tested above the U.S. 50% level in math (55%) and spelling (60%), and below the U.S. in reading (49%) and language (49%) (Exhibit 116).

47% 45%

51%

59%

49% 49%55%

60%

Reading Language Math Spelling

Corona-Norco California


Exhibit 116.-CA Achievement Test Scores, 7th GradeCorona-Norco & California, 2007

Quality of Life


Exhibit 117.-College & University Enrollment, By Campus, Corona Area, 2008

Campus Address City Year Specialty Highest Degree StudentsCalifornia Baptist College 8432 Magnolia Riverside 1950 Liberal Arts Masters 3,725California State Polytechnic Univ., Pomona 3801 W. Temple Pomona 1838 Engineering Masters 21,477California State University San Bernardino 5500 University Parkway San Bdno 1960 Comprehensive Masters 17,066Chaffey Community College 5585 Haven Ave. R. Cucamonga 1883 Community College Associate 19,751Claremont Graduate School 170 E. Tenth Claremont 1925 Science, Liberal Arts Ph.D. 2,033Claremont McKenna College 500 E. Ninth St. Claremont 1946 Liberal Arts Bachelors 1,135Crafton Hills College 11711 San Canyon Yucaipa 1972 Community College A.A. 5,155Harvey Mudd College 301 E. 12th Street Claremont 1955 Science Bachelor 735Keck Graduate Inst. of Applied Life Sciences 535 Watson Drive Claremont 2000 Life Science Ph.D. 120La Sierra University 4700 Pierce Riverside 1922 Liberal Arts Ph.D. 1,896Loma Linda University 11234 Anderson St. Loma Linda 1905 Medical, Dental Ph.D., M.D., DDS 3,972Mt. San Antonio Community College 1100 No. Grand Walnut 1946 Community College Associate 999Pitzer College 1050 N. Mills Ave. Claremont 1963 Liberal Arts Bachelors 1,525Pomona College 333 N. College Way Claremont 1887 Liberal Arts Bachelors 33,058Riverside Community College 4800 Magnolia Riverside 1916 Community College Associate 13,012San Bernardino Community College 701 S. Mt. Vernon Ave. San Bdno 1926 Community College Associate 36,319Scripps College 1030 Columbia Ave. Claremont 1926 Liberal Arts Bachelors 888University of California, Riverside 900 University Ave. Riverside 1954 Comprehensive Ph.D. 17,187University of La Verne 1950 Third St. La Verne 1891 Liberal Arts Ph.D. 3,876School of Law 320 East "D" Street Ontario 1985 Law J.D. 263University of Redlands 1200 E. Colton Redlands 1907 Liberal Arts Ph.D. 2,400Western University of Health Sciences 309 E. Second Street Pomona 1977 Medical D.O., M.S. 2,289Total Enrollment 188,881

College and University Enrollment . . . Corona is near 22 public & private colleges with a total of 188,881 students. There are 22,332 students

(11.8%) at three top schools of science and engineering: Cal Poly Pomona, Harvey Mudd College and the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences. 17,187 (9.1%) undergraduates and graduate students attended the University of California, Riverside, one of the premier biomedical, agricultural and environmental research in-stitutions. Cal State San Bernardino, the state’s fastest growing CSU campus had 17,066 students (9.0%).

18,477 students (9.8%) go to several prestigious private liberal arts colleges near Corona including: the Clare-mont Colleges, University of Redlands, University of La Verne, La Sierra University and California Baptist University. 6,524 students (3.5%) attend Loma Linda University Medical Center, one of the nation’s top medi-cal and dental schools or the Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona or La Verne Law School.

Another 107,295 students (56.8%) go to five comprehensive community colleges with seven campuses. These include the Riverside Community College campus in Norco, adjacent to Corona.

Liberal Arts Colleges18,4779.8%

Community Coll ges e107,295 56.8

Engineering & Science Colleges22,33211.8

Cal State Univ. San Bernardino 17,0669.0%

Medical, Dental & Law6,523.5%

UC Riverside17,1879.1%

Sources: Campuses, State Offices of Public College

Exhibit 118.-College & University Enrollment Corona Area, Fall 2007

Quality of Life

Exhibit 119.-Developed Parks, Corona, 2008 Park Name Address Acre Facilities & Events

Auburndale Rec. Ctr. 1045 Auburndale St. 2 Picnic shelter, BBQ, tennis courts, community center, swimming pool Border Park 2400 Border Ave. 2.5 Picnic shelter and playground and 2 lighted tennis courts, volleyball court Brentwood Park 1646 Dawnridge 13 Community center(Play days, Big Tots), picnic shelter, sand volleyball courts, 1 lighted basketball court, special events, Tiny Tot Olympics, and playground. Buena Vista Park 2515 Buena Vista St. 10 Soccer fields, open grass Butterfield Park 1886 Butterfield Stage 64 7 lighted ball fields for youth and adult sports, picnic shelter; playground; area used for dog show reservations; and special events. Citrus Community Park 1250 Santana Way 20 Picnic, BBQ, ball fields, soccer fields, volleyball courts City Park 930 East Sixth St. 17 1 lighted ball field for youth and adult sports, 5 picnic shelters, skate park, 2 playgrounds, swimming pool, Fiesta Band shell for movies, concerts, events City Park Community Ctr. 475 East Grand St. 0.5 Picnic, community center

Civic Center Gym 815 W. Sixth St. 6 Special Events; Lemon Festival; Snow Day; Holiday Lighting Ceremony; public and private reservations on Civic Center Front Lawn; Civic Center Gymna-sium for various youth and adult recreation programs, events, sports, and classes; open play volleyball and

