Agenda packet — Cypress City Council, June 27, 2022 (part 1 of 6)

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING

CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL
June 27, 2022
5:30 P.M.
www.cypressca.org Council Chambers
5275 Orange Avenue
Cypress, California

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Consistent with current COVID-19 safety guidelines, members of the public can participate in this meeting as follows:

1. Attend In-Person. First-come, first-served seating is available in the Council Chambers. Face coverings are strongly recommended and all in-person attendees must be free of any symptoms associated with COVID-19.

2. Attend Virtually via Webinar. This option provides the ability to provide live public comments during Oral Communications or Public Hearings and view slideshow presentations. Please register at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2622928292911265551 to receive an email containing a link to join the webinar. Advance registration is recommended.

3. Watch the Meeting. The City Council meeting can be viewed live on Spectrum Cable Channel 36 or on the City's website at www.cypressca.org/watchlive.

4. Listen to the Meeting. The public may participate via the listen-only teleconference mode by calling (562) 247-8422 and entering Access Code 540-812-133 when prompted. No registration or audio pin is necessary.

5. Submit Public Comments Prior to the Meeting. The public may submit comments via email to [email protected]. Comments submitted by 3:00 p.m. on June 27, 2022 will be added to the City Council agenda as a Consent Calendar item.

CALL TO ORDER
5:30 P.M.

Executive Board Room

ROLL CALL
Cypress City Council, also acting as the Ex-Officio Governing Board of Directors of the Cypress Recreation and Park District
Mayor Paulo Morales
Mayor Pro Tem Anne Hertz-Mallari
Council Member Frances Marquez
Council Member Scott Minikus
Council Member Jon Peat
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Three minutes per speaker, unless extended by the City Council) The public may address the City Council on matters appearing on the Closed Session agenda. Although Council Members may provide brief responses, the City Council may not discuss or take action on items that are not on its agenda.

If you would like to address the City Council in person, please complete a Speaker's Card. If you would like to address the City Council via the meeting webinar, please click the 'hand raise' button, unmute your microphone and wait for the Mayor or City Clerk to call on you. = Hand Raise = Unmute
Speakers providing comments in person will be called first. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than three minutes.

Alternatively, comments may be submitted to [email protected] prior to 3:00 p.m. on June 27, 2022. All comments submitted via email prior to the deadline will be added to the agenda as a Consent Calendar item.

CLOSED SESSION
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: City Manager and Director of Finance and Administrative Services Employee Group: Cypress Police Officers Association
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE EVALUATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957
Title: City Manager

RECONVENE
7:00 P.M.

Council Chambers

ROLL CALL
June 27, 2022 | Page 2

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints The City Council does not endorse the content of the invocation and does not endorse the invocational speaker’s particular faith, belief and/or religious denomination. The City Council has an established neutral policy for selecting and scheduling invocational speakers. The City Council’s policy on invocations is available from the City Clerk.

REPORT OF WORKSHOP AGENDA / CLOSED SESSION
City Manager/City Attorney

PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Certificates Appointment and Loyalty Oath of Office to New Commissioners Golden State Water Drought Update
Introduction of New City Employees
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Limited to 30 minutes – three minutes per speaker, unless extended by the City Council)
The public may address the City Council on any matters prior to any action taken on the agenda. Although Council Members may provide brief responses, the City Council may not discuss or take action on items that are not on its agenda.

June 27, 2022 | Page 3
Alternatively, comments may be submitted to [email protected] prior to 3:00 p.m. on June 27, 2022. All comments submitted via email prior to the deadline will be added to the agenda as a Consent Calendar item.

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public comments – five minutes per speaker, unless extended by the City Council.

If you would like to provide comments on a Public Hearing item in person, please complete a Speaker's Card available at the podium. If you would like to provide comments on a Public Hearing item via the meeting webinar, please click the 'hand raise' button, unmute your microphone and wait for the Mayor or City Clerk to call on you. = Hand Raise = Unmute
Speakers providing comments in person will be called first. Members of the public providing comments via webinar are encouraged to also submit a written copy of their comments to [email protected] prior to 3:00 p.m. on June 13, 2022. This will ensure your comments are included in the public hearing record should you experience any technical difficulties during the public hearing.

Council Members should disclose communications with anyone relevant to a Public Hearing item.

1. Renew the Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for FY 2022-23
Prepared by: Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution renewing Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for FY 2022-23, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

2. Adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Technical Report Prepared by: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Technical Report and approving the Initial Study/Negative Declaration.

June 27, 2022 | Page 4

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a Council Member requests separate action on a specific item.

3. Receive and File Public Comments Submitted for the June 27, 2022 City Council Meeting
Prepared by: Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
Recommendation: Receive and file submitted public comments.

4. Introduce and/or Adopt All Ordinances and Resolutions Presented for Consideration by Title Only and to Waive Further Reading

5. Approve Minutes - Meeting of May 23, 2022
Prepared by: Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
Recommendation: Approve as submitted.

6. Approve Second Reading and Adopt and Ordinance Amending Section 21A-15 of the Municipal Code Related to the Disposition of Surplus Supplies and Equipment Prepared by: Matt Burton, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Recommendation: Approve the second reading and adopt an Ordinance, by title only and waive further reading, amending Section 21A-15 of the Municipal Code regarding the disposition of surplus supplies and equipment.

7. Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Cypress Municipal Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units, Density Bonus, and Reasonable Accommodations Prepared by: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
Recommendation: Approve the second reading and adopt an Ordinance, by title only and waive further reading, related to accessory dwelling units, density bonus, and reasonable accomodations.

8. Approve a Task Order for Public Works Construction Management and Inspection Services
Prepared by: Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Approve a Task Order to Ardurra, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $100,000 to perform public works construction management and inspection services for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023.

June 27, 2022 | Page 5

9. Approve a Task Order for City Traffic Engineer Services Prepared by: Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Approve a Task Order for an amount not to exceed $163,000 to Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) to provide FY 2022-23 City Traffic Engineer Services.

10. Award a Contract for Community Center HVAC, Project 289 Prepared by: Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works
Recommendation:

1. Approve Plans and Specifications for Community Center Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), Project 289; and

2. Award a contract to Bon Air, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, for $678,000, and authorize a contingency of $75,000; and

3. Approve a Task Order for Construction Inspection Services to Ardurra Inc. for $67,650, and authorize a contingency of $10,150.

11. Award a Contract for the Purchase of Engineering Workstations Prepared by: Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Award a contract to Interior Office Solutions, dba PeopleSpace, for $69,584.99, for the design, purchase, and installation of furniture and furnishings for the Public Works Engineering Division.

12. Approve Contract Services Agreements for On-Call Construction Management and Inspection Services
Prepared by: Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Approve contract services agreements for on-call construction management and inspection services with AKM Consulting Engineers and Ardurra Inc.

13. Approve a Contract Services Agreement for Police Towing and Storage Prepared by: Mark Lauderback, Chief of Police
Recommendation: Approve a contract services agreement with Russell's Towing to provide police towing and storage services.

14. Amend the Salary Range for Network Administrator and Establish the Human Resources Manager Classification
Prepared by: Matt Burton, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 6860 to establish salary ranges for Mid-Management employees.

June 27, 2022 | Page 6

15. Receive and File Updated FY 2022-23 Pay Schedules for the Cypress Employees' Association, the Maintenance Employees' Association and the Police Management Association
Prepared by: Matt Burton, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Recommendation: Receive and file updated pay schedules effective July 8, 2022 for the Cypress Employees’ Association (CEA), the Cypress Maintenance Employees’ Association (MEA) and the Police Management Association (PMA).

16. Approve the Measure M2 Program Eligibility Submittal Package for Fiscal Year 2022-23
Prepared by: Doug Dancs, Director of Public Works
Recommendation: Approve the Measure M2 program eligibility submittal package for Fiscal Year 2022-23.

