City of Corona - Demographic Report by Husing

2,118 views

Published on

2009 Demographic Study for City of Corona Economic Development Department.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,118
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

City of Corona - Demographic Report by Husing

  1. 1. DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC & QUALITY OF LIFE REPORT Corona, California OPEN 24/7 Demo cover 2.indd 1 8/12/2008 10:50:55 AM
  2. 2. 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 john@johnhusing.com 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. Index of Exhibits 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 Exhibit List Page a
  5. 5. Index of Exhibits 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 Exhibit List Page b
  6. 6. Index of Exhibits CITY OF CORONA Exhibits 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 Exhibit List Page c
  7. 7. Index of Exhibits CITY OF CORONA Exhibits 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 Exhibit List Page d
  8. 8. Introduction 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 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page i
  9. 9. Introduction 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 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page ii
  10. 10. Introduction 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. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page iii
  11. 11. Introduction 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 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page iv
  12. 12. Introduction 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- _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page v
  13. 13. Introduction 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 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page vi
  14. 14. Introduction 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. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page vii
  15. 15. Introduction 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. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page viii
  16. 16. Introduction 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). _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page ix
  17. 17. Introduction 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 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page x
  18. 18. Introduction 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- _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page xi
  19. 19. Introduction 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. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 1 Corona Page xii
  20. 20. Demographic Characteristics 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 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 2 Corona Page 1
  21. 21. Demographic Characteristics 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. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 2 Corona Page 2
  22. 22. Demographic Characteristics 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. Exhibit 2.-Population Forecast Corona Market Area, 2005-2035 373,064 384,112 361,376 347,669 334,138 314,060 286,911 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Corona Market = Corona, Norco, Canyon Lake, Eastvale, Woodcrest & other unincorporated areas Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2008 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 2 Corona Page 3
  23. 23. Demographic Characteristics 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). Exhibit 4.-Population, Top 20 Cities Inland Empire Cities, January 2008 Riverside 296,842 San Bdno 205,493 Fontana 188,498 Moreno Valley 183,860 R. Cucamonga 174,308 Ontario 173,690 Corona 147,428 Victorville 107,408 Temecula 101,057 Murrieta 100,173 Rialto 99,767 Hesperia 87,820 Chino 82,670 Indio 81,512 Chino Hills 78,957 Upland 75,137 Hemet 74,185 Redlands 71,807 Apple Valley 70,092 Source: CA Department of Finance, E-5 Reports Perris 53,605 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 2 Corona Page 4
  24. 24. Demographic Characteristics 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. Exhibit 6.-Income Distribution Corona & Riverside County, 2006 Corona Riverside County $100,000 & UP $100,000 & UP $0-$14,999 20.6% 32.7% 6.7% $75,000-$99,999 $0-$14,999 12.6% 10.0% $15,000-$24,999 $75,000-$99,999 7.0% $50,000-$74,999 $15,000-$24,999 16.4% 11.1% $25,000-$34,999 19.9% $50,000-$74,999 5.4% $25,000-$34,999 $35,000-$49,999 16.7% 15.0% 10.6% $35,000-$49,999 15.1% Orange County $100,000 & UP $0-$14,999 33.1% 7.7% $15,000-$24,999 $75,000-$99,999 13.9% 7.8% $25,000-$34,999 $50,000-$74,999 7.6% 18.3% $35,000-$49,999 Source: 2007 American Community Survey, Census Bureau 11.6% _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 2 Corona Page 5
  25. 25. Demographic Characteristics Exhibit 7.-Total Spendable Income (millions) Inland Empire, Top 10 of 48 Cities, 2006 Riverside $6,332 R. Cucamonga $4,528 Corona $4,008 Fontana $3,123 Moreno Valley $2,972 Ontario $2,929 San Bernardino $2,894 Chino Hills $2,593 Murrieta $2,543 Temecula $2,159 Source: 2007 American Community Survey, Census Bureau 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). Exhibit 8.-Median Income, Top 15 Inland Cities & Top 5 Orange Co. Cities Over 100,000 People, 2006 Indian Wells $120,074 Chino Hills $100,394 Irvine $84,270 Rancho Mirage $78,434 Huntington Beach $75,896 Rancho Cucamonga $75,429 Murrieta $75,102 Corona $72,162 Temecula $71,754 LaQuinta $71,127 Chino $70,994 Canyon Lake $70,106 Grand Terrace $69,806 Orange $67,915 Upland $64,894 Redlands $63,463 Norco $62,652 Palm Desert $61,789 Fullerton $62,124 Source: 2007 American Community Survey Costa Mesa $61,535 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Section 2 Corona Page 6

×