Clearwater Sports Fields 2505 Railroad St. 5.7 Picnic area, playground, baseball, football Contreras Park Buena Vista/Railroad 0.3 Picnic, basketball, horseshoe pits Cresta Verde Park 1640 E. Collet 5.4 Picnic shelter, playground, and 2 lighted basketball courts. Eagle Glen Community Park 4190 Bennett Ave. 13 2 lighted soccer fields, 1 lighted ball field, 4 lighted tennis courts, picnic shelter, and playground. Fairview Park 1604 Fairview 5 Picnic shelter and playground, ball fields, basketball Griffin Park 2770 Griffin 13 Playground equipment Husted Park 1200 Merrill 3.3 Picnic shelter and playground, ball fields, basketball, tennis Jameson Park (pending) 1155 Valencia Rd. 13.0 Picnic shelters, pla ground, 4 half-court basketball courts, practice ballfield. Joy Park Joy & Grand 0.3 Picnic, BBQ, grass area Kellogg Park 1635 Kellogg 3.5 4 tennis courts and playground, picnic, BBQ Lincoln Park Lincoln & Citron 5 Picnic shelter, BBQ, playground, and exercise course. Mangular Park 2200 Mangular Ave. 4 2 lighted tennis courts and playground. Merrill Park 10th & W. Grand 0.3 Picnic, BBQ, grass area Mountain Gate Park 3100 S. Main St. 21 3 lighted ball fields for youth and adult sports, picnic shelter, 4 lighted tennis courts, and playground. Ontario Park Ontario & Via Pacifica 5 Picnic shelter, 1 basketball court, ball fields and playground. Parkview Park 2094 Parkview Dr. 6.3 Picnic, ball fields, grass area Promenade Community Park 615 Richey 20 2 ball fields for youth and adult sports, picnic shelter, BBQ, playground, and 1 basketball court. Ridgeline Park 2850 Ridgeline 5 Picnic shelter, BBQ, ball fields, grass area River Road Park 1100 West River Road 5 Community center(Play days, Big/Tiny Tots, Kids Club, private reservations), picnic shelter, ball fields and playground Rock Vista Park 2481 Steven Dr. 6 Open grass area Santana Regional Park 598 Ontario Ave. 45 4 lighted soccer fields, 4 lighted ball fields for youth/adult sports, 2 lighted tennis courts, picnic shelter, playground, skate park, special events, tournaments. Senior Center 921 South Belle 2 Senior recreation programs and services. Serfas Club Park 2575 Green River Rd. 5 Picnic shelter BBQ, playground, and ball fields Sheridan Park 300 S. Sheridan 3 Picnic shelter, BBQ, playground, ball fields, basketball and horseshoe pit Spyglass Park 1790 Spyglass 5 Soccer fields, grass area

Tehachapi Park Tehachapi/St. Helena 4 Picnic shelter, playground, basketball court, and grass volleyball court.

Victoria Park 312 Ninth St. 2.5 Community center (Play days, Big/Tiny Tots, and Private Reservations), 1 basketball court, and playground. Village Park 860 Village Loop 5 Picnic area and playground, ball fields Total Developed Parks 37 Facilities 346.6 or one acre for each 425 residents of the city whose population is 147,428 , , ,


Quality of Life


71.4

62.8

56.6

48.945.3

36.5

30.828.5

32.7 32.7 30.833.7 33.1

30.1 29.9

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Report

Exhibit 120.-Major Crimes Per 1,000 PeopleCorona, 1993-2007

1993-2007Crime rate per 1,000 people Down -58.2%

2,110 fewer crimes (-32.5%)54,638 more people (59.3%)

Crime Rate, 1993-2007 . . .

Corona’s crime rate has fallen 58.2% from its peak of 71.4 incidents per 1,000 people in 1993 to 29.9 incidents per 1,000 residents in 2007 (Exhibit 120). The rate has been slowly moved downward since 2001.

The large decline occurred because Corona had 2,110 fewer crimes reported (-32.5%) from 1993-2007, even though its population increased by 54,638 people (59.3%).

For the year 2007, the number of incidents per 1,000 people declined slightly (–0.7%) (Exhibit 121).

Exhibit 121.-Crime Rate By Type Corona, 1993-2007

Crime 1993 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Murder 1 8 1 4 6 3 8 6 5 4 1 5

Forcible Rape 28 30 40 28 35 19 24 33 19 33 31 28

Robbery 237 190 141 130 123 149 169 125 116 140 152 187

Aggravated Assault 219 654 206 134 162 153 148 116 129 144 144 120

Burglary 1,552 1,229 816 735 700 681 736 673 901 926 730 670

Larceny Theft 3,099 1,975 2,198 2,087 2,009 2,500 2,551 2,547 2,796 2,587 2,492 2,659

Motor Vehicle Theft 1,334 680 674 521 577 713 794 808 830 935 820 693

Arson 23 26 20 16 23 21 33 35 57 37 30 21

TOTAL 6,493 4,792 4,096 3,655 3,635 4,239 4,463 4,343 4,853 4,806 4,400 4,383

Population 92,150 109,000 115,350 121,733 127,382 132,297 136,797 141,536 146,310 145,270 146,270 146,788

Per 1,000 71.4 45.3 36.5 30.8 28.5 32.7 32.6 30.7 33.2 33.1 30.1 29.9

-7.3% -19.4% -15.5% -7.5% 14.4% -0.1% -5.9% 8.1% -1.8% -9.1% -0.7%

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Report, CA Department of Finance

Quality of Life


5.3

6.8

7.6

5.9

8.1

3.4

2.4 2.6 2.5 2.62.0 1.9

2.2 2.2 2.3

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Exhibit 122.-Violent Crime Per 1,000 PeopleCorona, 1993-2007

1993 to 2007Violent Crime Down -56.0%Incidents Down 145 (-29.9%)Population Up 54,638 (59.3%)

Violent & Property Crime Rates, 2007 . . .