17. Receive and File the Strategic Plan Six-Month Objectives Update Prepared by: Peter Grant, City Manager
Recommendation: Receive and file the strategic plan six-month objectives update.

18. Receive and File the Investment Report for the Month Ended May 31, 2022 Prepared by: Matt Burton, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Recommendation: Receive and file the attached investment report.

19. Approve Register of Warrants, Transfers, and Wires Issued for the Period of June 4, 2022 through June 17, 2022
Prepared by: Matt Burton, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Recommendation: Approve the attached payment register summarized below for the period of June 4, 2022 through June 17, 2022:

Electronic Funds Transfers 11192 through 11200
Warrants 59674 through 59797
Payroll Transfers W1477

NEW BUSINESS

20. Receive and File the Results of the 2022 Community Survey Prepared by: Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
Recommendation: Receive and file the results of the 2022 Community Survey.

June 27, 2022 | Page 7

ITEMS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS

21. Adopt a Resolution Censuring Council Member Marquez for Violating the Laws of the State of California by Failing to Respond to Public Records Act Requests, Failing to Respond to Public Records Act Requests in a Timely Manner, and Disclosing Confidential Information from Closed City Council Session(s); Violating the Charter; Violating the Code of Ethics; and Violating the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy
Agendized by: Paulo Morales, Mayor
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution censuring Council Member Marquez for violating the laws of the State of California by failing to respond to Public Records Act requests, failing to respond to Public Records Act requests in a timely manner, and disclosing confidential information from closed City Council Session(s); violating the Charter; violating the Code of Ethics; and violating the Civility, Conduct and Governance Policy.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Five minutes per speaker, unless extended by the City Council) The public may address the City Council on any matters prior to any action taken on the agenda. Although Council Members may provide brief responses, the City Council may not discuss or take action on items that are not on its agenda.

COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND REMARKS

CITY MANAGER REMARKS
June 27, 2022 | Page 8

ADJOURNMENT - IN MEMORY OF EL MONTE POLICE SERGEANT MICHAEL PAREDES

AND OFFICER JOSEPH SANTANA
The next meeting will be an adjourned Regular Meeting, to be held on Monday, July 11, 2022, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the Executive Board Room.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing Agenda was posted on the City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting. Dated this 25th day of June, 2022.

________________________________
Alisha Farnell, City Clerk
In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, you should contact the City Clerk at (714) 229-6685 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting.

June 27, 2022 | Page 9
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 1.

FROM: Douglas Dancs, Director of Public Works
DATE: 06/27/2022
SUBJECT: Renew the Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for FY 2022-23

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution renewing Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for FY 2022-23, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

DISCUSSION
The Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (District) was established to provide ongoing maintenance of the Stanton Channel landscape berm which acts as a buffer between the businesses and residences to the south. Parcels in the District pay an assessment for the maintenance of the berm based on square footage. The assessment for FY 2022-23 is $95,310. The attached Resolution authorizes the assessment of Cypress Business Park properties adjacent to the channel for berm maintenance.

A copy of the May 9 Agenda Report approving the City Engineer’s Report and the FY 2022-23 renewal of the Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for the north side of the berm is attached. The City Engineer issued an addendum to the City Engineer's Report to clarify the use of certain herbicides which are already prohibited from use in the city's existing landscape contract.

Affidavits of posting and publication of the public hearing notices are on file in the City Clerk's office.

BUDGET IMPACT
The maximum assessment for FY 2022-23 is $95,310 (see Attachment “D” of the City Engineer’s Report).

The $95,310 assessment covers proposed maintenance costs for the period of July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, which includes the indirect and direct support costs from the City and administrative costs imposed by the County Auditor – Controller. The assessment also provides a cash flow reserve and sets aside funding for necessary, provides a cash flow reserve and sets aside funding for necessary, non-recurring maintenance to the berm.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
May 9 Agenda Report
Addendum No. 1
Resolution
City Council Regular
Return to the Search Page
Item # 4.

Meeting Date: 05/09/2022
FROM: Douglas Dancs

SUBJECT
Approve the City Engineer's Report and Renew Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (Stanton Channel Berm)

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the City Engineer's Report for the Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022-23; and

2. Adopt the attached Resolution declaring the City Council's intention to order the renewal of Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for maintenance of the landscape and irrigation system located at the berm on the north side of the Stanton Channel and setting a public hearing for June 27, 2022.

DISCUSSION
The City formed a Maintenance District in 1985 covering all properties bounded by the Stanton Channel on the south, Katella Avenue on the north, Knott Street on the east, and Valley View Street on the west. This was done to provide a funding source for the City to maintain the landscaping along the berm when the properties developed to the north.

The 19 parcels are owned by four property owners and are assessed annually on a per-acre basis (see Attachment E and F of the City Engineer's Report). The assessment funds maintenance and irrigation of the landscaping located on the berm. The annual assessment for landscape maintenance is a routine process established over 30 years ago.

The City maintains the berm primarily through a landscape contract, which includes trimming plant material four times a year and irrigation repairs on a time and materials basis.

Every year, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act, the City Engineer prepares a report to file with the City Clerk outlining the renewal of the landscape maintenance district. The attached resolution approves the City Engineer's Report and declares the City Council's intention to renew Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 and sets a public hearing for June 27, 2022.

BUDGET IMPACT
Renewal includes a proposed maximum assessment of $95,310 to 19 parcels adjacent to the berm.

The assessment is distributed proportionately based on each parcel's total square footage. The adjusted assessment reflects an 7.3% CPI increase from last year's $88,826 assessment. The annual assessment provides sufficient funding for FY 2022-23 maintenance of the berm and indirect support costs from the City.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY:Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
City Engineer's Report
Resolution

GO TO PREVIOUS PAGE GO TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE
AgendaQuick ©2005 - 2022 Destiny Software Inc. All Rights Reserved.

CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
for

CYPRESS CORPORATE CENTER LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 1
FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
_____________________________________
Nick Mangkalakiri, P.E.

City Engineer
City of Cypress
May 2022

CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT

MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR BERM
This document consists of the documents appended hereto as follows:

Attachment A............................................................Landscape Maintenance Specifications Attachment B............................................................................ Landscape Plan and Section Attachment C .......................................................................................Master Irrigation Plan Attachment D ............................................................................. Maintenance Cost Estimate Attachment E....................................................... Diagram of Proposed Assessment District Attachment F............................................................Assessment Distribution Cost Estimate A-1
Attachment A

LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS
A. SPECIAL PROVISIONS

1. Scope of Work
Contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials and supervision to perform landscape maintenance as described herein including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Weeding and cultivating
b. Fertilizing
c. Trimming, pruning, training
d. Watering
e. Insect, varmint and pest control
f. Plant replacement
g. Clean-up
h. Tree tying and restaking
i. Reports
j. Irrigation repair
k. Other duties related to maintenance of landscape and irrigation system

2. Working Hours
a. Maintenance work shall occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
b. Special maintenance, if required, shall be by written authorization from the Director of Public Works or his designated representative.

3. Workmanship
The Contractor shall ensure that:
a. Work shall be performed by competent persons, supervised by a competent supervisor, with experience and technical training in landscape maintenance work.
b. Pesticide operations, where required, shall be by a state licensed pest control operator.

A-2

4. Quality of Work and Material
All material and equipment furnished by the Contractor shall be new, high grade, and free from defects and imperfections, unless otherwise hereinafter specified. Workmanship shall be in accord with the best standard practices.

Both materials and workmanship shall be subject to inspection by the City. All materials used shall be approved in advance by the Director of Public Works or his designated representative.

5. Damages
The Contractor will report, without delay, any damage to equipment or property and shall be held responsible for the replacement of any such damage caused by his act hereunder. Repairs to the landscape and irrigation system resulting from damage by other than the Contractor's operations shall be reported promptly to the City. The Contractor shall make repairs immediately and shall be liable for secondary damage caused to landscaped areas. This includes dead plant material caused by lack of water.

