This document provides a demographic, economic, and quality of life report for Corona, California. It includes 50 exhibits that analyze population trends, housing statistics, employment data, retail sales, industrial and office real estate markets, and quality of life indicators such as education and crime rates. The exhibits contain graphs and tables comparing Corona to surrounding cities and counties. The report was compiled by an economics consulting firm to provide updated information on Corona's economy.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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