From 1993-2007, there was a –56.0% decline in Corona’s violent crime rate per 1,000 residents, from 5.3 to just 2.3 (Exhibit 122). The number of homicides, rapes, robberies and felony assaults dropped by 145 incidents (-29.9%). At the same time, the population increased by 54,638 in that period (59.3%). Reports of violent crime were higher in the mid-1990s because of a special police project targeting domestic violence. There has been a very slow increase in the rate since 2004, going from 1.9 to 2.3 incidents per 1,000 people.

Corona’s property crime rate per 1,000 peaked at 65.2 in 1993. In 2007, it was down to 27.5, a 57.8% decline (Exhibit 123). There were 1,965 fewer burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, felony larcenies and arsons (-32.7%) from 1993-2007, even though the city added 54,638 more people (59.3%).

65.2

55.0

47.8

41.6

35.932.1

27.6 26.029.6 30.1 28.8

31.8 30.927.8 27.5

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007


Exhibit 123.-Property Crime Per 1,000 PeopleCorona, 1993-2007

1993 to 2007Property Crime Down -57.8%Incidents Down 1,965 (-32.7%)Population Up 54,638 (59.3%)

Quality of Life


60.1

44.740.7 39.0

30.7 30.027.4

25.0

San Bernardino Riverside Moreno Valley Ontario Rialto Corona Fontana R. Cucamonga


Exhibit 124.-Major Crime Per 1,000 PeopleMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2007

Crime Rates Compared, 2007 . . .

With 30.7 incidents per 1,000 people in 2007, Corona continued to have the third lowest crime rate among Inland Empire cities with over 100,000 people (Exhibit 124). Rancho Cucamonga (22.0 ) was the lowest while Fontana (27.4) ranked second. The highest was in San Bernardino at 60.1 incidents.

Exhibit 125 shows the breakdown of major crimes by category reported to the U.S. Justice Department each year. The data is for 2007. It includes four categories of violent crime: homicide, forcible rape, robbery and felony assault. It includes three categories of property crime: burglary, larceny theft and vehicle theft.

Exhibit 125.-Major Crimes, By Type, 2007 Inland Empire Cities Over 100,000

City Homicide Forcible

Rape Robbery

Felony Assault

BurglaryLarceny

Theft Vehicle Theft

Arson Total Per 1,000 People

Corona 5 28 187 120 670 2,659 693 21 4,400 30.0 146,788

Fontana 8 43 292 553 936 2,067 1,149 13 5,061 27.4 184,890

Moreno Valley 13 66 461 484 1,945 3,237 1,189 16 7,411 40.7 182,232

Ontario 15 46 351 442 970 3,551 1,329 52 6,756 39.0 173,027

Pomona 4 19 118 236 734 2,637 559 22 4,329 25.0 173,155

R. Cucamonga 15 25 288 419 727 703 851 20 3,048 30.7 99,319

Riverside 12 91 686 1,104 2,227 7,081 1,846 103 13,150 44.7 294,227

San Bernardino 45 74 862 1,169 2,129 5,358 2,603 81 12,321 60.1 205,057

Source: U.S. Justice Department, Uniform Crime Report Population is average of January 1, 2007 & January 1, 2008

Quality of Life


10.5

7.56.4 5.6 4.9 4.8

2.3 2.2

San Bernardino Rialto Riverside Moreno Valley Ontario Fontana Corona R. Cucamonga


Exhibit 126.-Violent Crime, Per 1,000 PeopleMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2007

Crime Rates Compared, 2007 . . .

During 2007, Corona’s violent crime rate of 2.3 per 1,000 residents was just above Rancho Cucamonga (2.2) and well below the other Inland Empire’s cities with over 100,000 people (Exhibit 126).

Corona’s property crime rate of 27.5 per 1,000 residents was the fourth lowest in this group of cities. Its rate was above Rialto (23.2), Rancho Cucamonga (22.8) and Fontana (22.5) and well below the city next above it, Ontario (34.1). The highest was in San Bernardino (49.6) (Exhibit 127).

49.6

38.335.0 34.1

27.523.2 22.8 22.5

San Bernardino Riverside Moreno Valley Ontario Corona Rialto R. Cucamonga Fontana


Exhibit 127.-Property Crime, Per 1,000 PeopleMajor Inland Empire Cities, 2007

Inland Empire Market


CORONA SECTION 9

INLAND EMPIRE MARKET To understand the forces affecting Corona, it is necessary to review the conditions that have caused the Inland Empire to be one of America’s fastest growing places. From 2000-2020, the area’s population is expected to go from 3.26 million to 5.39 million, up 2.142 million. That is more than will be added by 44 of the 50 states (Exhibit 128). Interestingly, from 2005-2020, the area is expected to add 1.49 million people, above either Los Angeles County (1.12 million) or San Diego, Orange, Ventura and Imperial counties combined (1.223 million) (Exhibit 129).

As a separate state, the Inland Empire’s January 2007 population of 4.11 million people was above 24 states, above Oregon (3.75 million), Oklahoma (3.62 million) and Connecticut (3.50 million) (Exhibit 130). U.S. Commerce Department data showed the Inland Empire with $112 billion in total personal income during 2006 (Exhibit 131). That was just below Oklahoma ($116 billion) and more than 21 states.

Researchers attribute the Inland Empire’s strong performance to the way Southern California’s geography and economic behavior interact. Since World War II, the region has grown outward from central Los Angeles. At various times, this has made places like Orange County and the San Gabriel Valley its hotspots for growth. Inevitably, once coastal county congestion caused their land, space and housing costs to rise, this activity was forced into the Inland Empire.