Replacement of all plant materials, shrubs, ground cover, mulch and/or other plants, shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall not be liable for damages caused by vandalism. Any repair for vandalism will be included in the section under Extra Work, except as follows: It is estimated that seventy five (75) sprinkler heads per year will have to be repaired or replaced due to vandalism. The cost of repairing or replacing of up to 75 heads, including comparable parts, labor and equipment, will be included in the normal scope of the work. Damaged sprinkler heads, in part or whole, shall be returned to the City representative.

6. Cleaning
The Contractor shall maintain the premises clean of debris and litter at all times. Upon completion of any work project, the Contractor shall remove remaining excess materials, waste, rubbish, debris and his construction and installation equipment from the premises.

7. Statement of Contractor's Work Responsibilities
a. Ground Cover Areas

1. All weeds shall be removed as they appear. A broad spectrum pre-emergent weed control, such as Surflan or Balan shall be applied per manufacturer's specifications to shrub beds and ground cover beds in the spring and fall, and additional weed control shall be initiated as necessary to maintain a weed-free A-3
condition.

2. Morning Glory shall be treated immediately when observed by spot treating with Round-Up. Grass infestations shall be treated with DowPon. Equivalent, approved products are acceptable.

3. Fertilize twice yearly with a rate of application to be 2.5 pounds actual Nitrogen per 1,000 square feet with an appropriate fertilizer 5-10-5, or an approved equal, in March and
September.

4. Trim and edge as necessary to restrict growth from encroaching into adjacent areas. Trim around sprinkler heads to maintain an unobstructed and uniform application of water. Growth retardants, if properly applied, may be used. Permission to be obtained from Director of Public Works or his designated representative before applying.

5. Irrigate as required to maintain vigorous growth and healthy appearance.

6. Control pests, including rodents, snails and diseases continuously, to provide a healthy environment for plants. b. Shrubs and Trees

1. Trim, shape and prune to maintain a neat and healthy appearance. Prior to trimming, shaping or pruning, contact the City's representative for the proper shaping of specific varieties.

2. Annually, thin out, shape and head back all trees and shrubs as needed. Contact City's representative before commencing work.

3. Control pests and diseases as needed to provide healthy environment for trees and shrubs.

4. Remove all dead, diseased or damaged branches back to a side branch.

5. Stake, retie and support trees when necessary.

6. All ties shall be checked frequently to avoid girdling.

A-4

7. Ground cover shall be cut back from trees and shrubs a minimum of six (6) inches.

8. Application of an iron chelate fertilizer shall be used as needed throughout the year, to maintain healthy, vigorous growth and foliage.
c. General Landscape Conditions

1. All operations conducted by the Contractor shall be done with concern for maximum safety to the public.

2. Leaves, paper, weeds and other debris shall be removed weekly from landscaped areas and disposed off site.

3. Contractor shall clean any areas littered or soiled by his maintenance operations to a standard acceptable to the
Director of Public Works or his representative.

4. Notification of all "specialty types" maintenance operations shall be given to the City 48 hours prior to each of these operations by the Contractor. "Specialty Type" maintenance operations are defined as: fertilization, pre-emergence weed control, all pesticide applications except spot treatment, and other types of plant replacements.

5. Contractor is required, as part of this agreement, to furnish all materials to accomplish maintenance in accordance with these specifications. Contractor is further required to adequately stock items that are frequently used.

6. Contractor shall maintain an office with phone service during normal hours. If a telephone answering service is utilized, the answering service shall be capable of contacting Contractor by radio or pager. Contractor is further required to provide City with a 24-hour emergency number for contact outside normal
working hours. The response time to an emergency call-out by the Contractor shall not be more than one (1) hour and shall be considered part of the normal contract work.

7. Contractor shall apply herbicides per State and County Codes and only when approved by the Director of Public Works or his designated representative.

A-5

8. Contractor shall replace or replant any ground cover shrubs or trees damaged by any pesticide used in the course of the job.

This shall be at no extra charge to the City.
d. Reports

1. Sprinkler Irrigation Reports
The Contractor shall furnish monthly sprinkler irrigation reports.

Controllers shall be checked weekly to insure their proper operation and any malfunctions reported to the City's
representative. Non-working heads, broken risers, stations failing to turn on or off as dictated, leaking valves, main line leaks, controllers failing to keep time are all examples of irrigation failures. These failures shall be included in the above reports.

2. Periodic Maintenance Schedules
The Contractor shall furnish monthly maintenance schedules that include planned activities for all persons performing any function of the contract.
e. Maintenance of Fence and Orange County Flood Control District Maintenance Road

1. If it is found that the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) fence south of the berm is damaged or vandalized to permit trespass, or if weed abatement is needed on the OCFCD Maintenance Road, the Contractor shall notify the City
representative promptly and the City will notify the appropriate OCFCD Authorities to correct the deficiency.

B. SPECIFIC METHODS OF PERFORMING IRRIGATION WORK

1. Irrigation shall be done by the use of automatic or manual sprinkler systems where available and operable; however, failure of the existing irrigation system to provide full and proper coverage shall not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility to provide adequate irrigation with full and proper coverage to all areas in the work site.

2. Any damages to public or private property resulting from excessive irrigation water or irrigation water runoff shall be charged against the contract payment unless immediate repairs are made by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the A-6
Director of Public Works.

3. The Contractor shall regularly inspect the operation of the system for any malfunction. The Contractor shall maintain all sprinkler systems, at no additional cost to the City, in such a way as to guarantee proper coverage and full working capabilities and make whatever adjustments may be necessary to prevent excessive runoff into adjacent areas.

4. Care shall be exercised to prevent a waste of water and erosion of slopes.

5. The Contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance and repair of all valves, heads, wire, automatic controllers, backflow devices, quick couplers and any other irrigation equipment in the project area.

6. The Contractor is not responsible for the payment of water bills unless negligent or excessive in his use. A heavy increase of water usage indicates negligence on the Contractor's part, in which case, the additional cost will be charged against him.

7. Landscaped slopes shall be irrigated, as required, to maintain horticulturally accepted growth and color and to promote deep rooting.

8. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to make annual Backflow Device reports to be submitted to the County of Orange and Golden State Water Company. Newly planted trees, shrubs, ground cover and turf shall receive special attention until these plants are established. Adequate water shall be applied to promote normal, healthy growth. Collection basins shall be maintained during the establishment period.

C. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES

1. Contractor shall perform clearance and trimming on both sides of the berm four (4) times per year.

2. An allowance for irrigation repair and planting on a time and materials basis has been provided to the Contractor.

3. Contractor shall provide for maintenance of backflow devices at least one time per year.

A-7
Attachment D

MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATE

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Maintenance (from 7/1/22-6/30/23) $ 69,966
City’s Indirect Support Costs $ 4,826
Total Maintenance Costs $ 74,792
Assessment * $ 95,310
*7.3% CPI adjustment (All Urban Consumers – April 2021 to March 2022)

Attachment F

ASSESSMENT
NUMBER
NAME DESCRIPTION Acreage %

AMOUNT OF

ASSESSMENT
2021-22
1 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011,
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 1, PM 134-4
A.P. #224-271-05

5.378 3.95% $3,762.26
2 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 1, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-11

1.646 1.21% $1,151.48
3 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-07

3.238 2.38% $2,265.19
4A Katella Holder Street LLC; PO Box 847, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Par 1, PM 155-23 A.P. #224-271-23

13.966 10.25% $9,770.11
4B Katella Holder Street LLC; PO Box 847, Carlsbad, CA 92018 Par 2, PM 155-23 A.P. #224-271-24

8.324 6.11% $5,823.17
5 Duke Realty Limited Partnership; P.O. Box 40509,
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Par 1, PM 167-34
A.P. #224-261-04

22.304 16.37% $15,603.08
6 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 4, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-261-07

6.301 4.62% $4,407.95
7 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 3, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-262-01

15.235 11.18% $10,657.86
8 Warland Investments, Ltd. 1299 Ocean Ave., Ste. 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Par 1, PM 214-13
A.P. #224-271-21

11.314 8.30% $7,914.87
9 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-12

1.843 1.35% $1,289.30
10 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 3, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-13

1.100 0.81% $769.52
11 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 4, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-14

1.106 0.81% $773.72
12 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Lot 5, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-17

1.380 1.01% $965.40
13 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 6, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-16

0.996 0.73% $696.77
14 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 7, PM 207-35
A.P. #224-271-15

1.322 0.97% $924.82
15 Warland Investments, Ltd. 1299 Ocean Ave., Ste. 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Par 2, PM 214-13
A.P. #224-271-22

17.504 12.85% $12,245.17
16 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 1, PM 238-16
A.P. #224-261-08

7.177 5.27% $5,020.77
17 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-261-10

9.211 6.76% $6,443.68
18 Cypress Corporate Center LLC; P.O. Box 240011
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Par 2, PM 247-21
A.P. #224-261-11

6.897 5.06% $4,824.89
Total 136.24 100% $95,310.00
Max Assessment of $95,310
Landscape Maintenance District No.1
2022-23 Assessment Distribution Based on

CITY OF CYPRESS
FY 2022-23 CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT
JUNE 27, 2022
CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT
CYPRESS CORPORATE CENTER LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 ADDENDUM NO. 1
The City Engineer’s Report for the Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 is amended as noted below. In case of conflict between the City Engineer’s Report and this addendum, this addendum shall govern.

I. HERBICIDES
a. Use of Roundup, Kleenup, Accord, Imitator, Eraser, Pronto, Rodeo, or other herbicides containing Glyphosate is not permitted.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA,

ORDERING THE RENEWAL OF THE CYPRESS CORPORATE CENTER
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23, PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972, AND

CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City Council has, by Resolution No. 6884, declared its intention to order the construction and maintenance of a certain landscaped berm in connection with the development of the Cypress Business Park, and to modify Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 under the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, i.e., Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (herein “the Act”); and
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 6884, the City Council fixed June 27, 2022, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber located at City Hall, 5275 Orange Avenue, in the City of Cypress, California, as the time and place for hearing protests and objections to the improvements proposed to be renewed for Fiscal Year 2022-23, and/or to the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a report prepared by the City Engineer under and pursuant to the Act and, in particular, Section 22565 et seq. of the Act; the City Engineer’s Report (herein “the Report”), and said Report has been filed with the City Clerk of the City of Cypress and has been available for review by the property owners within Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1; and WHEREAS, the City Clerk has given the notices of the passage of the Resolution of Intention, Resolution No. 6884, the filling of the Report, and of the time and place and purpose of said hearing, substantially as required by Sections 22626 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk has filed with the City Council an affidavit setting forth the time and manner of the compliance with the requirements of the Act for publishing and mailing of said notices; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place stated in said notices, a hearing was duly held by the City Council; during the course of said hearing, the Report was duly presented and considered; all written protests and objections received, if any, were duly presented, read, heard, and considered; all persons appearing at said hearing and desiring to be heard in the matter of said Report were heard; a full, fair, and complete hearing has been had; and the City Council is fully informed in the premises; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has examined and considered the assessment proposed in said Report and the proceedings prior thereto, and the evidence presented at said hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The hearing referred to in the recitals hereof has been duly, held, and each and every step in the proceedings prior to and including the hearing has been duly and regularly taken. The City Council is satisfied with the correctness of the Report, including the assessment and diagram, the proceedings and all matters relating thereto; and any and all protests, objections, or appeals are hereby overruled and denied. The City Council orders the renewal of Cypress Corporate Center Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2022-23, as described in Resolution No. 6884, and confirms the proceedings and said assessment.

SECTION 2. The City Council orders the proposed improvements to be made in accordance with said Report and these proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council determines that the amount of the assessment shown in said Report, i.e. $95,310 should be confirmed; and said assessment is confirmed and fixed in the amount of $95,310.

SECTION 4. The City Council determines that the amounts to be assessed against the individual parcels shown on the assessment diagram contained in said Report are hereby approved and confirmed; and said City Clerk is directed to endorse the fact and date of such approval on said Report.

SECTION 5 The City Clerk is directed to file said diagram and assessment with the County Auditor as required by Section 22641 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 27
th day of June, 2022.

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the 27
th day of June, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY OF CYPRESS
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
City Council Regular 2.

FROM: Alicia Velasco, Planning Director
DATE: 06/27/2022
SUBJECT: Adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Technical Report

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Technical Report and approving the Initial Study/Negative Declaration.

SUMMARY
The Housing Element is one of seven mandatory elements of the General Plan and is the City’s chief housing policy. The Housing Element provides plans and programs to conserve and improve existing affordable housing; remove housing production constraints; and provide sites to meet the City’s 3,936 unit Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The Housing Element must adhere to detailed statutory requirements and is subject to review and certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

This is the City Council's sixth public meeting to discuss and receive input on the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Technical Report.

DISCUSSION
The Housing Element has three primary components: 1) background demographic information and analysis; 2) RHNA site selection and inventory; and, 3) goals and programs.

Background Demographic Information and Analysis
A main component of the Housing Element is analyzing the City’s demographic, economic, and housing information. With this data, the City’s progress in providing housing across different demographic and economic sectors of the community is analyzed; with the goal of recognizing and addressing potential housing constraints. Highlights from the analysis include:

Cypress' population increased by three percent to approximately 49,272 residents.

Cypress' population is aging. The population that is 45 years and older has grown while the number of younger adults and children has decreased. The number of seniors living alone increased 13 percent.
32 percent of Cypress households are lower income (having a household income of 80 percent or less of the area median income).

RHNA Site Selection and Inventory
The sites inventory demonstrates that the City can meet its RHNA. After a series of public workshops, the City Council approved two alternatives to achieve the City’s RHNA.

Alternative 1
Alternative 1 allocates RHNA between the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC) on Los Alamitos Race Course.

Alternative 1 makes three modifications to the CTCC: 1) Town Center District residential density increases from 15 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) to 50 du/ac, 2) 7.6 acres within the Single Family Detached District increases from eight du/ac to 45 du/ac, and 3) removes the residential unit cap to accommodate RHNA. These modifications add 676 units in the CTCC (a 54% increase from 1,250 units to 1,926 units). The remaining RHNA is the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (at 30 du/ac) and one site on Katella Avenue (at 60 du/ac). Changes to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the Katella Avenue site require City Council approval at a public hearing. Voter approval is required to update the CTCC.

Alternative 2
Because Alternative 1 requires voter approval, the State requires the City submit an alternative sites inventory that must be implemented if voters do not approve Alternative 1.

Alternative 2 does not make any changes to CTCC, but requires greater density increases in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (the highest densities, up to 60 du/ac, are closest to Cypress College). Alternative 2 creates 2,426 additional units in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and includes Alternative 1’s Katella Avenue site and the southeast corner of Orange Avenue and Grindlay Street. Alternative 2 requires City Council approval at a public hearing.

Housing Element Goals and Related Programs
As required by State law, the Housing Element goals and programs are centered on:

1. Conserving affordable housing supply;

2. Assisting in the provision of housing;

3. Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing;

4. Removing governmental constraints; and

5. Promoting equal housing opportunities.

Many of the programs are ongoing efforts in the existing Housing Element; however, several new programs address governmental constraints to housing production and implement the sites inventory. To meet State deadlines, the City Council has approved several of the new programs ahead of adopting the 2021-29 Housing Element, including zoning ordinance amendments for accessory dwelling units, density bonuses, and reasonable accommodations. Once the State certifies the Housing Element, the City Council will continue to consider new programs, including an inclusionary housing feasibility study and sites inventory rezoning.