Job Growth. This pattern underlies the Inland Empire’s job performance. From 1990-1994 and 2001-2002, recessions caused Southern California’s employment to decline, but the Inland Em-pire’s continued growing. Only with 2008’s severe housing downturn has that not been true. Thus, from 1990-2008, the inland area has added 532,689 jobs versus 337,483 in San Diego County and 327,100 in Orange County (Exhibit 134). From 2005-2020, it is forecasted to add 653,388 jobs. This is more than Los Angeles County (357,700) or San Diego, Orange, Ventura and Imperial counties combined (617,381) (Exhibit 133). In 2008, short term housing market difficulty have caused the Inland Empire to suffer its first job loss in at least 44 years (–19,100) (Exhibits 135), an issue also affecting Orange (-22,817) and Los Angeles (-12,000) counties.

Inexpensive Land. That said, the long term reasons for the Inland Empire’s economic strength remain intact. It is the last area of Southern California with large tracts of undeveloped land. This available “dirt” creates a location advantage for both high-end and affordable home buyers and industrial/commercial developers. Put simply, the Inland Empire’s space will always be more available and less expensive than coastal markets with homes and facilities built on it sell-ing or leasing for much less than in neighboring Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.

Lower Residential Prices. The heavy urbanization of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties has left them with little undeveloped land. Even with recent price declines, their 2nd quarter 2008 median home prices remain over $150,000 above the Inland Empire’s level ($271,000): San Diego ($426,000), Los Angeles ($435,000), Orange ($540,000) (Exhibit 136). As the housing market recovers from its current difficulties, families wanting to buy homes they can afford will again find they have little choice but to migrate inland.

Lower Cost Business Space. The Inland Empire’s industrial property, much of which is new, enjoys a similar price advantage. In June 2008, 400,000 square feet of space leased for



$2,060,000 a year. That was a savings of $340,000 versus the lowest coastal county alternative (Exhibit 137). At a 5% return on sales, a firm would need $6.8 million in extra revenue to make up for this difference. Also, 10,000 square feet of inland office space leases for $262,400 a year, a savings of $11,600 compared to Los Angeles County’s cheapest alternative (South Bay near LAX). At a 5% return on sales, a firm would need $232,000 in extra revenue for that difference.

High-End Labor Cost Savings. The Inland Empire’s rapid population growth has created a less obvious advantage for firms locating in cities like Corona. People will work for less to avoid commuting to coastal counties. This is particularly true for high-end workers making over $60,000 a year in coastal counties. Firms can hire inland workers for 9.2% less than in Orange County, 7.6% less than L.A. County, and 6.5% less than San Diego County (Exhibit 138). Im-portantly from 2000-2006, the availability of inland workers with Bachelors or higher degrees has increased dramatically rising from 312,257 to 441,4912, up 129,234 or 41.4% (Exhibit 139).

Logistics Advantages. Nearly all cargo that flows into and out of Southern California passes through the Inland Empire because Cajon Pass (I-15, BNSF railroad) and San Gorgonio Pass (I-10, UP railroad) are the principal trucking and rail routes to the balance of the United States. Even cargo leaving San Diego County must move up the I-15 freeway. This location advantage, combined with available inexpensive land, has made this region the Southland’s new logistics capital. Firms save time in getting their products to market by locating within the region.

BNSF Railway has a major intermodal railroad yard in San Bernardino with volume of over 550,000 container lifts. Union Pacific Railroad has its main switching yard in Colton and may seek an intermodal site. International trade through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach is responsible for creating the demand for inland facilities to process imports and exports (Exhibit 140). Thus, most of Southern California’s Less Than Load (LTL) trucking firms have major cargo sorting facilities in the inland area. And, UPS and DHL (LA-Ontario International Air-port) and Federal Express Ground (Rialto) process much of their Southern California air cargo in the area. LA-Ontario International Airport (ONT) is the second largest air cargo airport in the Southland. By 2030, it is forecasted to almost equal LAX in volume. March Air Reserve Base will rank third. (Exhibit 141). ONT is also the second busiest air passenger facility, and is ex-pected to handle 6.5 million people in 2008. Its volume is forecasted to reach 30 million passen-gers in 2030 (Exhibit 142).

Other: Air Quality, Climate. Air quality in the Inland Empire has improved dramatically with smog levels over the very strict California limit (.09 ppm) dropping from 233 days in 1981 to 96 in 2007 (Exhibit 143). Often, people and firms locate in Southern California for its extraordinary climate. The Corona area’s wintertime temperature falls to an average of just 58 degrees. Its summer average high is 98 degrees in July (Exhibit 144).

Summary. While it is true that the Inland Empire is going through a short term slowdown due to the national housing problem, it is impossible to review the long term economic forces affecting Corona and the inland region without being optimistic. The area's location, competitive cost structure, increasingly well educated population and sophisticated logistics operations have made it one of the nation’s fastest growing population centers and Southern California’s top job gen-erator. Firms needing to locate in the midst of California’s huge economy, while avoiding its higher costs of doing business, will continue to find it to be an excellent place to locate.



8,3357,783 7,424

3,3262,660 2,657

2,136 1,839 1,538 1,454 1,201 1,091

Califo

rnia

Texas

Florid

a

Arizon

a

North

Carolin

a

Georg

ia

Inlan

d Em

pire

Virgin

ia

Was

hingto

n

Nevad

a

Mary

land

Tenne

ssee

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Southern California Association of Governments 2008 RTP

Exhibit 128.-Forecasted Population Growth, 2000-2020Inland Empire & Top 12 States (000)

Inland Empire Population Growth . . .

Corona is located in an Inland Empire market that is forecasted to add 2.14 million people from 2000-2020 (Exhibit 128). That is more new people than will be added by all but six U.S. states led by California (8.3 mil-lion), Texas (7.8 million) and Florida (7.4 million).

From 2000-2020, the Inland Empire will increase from 3.26 million to 5.39 million residents as a result of its 2.142 million new residents.

Within Southern California, the Inland Empire’s 2005-2020 population growth of 1.49 million will be more than Los Angeles County (1.12 million) as well as all of Southern California’s other markets. In fact, the inland region’s growth will be more than the 1.23 million people expected to be added by San Diego (515,850), Or-ange (473,988), Ventura (123,316) and Imperial (164,112) counties combined (Exhibit 129).