HCD Review and Next Steps
The City Council authorized submitting the draft Housing Element to HCD for review on October 11, 2021. HCD provided findings and requested revisions focused on fair housing and housing programs on December 10, 2021. Planning revised the Housing Element in response to HCD’s comments and submitted it for a second HCD review on February 28, 2022. HCD second round of comments (received on May 13, 2022) asked the City to demonstrate that non-vacant sites in the sites inventory are feasible for residential development and to strengthen the fair housing analysis and programs. HCD did not request changes to the location or affordability of the RHNA sites.

The Housing Element will be submitted to HCD for certification once the City Council has adopted it.

Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration (IS/ND) were prepared for the Housing Element update to analyze potential environmental impacts. The IS/ND did not identify any potentially significant impacts. The IS/ND was available for public review and comment from July 16 to August 16, 2021.

BUDGET IMPACT
None. The FY 2022-23 Budget includes appropriations for Housing Element implementation and the City Council will consider related expenditures when appropriate; however, none are recommended at this time.

LEGAL REVIEW
None required.

APPROVED BY: Peter Grant, City Manager
Attachments
Resolution
Housing Element
Technical Report
Appendices
Initial Study Negative Declaration
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE

GENERAL PLAN AND APPROVING AN INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65580 et seq. requires the City of Cypress to periodically prepare and update its Housing Element of the General Plan.

The City’s Housing Element establishes goals, policies, and programs to accommodate the maintenance and expansion of the City’s housing supply; and WHEREAS, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, Technical Report, and Appendices were prepared based on input from the public, the City Council, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development, and are attached as Exhibit “A” to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the 2021-2029 Housing Element, Technical Report, and Appendices include updated data in compliance with state housing laws and a variety of programs and strategies to address citywide housing needs and priorities and affirmatively further fair housing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held public hearings and workshops on January 21, 2021, March 15, 2021, March 29, 2021, April 12, 2021, September 13, 2021, and October 11, 2021 to receive public input on the Housing Element update. The draft Housing Element, Technical Report, and Appendices were also made available for public review and comment from September 8-13, 2021, March 2-9, 2022, and June 17-27, 2022; and WHEREAS, a draft Housing Element, Technical Report, and Appendices were submitted to HCD on October 12, 2021 and was resubmitted with revisions on March 10, 2022 for a second 60-day HCD review; and
WHEREAS, based on the underutilization (e.g., low improvement values and low floor area ratios), building age and condition, and/or uses of marginal economic viability on identified housing sites, coupled with significant demand for housing, local trends for converting existing non-vacant land into residential and residential mixed-use, and Housing Element programs to encourage redevelopment of non-vacant sites with higherdensity housing, the existing uses on the sites identified in the sites inventory to accommodate the lower income regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) are likely to be discontinued during the planning period (as documented in the Housing Element Technical Report, Section 4 (Land Resources), and therefore, do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the planning period; and WHEREAS, once adopted by the City and certified by HCD, the 2021-2029 Housing Element will supersede and replace the existing 2013-2021 Housing Element of the General Plan; and
Resolution No.

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and considered testimony on adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) was prepared assessing the potential environmental impacts that might result from the adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element. The City determined there was no substantial evidence that adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element may have a significant effect on the environment. The Draft IS/ND was released for a 30-day public review period from July 16, 2021 through August 16, 2021. All required notifications were provided pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21092.5) and all comment letters were incorporated into the Final IS/ND.

The Final IS/ND is attached to the Resolution as Exhibit “B”; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings. Pursuant to Section 5.28.120 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance, the City Council makes the following findings:

1. The proposed amendment is in the public interest, and that there will be a community benefit resulting from the amendment.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element is in the public interest and will provide a community benefit because it contains goals, policies, and programs to accommodate the maintenance and expansion of the City’s housing supply. As provided in the Housing Element Technical Report, these programs are necessary to provide a variety of housing types for all economic segments of the population residing in the City.

2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other goals, policies, and objectives of the general plan.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element is consistent with Land Use Element Goal LU-1, to “create a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial, industrial and open space/recreation uses, while providing adequate community services to City residents”. More specifically, the Housing Element furthers the following land use policies:

LU-1.2: Allow for multi-family infill in designated areas to satisfy regional housing needs.

Resolution No.

Page 3 ends

LU-1.3: Encourage mixed use development within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area by providing incentives for senior citizen and multi-family housing.

LU-1.4: Locate residential uses within close proximity of commercial centers to encourage pedestrian access, and to provide a consumer base for commercial uses.

3. The proposed amendment will not conflict with provisions of the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or any applicable specific plan.

The Housing Element includes programs to complete zoning ordinance and specific plan amendments which are required by state housing law to remove governmental constraints to housing development and accommodate the City’s RHNA.

4. In the event that the proposed amendment is a change to the land use policy map, the amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties.

The adoption of the 2021-2029 Housing Element does not include changes to the land use policy map.

SECTION 2. The City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager to make any technical or clerical revisions or clarifications to the 2021-2029 Housing Element, Technical Report, and Appendices as may be required by HCD in order to obtain Housing Element certification provided that such changes are not substantial in nature.

SECTION 3. CEQA The City Council confirms that it has reviewed and considered the Final IS/ND for the Housing Element update. The IS/ND has been prepared, noticed, and is hereby adopted according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cypress hereby adopts the 2021-2029 Housing Element of the General Plan, Technical Report, and Appendices attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. The decision of the City Council is final and conclusive as to all things involved.

Resolution No.

Page 4 ends

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cypress at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of June, 2022. _______________________________

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
ATTEST:
_________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS
I, ALISHA FARNELL, City Clerk of the City of Cypress, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the said City Council held on the 27th day of June, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
___________________________________

CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-1
IX. 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT
The City of Cypress, incorporated in 1956, is a relatively young suburban community located in northwestern Orange County. Soon after incorporation, Cypress began a period of rapid residential growth, with numerous single-family housing tracts built in the 1960s and 1970s. As the City has become built out, the majority of residential growth has occurred through the recycling of underutilized properties. Annexation of three older, predominately single-family neighborhoods into north Cypress in the 1970s and 1980s and rezoning for their transition to multi-family has provided significant opportunity for infill development. In addition, the City has been successful in integrating housing along the Lincoln Avenue commercial corridor. Further, with the adoption of a specific plan for this area and subsequent amendment to increase residential density, Lincoln Avenue continues to be a focus for mixed-use and residential development. Voter approval of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 in 2018, which covers the Los Alamitos Race Course property, has provided further opportunity for residential development within the City.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element is intended to guide residential development and preservation in a way that coincides with the overall economic and social values of the community. The residential character of a city is largely dependent on the type and quality of its dwelling units, their location, and such factors as maintenance and neighborhood amenities. The Housing Element is an official municipal response to a growing awareness of the need to provide housing for all economic segments of the community, as well as fulfill legal requirements that housing policy be made a part of the planning process. As such, the Element establishes policies that will guide City officials in daily decision making and sets forth an action program designed to enable the City to realize its housing goals.

STATE POLICY AND AUTHORIZATION
The Housing Element has been a mandated part of every city’s General Plan since 1969 in order to encourage the provision of adequate housing in all communities statewide. Article 10.6, Sections 65580 – 65589.8, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code sets for the statutory requirements of the Housing Element, including specific components that must be contained in a community’s Housing Element.

Government Code Section 65583 sets forth the required components of the Housing Element, and shall “consist of an identification and analysis of existing and project housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, and emergency shelters, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community”.

The 2021-2029 Housing Element was created in compliance with State law, specifically those sections listed above, pertaining to Housing Elements.

ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
State Housing Element law requires the Elements to include two basic components:

1. An evaluation of the housing problem and an analysis of housing needs, indicating the capacity of the existing housing supply to provide all economic segments of the community with decent housing.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-2 Housing Element

2. A housing program consisting of the following:

• A comprehensive problem solving strategy establishing local housing goals, policies, and priorities aimed at alleviating unmet need and remedying the housing problem; and • A course of action which includes a specific description of the actions the locality is undertaking and intends to undertake to effectuate these goals, policies, and priorities.