1,489,126

1,225,0691,122,809

Inland Empire Orange, San Diego, Ventura, Imperial Los Angeles

Source: Southern California Association of Governments & San Diego Association of Governments, 2008

Exhibiti 129.-Population ForecastSouthern California, 2005-2020



4.244.11

3.753.62 3.50

2.99 2.92 2.83 2.782.65 2.57

1.971.81 1.77

1.501.32 1.32 1.28

1.06 0.96 0.86 0.80 0.68 0.64 0.62 0.52

Kentuc

ky

Inlan

d Empir

e

Oregon

Oklaho

ma

Conne

cticu

tIo

wa

Miss

issipp

i

Arkan

sas

Kansa

sUtah

Nevad

a

New M

exico

Wes

t Virg

inia

Nebras

kaId

aho

Main

e

New H

amps

hire

Hawaii

Rhode

Islan

d

Mon

tana

Delaware

South

Dakota

Alaska

North

Dakota

Vermon

t

Wyo

ming

Note: Kentucky Ranked 26thSource: U.S. Department of Commerce

Exhibit 130.-Total Population (millions)Inland Empire As A State, July 2007

Inland Empire As A State . . .

In July 2007, the Inland Empire’s population of 4.11 million was larger than 24 states, now ahead of Oregon (3.75 million), Oklahoma (3.62 million) and Connecticut (3.50 million). It must pass Kentucky (4.23 million) to be larger than half the U.S. states (Exhibit 130).

In 2006, the Inland Empire’s total personal income of $112 billion was larger than 21 states. The next smallest state was Iowa ($98 billion). The region’s income is next below Oklahoma’s $116 billion (Exhibit 131).

$116

$112

$98

$97

$96

$80

$78

$76

$61

$58

$52

$51

$47

$44

$42

$40

$33

$29

$26

$25

$22

$21

$21

Oklaho

ma

Inlan

d Empir

eIo

wa

Nevad

a

Kansa

s

Arkan

sas

Miss

issipp

iUtah

Nebras

ka

New M

exico

New H

amps

hire

Wes

t Virg

inia

Hawaii

Idah

o

Main

e

Rhode

Islan

d

Delaware

Mon

tana

Alaska

South

Dakota

Vermon

t

North

Dakota

Wyo

ming

Note: Oaklahoma ranked 29thSource: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Exhibit 131.-Total Personal Income (billions)Inland Empire As A State, 2006



1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

5,000,000

5,500,000

6,000,000

6,500,000

7,000,000

7,500,000

Balance ofSouthernCalifornia

Inland Empire


Exhibit 132.-Monthly Wage & Salary Job LevelsInland Empire vs. Rest of Southern California, 1983-2008

Inland Empire & Southern California Job Growth Pattern . . .

Corona’s prosperity is, in part, conditioned by the Inland Empire’s historically strong economic environment. Thus, from 1990-1994, the Inland Empire added jobs slowly at a time when the rest of Southern California lost 550,000 jobs due to the severe post-Cold War defense recession in the region.

From 2001-2002, the inland area barely registered the dot.com slowdown that affected Southern California. Only in the recent steep housing decline has its growth slowed with the wider region (Exhibit 132).

Looking ahead,. from 2005-2020, the Southern California Association of Governments forecasts that the Inland Empire will add 653,388 jobs. In this period, Los Angeles County is expected to add just 357,700 jobs. The inland region’s growth will more than the 617,381 jobs expected in Orange, San Diego, Ventura and Imperial counties combined (Exhibit 133).

653,388617,381

357,700

Inland Empire Orange, San Diego, Ventura, Imperial Los Angeles

Source: Southern California Association of Governments & San Diego Association of Governments, 2008

Exhibit 133.-Job ForecastSouthern California, 2005-2020



7,822

67,906

327,100 337,483

532,689

Los Angeles Co. Ventura Co. Orange Co. San Diego Co. Inland Empire


Exhibit 134.-Southern California Job Gain1990-2008

Where did 1,287,631jobs go?

Inland Empire & Southern California Employment, 1990-2006 . . . Corona’s economy has done well, in part, because the surrounding Inland Empire has far outperformed every

other sub-market of the Southern California economy since 1990. Comparing average employment from 1990 to 2008, the Inland Empire has risen by 532,689 jobs (Exhibit 134). Second place San Diego County gained 337,483. Orange County was up 327,100. In sharp contrast, Los Angeles County was up just 7,822. Despite having the smallest economy, the Inland Empire has been Southern California’s absolute leader in job creation for the past eighteen years, exceeding the job gain in second place San Diego County by 195,206 jobs.

From 1984-1990, the Inland Empire added from 30,000 to 46,000 jobs a year. In the early 1990’s, it added 20,000 jobs when the rest of Southern California lost 550,000. In the late 1990’s, its job growth rose to 23,000 to 40,000. That was bettered from 2000-2006 with growth from 33,000 to a record 61,000. The current inland downturn, with job growth flat in 2007 and down by 19,100 positions in 2008, has come about due to the se-vere national difficulties in housing (Exhibit 135). Once that is corrected, the area’s strength due to its land availability and lower prices will re-emerge.

30,0

50 41,0

25

37,6

42

36,5

33

36,7

75

41,4

83

46,0

08

6,34

2

9,75

8

4,57

5

16,9

17 28,9

25

23,0

83

38,3

25

40,6

92

56,4

67

49,8

50

40,5

67

33,2

92

35,4

67

59,2

75

61,5

33

44,7

00

592

(19,

100)

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Jan-

Jun 2

008e

Sources: CA Employment Development Department, John E. Husing, Ph.D.

Exhibit 135.-Job CreationInland Empire, Annual Average, 1984-2008e



$155,000 $164,000$197,000

$269,000$271,000

$426,000 $435,000$468,000

$540,000

Inland Empire San Diego Los Angeles Ventura Orange

Median All Home Price

Inland Empire Advantage

Source: Dataquick

Exhibit 136.-Home Price Advantage, Inland Empire & So. California MarketsMedian Priced New & Existing Home, 2nd Quarter 2008

Inland Empire Space Cost Advantage . . .

Inland Empire job creation has exceeded Southern California’s averages because people and firms have moved to the area due to its cost advantages. These advantages start with housing costs. The heavy urbanization of Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties has left them with little undeveloped land. As a result, even with recent declines, their 2nd quarter 2008 median priced homes are far above the Inland Empire’s $271,999 level: San Diego ($426,000), Los Angeles ($435,000), Orange ($540,000) (Exhibit 136). As the housing markets re-cover, this long term price relationship will inevitably force the resumption of families migrating inland to find homes they can afford. Many will be professionals, technicians and executives since upscale homes in the coastal counties will remain beyond their incomes.

Industrial firms find that the Inland Empire is nearly the only place where large new facilities can be built. At $0.43 per foot/month (400,000 square feet are $2,060,000 a year) in June 2008, these facilities lease for far less than space in older coastal county sub-markets ($340,000 to $2.4 million savings a year). The Inland Empire also offers office space cost savings. Thus, 10,000 square feet in the area leases for an average of $262,400 ($2.19 sq. ft./mo.) or $11,600-$133,100 a year below all but one coastal county market (Vista) (Exhibit 137).

Exhibit 137.-Industrial/Commercial Space Cost, So. Calif., June 2008 Industrial Commercial Office

Market Lease Rate 400,000 Sq. Ft./Year Market Lease Rate 10,000 Sq. Ft./Year

Orange-South $0.93 $4,464,000 Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena $3.20 $384,000

San Diego-Escondido $0.82 $3,936,000 John Wayne Airport $3.14 $376,800

Orange-Airport $0.75 $3,600,000 South Orange Co. $3.02 $362,400

San Diego-San Marcos $0.74 $3,552,000 Downtown Los Angeles $2.95 $354,000

San Diego-Vista $0.70 $3,360,000 San Diego-Escondido $2.87 $344,400

L.A. - South Bay $0.68 $3,264,000 Central Orange Co. $2.75 $330,000

L.A. - North $0.67 $3,216,000 San Gabriel Valley $2.74 $328,800

Orange-North $0.65 $3,120,000 Orange-North $2.73 $327,600

Orange-West $0.63 $3,024,000 San Diego-San Marcos $2.72 $326,400

L.A. - Mid Cities $0.60 $2,880,000 West Orange Co. $2.65 $318,000

San Gabriel Vly $0.60 $2,880,000 South Bay $2.46 $295,200

LA-Central $0.50 $2,400,000 Inland Empire Avg. $2.19 $262,400

Inland Empire $0.43 $2,060,000 San Diego-Vista $2.09 $250,800




-2.3%

-0.1%

-2.3%

-9.2%

-7.6%-6.5%

Orange Los Angeles San Diego

Source: Occupational Employment Survey, Employment Develoment Department; Weighting Economics & Politics Inc.

Exhibit 138.-Labor Cost Savings, Jobs Paying Over/Under $60,000Inland Empire vs. Coastal Counties, 2006

Inland Empire Labor Force Advantages . . .

People living in the Inland Empire prefer to work in the Inland Empire. They dislike the long commutes to Orange or Los Angeles counties. They do not like the long hours away from their families. Economically, they realize that their average work week is much more than 40 hours if their driving time is included. Increasingly, the cost of gasoline is becoming an issue for them. People will thus work for less to avoid commuting to coastal counties.

The competitive advantage offered by willingness of workers to work for less to avoid commuting is particu-larly true for high end workers making over $60,000 in coastal counties. Firms that move inland can hire such employees for 9.2% less than in Orange County, 7.6% less than L.A. County, and 6.5% less than San Diego County (Exhibit 138).

Importantly from 2000-2006, the availability of inland workers with Bachelors or higher degrees has increased dramatically rising from 312,257 to 441,491, up 129,234 or 41.4% (Exhibit 139).

41.4%312,257

441,491

129,234

2000 2006 2000-2006 Percent

Source: 2000 Census & 2006 American Community Survey

Exhibit 139.-BA Or Higher EducationAdults 25 & Up, Inland Empire, 2000-2006



Inland Empire’s Sophisticated Logistics Infrastructure . . .

Firms locating in Corona have uncongested access to the Inland Empire’s sophisticated and expanding logistics infrastructure. This is crucial to goods producers and distributors in the Just-In-Time inventory control era.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway replaced a small intermodal operation in San Bernardino in 1996. That has allowed the railroad’s volume to soar to over 550,000 lifts. Inland Empire firms can use this facility and avoid the congested intermodal rail yards in Los Angeles County’s harbor area. Union Pacific Southern Pacific railroad is looking to build a similar facility, possibly in the San Gorgonio Pass area. The high desert and the I-10 pass area are also being considered for an “inland port” to which international shipments can be brought by rail. Cargo would then be unloaded and the goods distributed to local warehouses until they are needed by Southern California’s firms. Currently, these shipments are processed in L.A. and 1.28 million containers are brought inland by truck, contributing to freeway congestion.

A key fact driving the Inland Empire’s economy is the huge volume of containerized goods processed at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. In 2007, 43.2% of all U.S. imported containers and 25.3% of exported containers followed this route. Much of the associated merchandise is processed in the Inland Empire, leading to a growing demand for logistics workers and facilities. Port traffic is forecasted to triple by 2030 (Exhibit 140). Note: the slowdown in port volume growth in 2007-2008 is due to the U.S. economic difficulties and the high value of the dollar.