The Cypress Housing Element describes the City's housing needs and sets forth a program of action in accordance with State law. This first section of the Element defines the intent of the Housing Element, describes its relationship to State directives and other General Plan elements, and includes a description of the public participation and intergovernmental coordination utilized in its preparation.

The second section of the Housing Element provides an overview of the present and projected housing needs of the City's households, an analysis of potential constraints to meeting the City’s identified housing needs, and an evaluation of sites and other resources available to further the development of new housing. This information is further described and defined in the Housing Element Technical Report, an appendix to the Element.

The third section of the Housing Element establishes a comprehensive program strategy to implement the City's housing goals. Finally, the fourth section sets forth the goals and policies to address Cypress’ identified housing needs.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
The City adopted a comprehensive update to the Cypress General Plan on September 10, 2001. All eight elements of the General Plan were updated, including Land Use, Circulation, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation, Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Growth Management, and Housing. As part of the update of this Housing Element, the other elements of the General Plan were reviewed to ensure consistency with the policies set forth in those elements.

Additionally, the City plans to update the Safety Element in 2023, to address severe climate conditions and high fire hazards as required by State law.

The City will ensure continued internal consistency among all elements of the General Plan so that policies introduced in one element are consistent with other elements. Whenever any element of the General Plan is amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to ensure continued consistency among the elements.

RELATED PLANS AND PROGRAMS
A number of local and regional plans and programs relate to the Housing Element. Descriptions of these plans are as follows.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA): California Housing Element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs designed to meet its “fair share” of existing and future needs for all income groups, as determined by the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments. This “fair share” allocation concept seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs not only of its resident population, but also for those households that might reasonably be expected to reside in the jurisdiction in the future.

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is responsible for allocating the region’s future housing needs (Regional Housing Needs Assessment or RHNA) among subregions and individual jurisdictions.

The final 2014-2021 RHNA adopted by SCAG has identified the 2021-2029 future housing need for Cypress as 3,936 units, including 1,807 lower-income units. These regional housing needs are addressed in the Housing Element both through the provision of suitable sites and the provision of programs to support housing for low- and moderate-income households.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-3

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Section 65583(c)(5) of the Government Code states that “local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” Opportunities for community stakeholders to provide input on housing issues and recommend strategies are critical to the development of appropriate and effective programs to address the City’s housing needs.

This section summarizes the City of Cypress’ efforts educate and gain public participation throughout the Housing Element Update process as well as the input received as a result of these efforts.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The City utilized a variety of platforms to notify the public of the Housing Element Update, provide education and background information on the Housing Element and RHNA, and provide information on how to participate and provide input. These included:
• Mailing of 120 event postcards to the City’s January 21, March 29, and September 13 Housing Element workshops to local and regional agencies and organizations. • Publishing a notice of the workshop in the Orange County Register. • Housing Element Update information and workshop displayed prominently on the homepage of the City’s website
• Advertisement of workshops on the City’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accounts and updates provided in the community managed pages
• Advertisement through push notifications, e-notifications, and news bulletin within the Cypress Central App.

As part of the City’s public outreach strategy, City staff developed an extensive list of local and regional community groups, companies, and nonprofit organizations that serve the Cypress community. These included affordable housing providers, social service providers, community organizations serving minority populations, and homeless service providers. A complete list of organizations contacted as part of the public outreach process is included in Appendix C of the Housing Element Technical Report.

Additionally, an informational page was created on the City’s website to serve as the primary hub for information regarding the Housing Element Update. The webpage included the following components:
• Background information on the statutory requirements of the Housing Element and RHNA; • Project timeline;
• Information on potential sites and programs being considered for the sites inventory; • Notices and draft documents for the Initial Study and Negative Declaration; • Dates, times, and registration information for upcoming workshops; • Powerpoint presentations and staff reports for past workshops; and • A comment box where public input on the Housing Element could be provided. The City received over 40 public comments through the comment box. These comments are summarized later in this section.

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
The City Council held several workshops throughout 2021 to discuss the Housing Element Update and obtain public input. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, all workshops were held virtually through the Webex video conference platform. A summary of public comments received during the workshops is included later in this section.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-4 Housing Element
JANUARY 21, 2021 WORKSHOP: INTRODUCTION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT The purpose of the January 21, 2021 workshop was to provide the City Council and the public with foundational information on the Housing Element update. Topics covered in the presentation included statutory requirements for the Housing Element, background on the RHNA process and the City’s RHNA, and an overview of the City’s population and housing demographics. A total of 19 members of the public attended the workshop.

MARCH 15, 2021 WORKSHOP: SITES INVENTORY
The primary purpose of the March 15 workshop was to present the preliminary sites analysis and obtain initial feedback on potential strategies to meet the City’s RHNA. The presentation discussed general best practices as well as statutory requirements related to meeting the RHNA, particularly for lower income units. Three potential sites strategies were presented to achieve the RHNA.

MARCH 29, 2021 WORKSHOP: SITES INVENTORY
The March 29 workshop continued the discussion on potential strategies to meet the City’s RHNA. A total of 143 members of the public virtually attended the workshop. Based on input received at the March 15 workshop, revised sites strategies were presented. A significant portion of the workshop was dedicated to receiving public comments as well as input from the City Council and a total of 38 formal comments were received (verbal and written).

APRIL 12, 2021 WORKSHOP: SITES INVENTORY
The April 12 workshop provided a final opportunity for public input and Council discussion prior to the Council providing direction on a sites strategy to include in the Housing Element. Revised strategies were presented at the workshop, based on feedback received at the March 29 workshop. 23 members of the public attended the workshop and one public comment was given.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2021 WORKSHOP: REVIEW OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT The September 13 workshop provided an opportunity for the Council and the public to provide feedback on the draft Housing Element and draft Technical Report documents. The presentation included an overview of the selected sites strategies and housing programs. 23 individuals virtually attended the workshop and no oral or written comments were received from members of the public during the workshop. The draft Housing Element and Technical Report were made available for public review one week prior to the workshop on September 8, 2021.

Notification of public availability of the drafts was provided through multiple avenues including publishing a notice in the Orange County Register, mailing of a notice to local and regional agencies and organizations, prominent posting on the City’s website, social media alerts, and email and push notifications through the Cypress Central App.

OCTOBER 11, 2021 COUNCIL MEETING: AUTHORIZATION TO SEND DRAFT TO HCD The final Draft Housing Element was presented to the City Council at the October 11 meeting. Since there were no comments at the September 13 meeting that necessitated substantial changes to the draft, the final draft included only a few minor edits (such as updating dates). At the October 11 meeting, there were no public comments received on the draft Housing Element and the City Council unanimously agreed to submit the Draft Housing Element to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review.

JUNE 27, 2022 COUNCIL MEETING: PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT FINAL DRAFT AND

CERTIFY THE IS/ND
Subsequent to completing revisions based upon HCD’s review of the Redlined Draft Housing Element, the City Council conducted a public hearing prior to adoption of the Housing Element. Certification of the Initial Study/Negative Declaration occurred simultaneously. The City provided notification of the public hearing through its typical channels, including publishing in the Orange County Register and posting of the notice at City Hall and other community locations, and posting on the City’s website. Additionally, the Final Draft Housing Element was made available for a seven-day public review period on the City’s website beginning on June 17, 2022 as described later in this section.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-5

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
The City received a wide range of feedback from the public throughout the Housing Element Update process through public comment time during public workshops, through the website’s comment box, and via email.

INPUT RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS
Table HOU- 1 provides a summary of comments received from individual members of the public and how the City has addressed this feedback in the Housing Element. The majority of comments received by the City fell within two categories: (1) general questions and concerns about the Housing Element and RHNA requirements, and (2) opposition to specific sites that were identified for potential inclusion in the sites inventory. As a result, City staff spent considerable time at public workshops providing background information about the RHNA and the City’s obligations under state housing element law as well as responding individually to concerns about these matters.