3.7 3.8 4.1 4.4 5.1 5.4 5.8 6.5 7.5 8.2 9.5 9.6 10.611.8 13.114.2 15.815.7 14.6

42.5

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

e

2025

e

TEU=20 foot equivalent container unitsSource: Ports of Los Angeles & Long Beach; forecast: Moffatt & Nichol Engineers

Exhibit 140.-Port Container TrafficPorts of Los Angeles & Long Beach, 1990-2008 & 2025e (million TEUs)

200743.2% U.S. Imported Containers25.3% U.S. Exported Containers



43 87 128 137

504

1,024 1,092 1,117

2,2522,340

JWA BUR PSP LGB SCLA PMD SBD MAR ONT LAX

Source: SCAG 2004 Regional Transportation Plan

Exhibit 141.-Air Cargo Tonnage For SCAG Area Airports2030 Constrained Demand (1,000s tons)

2007:2,07888.8%

2007:533

23.7%

LA-Ontario International Airport . . .

Firms locating in the Inland Empire have relatively uncongested freeway access to the 24-gate LA-Ontario In-ternational Airport (ONT). The airport is in the process of expanding its cargo handling capability.

In 2005, ONT had 575,369 tons of air cargo. The Southern California Association of Governments has fore-casted that this will reach 2.25 million tons in 2030. That will be just below the 2.34 million tons forecasted for Los Angeles International Airport that year. Meanwhile, March Air Reserve Base (1.12 million tons), San Ber-nardino International Airport (1.09 million tons), Southern California Logistics Airport (500,000 tons) and Palm Springs International Airport (130,000 tons) are all forecasted to handle significant volumes (Exhibit 141).

From 1990-2000, air passenger volume at LA-Ontario International Airport rose from 5.42 million to 6.74 mil-lion, up 24.4% (Exhibit 142). Traffic volume was accelerating due to the inland region’s growth, the 26-gate terminal and associated parking plus the expanding flight menu including direct flights to New York and Mex-ico. The 9-11 aftermath caused volume to plateau in 2002-2003. In 2005, volume reached a record 7.21 mil-lion passengers. It is on a path for 7.13 million in 2006. By 2030, it is expected to reach 30 million passengers a year, equal to the present day Detroit, Miami and Phoenix airports.

5.425.79

6.12 6.19 6.39 6.41 6.25 6.30 6.43 6.58 6.74 6.70 6.52 6.556.94

7.21 7.05 7.21

6.50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008e

Source: Los Angeles World Airports

Exhibit 142.-Air Passenger ServiceLA-Ontario International Airport, 1990-2008e (millions)



188

232226219

229218

228

210

233

198192

209207217

196

216211

185184190185

165153

141144

107111115121116125

105 99 10296

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Exhibit 143.-Southern California Air QualityDays Exceeding CA Standard, 1976-2007 (Maximum: .09 ppm Ozone)

Air Quality . . . During the past 28-years, even the air quality in urbanized Southern California has dramatically improved. The

Southland had a peak of 208 days above the federal ozone standard in 1977. That number was down to just 30 in 2005 (Exhibit 143). There has been only one first stage smog alert (lowest level) in Southern California in the past seven years (2003). The peak was 121 in 1997 (not shown).

Inland Empire Weather. . . Inland Empire residents enjoy an extraordinary environment for outdoor living. In the urban valleys where

Corona is located, the high temperature varies from an average of 66 in December and January to averages of 94 and 93 in July and August. As the region is a coastal desert climatic zone, the humidity tends to be rela-tively low most of the year (Exhibit 144).

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Source: Division of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of California

Exhibit 144.-Average High Temperature By MonthInland Empire Urban Valleys, Coachella Valley, High Desert

Coachella Valley

Urban Valleys

High Desert

Tourism


CORONA

SECTION 10

TOURISM With $112 billion in 2006 total income, a population of 4.1 million people in 2007, and an an-ticipated increase of 1.49 million in population anticipated from 2005-2020, the Inland Empire has emerged as California’s newest important economic center. As the area expands, one of its missing ingredients continues to be marquee destinations capable of regularly drawing tourists. In Corona, the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts, which opened in June 2002, is helping to fill this void. This 33,000 square foot facility is a cooperative project between the city, the rede-velopment agency and the Fender Musical Instrument Company.

Anyone who has listened to popular music during the past 40 years has heard music coming from Fender Guitars. Nearly every rock & roll legend from the 1950s to the present has per-formed on Fender instruments: Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Jimi Hendrix and countless others. The Fender Museum of Music and the Arts is dedicated to displaying their custom-made instru-ments and playing their songs.

The museum contains galleries of artist memorabilia and the history of the Fender Musical In-strument Company. It is also a teaching facility where an estimated 1,200 children per week learn how to play a wide variety of musical instruments including guitars, drums, keyboards, strings and horns. Other aspects of music education including voice, drama and dance are being added. The facility has a full digital recording studio and a 300 seat performance amphitheater.

Over time, the project’s tourist potential is being enhanced as stars will donate their historic gui-tars in person, and perform concerts for selected audiences as part of the ceremony. The hope is to ultimately create traditions such as the Baseball Hall of Fame induction or the dedication of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Southern California visitors are already fascinated by the region’s ties to the entertainment industry. This facility fits that mold.

Corona and the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts are well situated. The city is the site of much of the firm’s current and historic guitar production. It sits on the 91 freeway, adjacent to Orange County and is easily accessible to L.A. County via SR 71 and I-15. Metrolink has opened a super station within easy walking distance of the Museum on North Main Street and Blain.

In 2005, depending on traffic, there were 7.8 million people living within 30-45 minutes of Co-rona. By 2010 the Southern California Association of Governments expects this to grow to 8.5 million and 9.0 million by 2015 (Exhibits 145-146). Within one to 1¼ hours, SCAG estimates there were 17.0 million people in 2005. By 2010, this should reach 18.4 million and 19.3 million by 2015 (Exhibits 147-148).