Additionally, the identified sites that received significant public opposition were removed from consideration in response to input from the public.

Table HOU- 1: Summary of Public Input
Comment Themes City Responses
General questions about Housing
Element/RHNA/site selection process; General
concerns about higher density low income
housing related to traffic, noise, property
values
City staff responded individually to written comments to provide information on the process and encourage
participation in the workshops. Ample time was provided during the workshops to education the public on the process, requirements, and how sites were selected.

Oppose housing on Essex Park and Joe
Schmoe’s Restaurant properties
These sites were preliminarily identified at the first sites inventory workshop and were removed in response to
Council direction and public feedback.

Comments/concerns about additional housing
development on Lincoln Avenue:
• Traffic congestion
• Impact on small businesses
• Support for redevelopment of old motel
properties
The City’s preferred alternative (Alternative 1) balances new units between the Lincoln Ave. corridor and the Cypress Commons and Town Center Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC).

Environmental review as part of Housing Element
implementation will analyze concerns such as traffic.

Oppose housing on sites located on northwest
corner of Cerritos Ave. and Denni St.

These sites were preliminarily identified and were removed from the sites inventory in response to public feedback and Council direction.

Support for housing on larger underutilized
commercial sites on Katella Ave.

The CTCC area and Opportunity Site #115 have been
identified to add housing adjacent to Katella Ave.

Support for higher density near Cypress
College for student housing
Both Alternatives include an increase in density on sites near Cypress College.

INPUT RECEIVED FROM ORGANIZATIONS
The City received two comment letters from organizations that serve lower and moderate income individuals and families: Habitat for Humanity of Orange County and the Kennedy Commission. Table HOU- 2 provides a summary of comments and recommendations from these two organizations and how they have been addressed in the Housing Element.

Table HOU- 2: Summary of Comments Received from Organizations Recommendation City Response
Ensure parity in funding for homeownership
projects.

Since the dissolution of Redevelopment, the City’s ability to fund projects (whether rental or owner) is extremely limited; however, the City will consider this
Cypress General Plan
HOU-6 Housing Element
recommendation in other policy discussions, such as
inclusionary zoning.

Remove minimum lot sizes in single family
zones/allow for greater density in single family
zones for smaller homes and ADUs.

The City’s implementation of the new requirements
established by SB 9 will serve to allow for smaller lot sizes and increased density in the single family zones.

Additionally, the City’s ADU program as outlined in the Housing Programs section will encourage ADU
development.

Encourage residential and commercial
partnerships through mixed use zoning.

The City’s strategy for development in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and multiple districts of the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 includes a mix of
residential and commercial uses.

Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance with a
15-20% requirement of affordable housing
production.

The Housing Programs of this Housing Element includes
conducting a feasibility study and adoption of an
inclusionary housing ordinance based upon the study.

Implement an Affordable Housing Overlay for
sites inventory sites proposed to be upzoned
which requires 15-20% affordable units.

The rezoning program will allow by-right approval of
developments with 20% or more affordable units.

Additionally, requirements implemented through an
inclusionary housing ordinance would apply to sites
identified in the sites inventory.

Prioritize development of affordable housing on
city-owned sites.

The City has limited sites available/appropriate for
redevelopment; however, one city-owned site on Lincoln
Avenue has been included as an opportunity site.

Ensure proposed opportunity sites for lower
income units are realistic and will ensure that
they are developed for lower income
households.

The City has utilized thresholds established by HCD to
ensure that the selected sites are suitable for lower income units, including minimum density and lot size. The sites inventory does not rely on lot consolidation to achieve the necessary lot sizes for lower income sites.

Include anti-displacement policies that protect
low income residents from rising rents.

Anti-displacement policies in compliance with AB 1397 are included as a Housing Program in the Housing Element.

Update density bonus provisions to comply with
state law.

Updating the City’s density bonus ordinance is included in the Housing Programs of the Housing Element.

Include a list of the type of incentives offered
for sites that are offering 100% affordable units
to lower income families.

At this time the City is not implementing additional
incentives specific to very low and extremely low income developments; however, these developments would be
eligible for incentives provided by state density bonus law.

INPUT RECEIVED ON THE REDLINED DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
The City received comments on the Draft Housing Element from HCD on December 10, 2021. The City made revisions to the Draft Housing Element in response to HCD’s comments and on February 28, the Cypress City Council authorized staff to resubmit the Redlined Draft Housing Element to HCD after a seven-day public review period. The Redlined Draft Housing Element was made available for public review on the City’s website from March 2 through March 9, 2022. All individuals and organizations that previously commented or expressed interest in being notified throughout the update process were contacted via email regarding the availability of the Redlined Draft.

Comments were received from two residents and one organization (The Kennedy Commission) during the sevenday review period. Both residents expressed their preference for the City to move forward with the Alternative 1 sites inventory versus Alternative 2. The Kennedy Commission expressed support for Alternative 2 due to the election process associated with Alternative 1. As described in further detail later in the Housing Element (see Residential Sites To Address Regional Housing Needs), the City has selected Alternative 1 as the preferred Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-7
alternative because it more evenly distributes the RHNA units throughout the City and is most likely to result in housing production during the planning period.

The Kennedy Commission also expressed concerns with the implementation timeframe of some of the City’s programs, such as the feasibility study for an inclusionary program and programs intended to incentivize ADU production. Due to the extent and complexity of the proposed rezone program to accommodate the sites inventory and other zoning ordinance amendments that are required to be completed in the near term, the City believes that the included timeframes for implementation are ambitious and shortening implementation timeframes for additional programs would be unrealistic.

On May 13, 2022, the City received a second review letter from HCD. The Housing Element and Technical Report were revised in response to HCD’s comments and the Final Draft Housing Element and Technical Report were made available for public review on the City’s website from June 17 through June 26, 2022. All individuals and organizations that previously commented or expressed interest in being notified throughout the update process were contacted via email regarding the availability of the Final Draft.

SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Assuring the availability of adequate housing for all social and economic segments of Cypress’ present and future population is a primary goal of the Housing Element. This section of the Housing Element provides a summary of the community’s key housing needs, and evaluates the City’s ability to fulfill its future share of regional housing growth needs (RHNA).

HOUSING NEED
The following summarizes key housing needs, as identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element Technical Report (an appendix to the Element). This summary of existing conditions is organized into four areas: housing availability; housing affordability; housing adequacy; and special needs households.

HOUSING AVAILABILITY
According to the California Department of Finance, in 2020, there were an estimated 16,631 housing units in the City. A majority of the units (78 percent) are attached or detached single-family homes. Multi-family development comprised about 20 percent of the housing stock, with mobile homes making up the remaining approximately three percent. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey, 66 percent of households in Cypress were owner occupied, demonstrating a decrease from 72 percent in 2010. The homeownership rate continues to be higher than the countywide homeownership rate of 57 percent.

Over the last decade, Cypress has experienced an active housing resale market and both home and condominium prices have increased as the housing market recovered after the Great Recession. Increases in home prices were particularly sharp in 2020, with the median home price increasing from $617,500 in 2019 to $711,500 in 2020 (a 15 percent increase). When condominiums are considered separately from single family residences, the typical value of a condominium in Cypress was $519,900 in 2020.

Rental costs in Cypress ranged from $1,450 to $3,800 per month, based on an online survey of units listed for rent in October 2020. The median month rent was $1,680 for a one-bedroom unit, $2,160 for a two-bedroom, and $3,000 for a three-bedroom. Of the 39 units identified in the survey, 38 percent were one-bedroom units and 31 percent were two-bedroom units, indicating that small to medium sized rentals are more available in Cypress; however, larger families may have more difficulty finding affordable, appropriately sized units within the City.