Leisure time activities are very much within the financial reach of the wider market area’s fami-lies. Their 2008 median income (50% above & below) is a very healthy $55,100 (Exhibits 149-150). And, their combined personal income was a hefty $696 billion. That is $40,449 for each of over 17 million residents.

Tourism


Each year, the California Tourism Research branch of the California State Tourism Office esti-mates tourism spending by county in the state. Their latest report was for 2006. Applying the state’s 2006-2007 growth rate to county data, allowed estimates for 2007 spending to be derived (Exhibit 142). This process indicates that tourist spending in Riverside County, where Corona is located, was $6.2 billion in 2007. The estimate was $3.8 billion for neighboring San Bernardino County. In adjacent Orange County, tourist spending is predicted at $8.9 billion for 2007. The figure was $11.3 billion in San Diego County and $23.9 billion in Los Angeles County. Alto-gether, there thus was $54.1 billion in tourist spending within one to 1¼ hours of the Fender Mu-seum of Music and the Arts in 2007, up from $38.8 billion as recently as 2004.

The uniqueness of the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts, together with Corona’s location, are creating opportunities for Corona’s businesses to compete for these families and those tourist dollars.

Tourism


Exhibit 145.-Population, Fender Museum of Music & the Arts Market, 2005-2015

30-45 Minute Commute Year Riverside San Bdno Orange Los Angeles Total

2005 1,491,322 1,507,804 3,045,218 1,723,753 7,768,097

2010 1,722,705 1,617,372 3,314,940 1,823,619 8,478,636

2015 1,905,624 1,723,282 3,451,751 1,887,895 8,968,552

7,768,0978,478,636 8,968,552

2008 2012 2016

Source: CA Department of Finance, SCAG, Adjustments by Economics & Politics, Inc.

Exhibit 146.-Total Population, Fender Museum Market Area30 to 45 Minute Commute From Corona, 2005-2015

Population, Fender Museum of Music and the Arts . . .

Depending on traffic, in 2005, the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts in Corona sat within a 30 to 45 min-ute drive of 7.8 million people. At the expected rates of population increase, this should rise to 8.5 million in the year 2010, and 9.0 million in 2015 (Exhibit 145-146).

When the driving distance is expanded to 1-1¼ hours, the 2005 market area population was 17.0 million. It is expected to reach 18.4 million in the year 2010, and 19.3 million in 2015 (Exhibits 147-148).

Exhibit 147.-Population, Fender Museum of Music & the Arts Market, 2005-201560-75 Minute Commute

Year Riverside San Bdno Orange Los Angeles Total

2005 1,882,812 1,945,242 3,045,218 10,163,097 17,036,369

2010 2,242,749 2,182,051 3,314,940 10,615,518 18,355,258

2015 2,509,323 2,385,750 3,451,751 10,970,633 19,317,457

17,036,36918,355,258 19,317,457

2005 2010 2015

Source: CA Department of Finance, SCAG forecast rates

Exhibit 148.-Total Population, Fender Museum Market Area60 to 75 Minute Commute From Corona, 2005-2015

Tourism


Exhibit 149.-Estimated Income Levels, 2008

Fender Museum of Music and the Arts Market Income Riverside San Bdno Orange L.A. Total

Total (000) $67,014,000 $60,863,000 $161,475,000 $406,299,000 $695,651,000

Median (2006) $53,508 $52,941 $70,232 $51,315 $55,100

Per Capita $30,767 $29,195 $53,180 $40,583 $40,449

1. 2008 Total & Per Capita from 2006 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis updated to 2008 by Economics & Politics, Inc.

2. 2006 Median Income from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey

Income Near The Fender Museum of Music and the Arts . . .

The estimated 2008 median income of people living within 1-1¼ hours drive of a Corona based Fender Mu-seum of Music and the Arts is $55,100. This included $70,232 for families living in Orange County, $53,508 in Riverside County, $52,941 in San Bernardino County and $51,315 in Los Angeles County (Exhibits 149-150).

The latest data show that the 2008 per capita income of people living within this driving distance of Corona was $40,449. The range was from a high of $53,180 in Orange County to $29,195 in San Bernardino County.

Altogether, the latest data who that the estimated total 2008 personal income of people living within a one to 1¼ hour drive of Corona was $696 billion.

$40,449

$55,100

$695,651,000

Total Income (000) Median Income (2006) Per Capita Income

Source: Exhibit 149

Exhibit 150.-Income, Fender Museum of Music & the Arts MarketEstimated: Total & Per Capita Income, 2008 & Median Income, 2006

Tourism


$23,898,008,736

$11,329,712,576

$8,915,869,872

$6,184,331,552

$3,773,708,736

Los Angeles San Diego Orange Riverside San Bernardino

Source: Dean Runyon Assoicates for CA Tourist Bureau for 2006 Increased by 2007 California Growth Rate

Exhibit 151.-Southern California Tourist SpendingSouthern California Counties, 2007

Southern California Tourist Spending, 2007 . . .

The California Tourism Research branch of the California State Tourism Office estimates tourism spending by county in the state. Their latest report was in 2006. Using the 2006-2007 growth rate for the state, the esti-mates for 2007 spending were derived (Exhibit 151).

Tourist spending in Riverside County, where Corona is located, was $6.2 billion in 2007. The estimate was $3.8 billion for neighboring San Bernardino County.

Nearby, tourist spending in Orange County is predicted at $8.9 billion for 2007. The figures were for $11.3 billion in San Diego County and $23.9 billion in Los Angeles County.

Altogether, there thus should be $54.1 billion in tourist spending within one to 1¼ hours of the Fender Museum of Music and the Arts in 2007, up from $38.8 billion as recently as 2004.

News & Politics

City of Corona - Demographic Report by Husing