Overcrowding is another indicator of housing availability. The U.S. Census defines overcrowding as households with more than 1.01 persons per room, excluding kitchens, bathrooms and porches. According to 2014-2018 American Community Survey estimates, there were approximately 723 overcrowded households (4.6 percent) in Cypress General Plan
HOU-8 Housing Element
Cypress in 2018, a slight increase from the previously planning period. While rental units comprise only one-third of the City’s housing stock, 64 percent of the City’s overcrowded households are rentals. Approximately 16 percent of Cypress’ overcrowded households were identified as severely overcrowded, defined as more than 1.51 persons per room.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing overpayment occurs when housing costs increase faster than income. State and Federal standards define housing overpayment as spending more than 30 percent of income on housing; severe overpayment is spending greater than 50 percent. In most urban communities in California, it is not uncommon for households to overpay for housing based on this definition. However, to the extent that overpayment rates are particularly high among lower-income populations, it is important for communities to begin to address these needs through their housing programs.

Based on the US Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset for 2013-2017, 34 percent of households in Cypress (5,350 households) were overpaying for housing. Like overcrowding, overpayment is far more concentrated among the City’s renter households, with 46 percent overpaying, compared to 28 percent of owner households. Cost burden impacts lower income renter households in particular. According to the CHAS dataset, over 95 percent of extremely low income family households that rent were cost burdened.

As a means of assessing the affordability of the current housing market in Cypress, housing sales and rental costs can be compared with household incomes. With the home and condo values indicated in the previous section, only above-moderate income households have a wide range of ownership opportunities in the City. Smaller condominiums may be affordable to some moderate-income households (refer to the Technical Report for further details on this analysis).

In terms of affordability of local rental housing, households earning moderate income households can afford a wide range of rental options in Cypress. Additionally, low income households can typically afford smaller (one- to two-bedroom) units in the City, but may not be able to afford larger units. Very low and extremely low income households are not able to afford market rate rental housing within Cypress without incurring a cost burden.

HOUSING ADEQUACY
As a general rule, when a housing unit reaches 30 years in age, major rehabilitation improvements begin to become necessary. According to 2014-2018 American Community Survey estimates, approximately 95 percent of the City’s housing stock (over 15,000 units) will be more than 30 years old by the end of the 2021-2029. As Cypress is almost entirely built out, fewer new units are being constructed. Between 2010 and 2020 approximately 563 units (or 3 percent) were added to the housing stock. Among owner-occupied housing, 82 percent of units were constructed prior to 1980, with an additional 12 percent constructed in the 1980s and 1990s. Similarly, 76 percent of renter housing units were constructed prior to 1980, with an additional 21 percent constructed between 1980 and 1999. Continued maintenance of the housing stock will be necessary through independent property owner action, as well as code enforcement and combined housing rehabilitation assistance to prevent deterioration of older homes and neighborhoods.

SPECIAL NEEDS
Certain segments of the population may have more difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to their special needs. These specific groups are summarized below.

1. Elderly
Approximately 15 percent (7,275 individuals) of the City’s population in 2018 was 65 years of age and older, a slight increase from the 13 percent in 2010. Additionally, 26 percent of the City’s households were seniorheaded households, and 30 percent of these were seniors living alone. About one-third of the City’s senior population has one or more disabilities, indicating additional special needs for this population group. As the Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-9
population continues to age and a greater number of the elderly become frail, the need for supportive senior housing will increase.

2. Disabled Persons
Persons living with a physical or mental disability may have difficultly living in a traditionally designed housing unit, may have limited earning capacity, and may have other needs relating to healthcare access and cost and transit access, among others. The 2014-2018 American Community Survey indicates that approximately 10 percent of the population in Cypress has some form of disability. Elderly individuals comprise an estimated 52 percent of the City’s disabled population.

Additionally, approximately 799 individuals with a developmental disability were residing in Cypress as of June 2019, according to the CA Department of Developmental Services. There will consistently be a need for housing to accommodate elderly and disabled residents in the City.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-10 Housing Element

3. Large Households
Cypress has an estimated 2,100 households with five or more members, representing approximately 13 percent of total households. Large families are identified as a group with special housing needs based on the limited availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units. Large families are often of lower income and lack of larger affordable units can lead to overcrowding of smaller dwelling units. This can result accelerated deterioration of overcrowded units.

4. Single Parent Households
Single-parent households often require special consideration and assistance due to their greater need for affordable and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. In particular, female-headed households with children tend to have lower incomes than other types of households, a situation that limits their housing options and access to supportive services.

Cypress has an estimated 1,194 single parent households with children, accounting for about 8 percent of all households. Of these households, approximately 82 percent are female headed households with children.

5. Homeless
Generally, the homeless in Cypress are not visible on the street, but are often living in motels/hotels, living with other households in order to afford housing, or living in other non-permanent housing situations.

According to the 2019 point-in-time homeless count conducted by the Orange County Department of Community Resources, there were a total of 6,860 home individuals residing in Orange County, with a total of 39 residing in Cypress. Countywide, homelessness has been increasing in recent years, with an increase of 43 percent between 2017 and 2019.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-11

RESIDENTIAL SITES TO ADDRESS REGIONAL HOUSING
NEEDS
State law requires jurisdictions to provide for their “fair share” of regional housing needs. This fair share allocation concept seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of not only its resident population, but also for the jurisdiction’s projected share of regional housing growth across all income categories.

As part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, the CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has determined the projected housing need for the southern California region for the 6th planning cycle, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has allocated this housing need to each jurisdiction by income category. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units for which each jurisdiction is required to provide “adequate sites” for through zoning. For Cypress, the RHNA has been established at 3,936 new units, to be distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table HOU3.

Table HOU- 3: Cypress RHNA (2021-2029)
Income Level Percent of AMI1 Units Percent of Total
RHNA
Very Low2 0-50% 1,150 29%
Low 51-80% 657 17%
Moderate 81-120% 623 16%
Above Moderate 120%+ 1,506 38%
TOTAL 3,936 100%
Source: SCAG, 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, March 2021.

Notes:

1. AMI – Area Median Income

2. An estimated half of Cypress’ very low income housing needs (575 units) are for extremely low income households earning less than 30% AMI, pursuant to AB 2634.

Pursuant to State law, jurisdictions are required to present a detailed sites inventory identifying specific parcels available to accommodate their specific RHNA allocation. The City considered many factors when identifying potential vacant and underutilized sites for inclusion in the sites inventory, including the location and size of the parcel, age of existing structures, current use, improvement ratio, whether the property was vacant, for lease or for sale, and whether the property owner had indicated an interest in redeveloping.

In reviewing potential opportunity sites throughout the City and soliciting feedback from the public and City officials, the City determined that amending the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC) to allow higher densities in some districts has the greatest potential to result in meaningful housing production toward the City’s RHNA during the 2021-2029 planning period. However, pursuant to the Cypress Municipal Code, any changes to the CTCC require voter approval. Therefore, to ensure that the City has a means to accommodate the RHNA in the event that an election to change the CTCC is not approved, the City has developed a second alternative which does not incorporate changes to the CTCC. A description of both alternatives is provided below.

Additional details on the sites inventory and related analysis is provided in Section 5, Housing Resources of the Technical Report and individual parcel information is provided in Appendix A, Sites Inventory of the Technical Report.

ALTERNATIVE 1: LINCOLN AVE. SPECIFIC PLAN AND CYPRESS
TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
The primary alternative divides the RHNA between the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area and the yet-to-be redeveloped Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC) area. Located on the Los Alamitos Race Course site, the CTCC currently allows the development of residential units throughout seven districts which range in density from 8 du/ac to approximately 17 du/ac. As currently approved, the CTCC utilizes maximum Cypress General Plan
HOU-12 Housing Element
density requirements in various districts as well as a maximum unit cap of 1,250 units in the specific plan area.1 Under Alternative 1, approximately 7.6 acres within the Single Family Detached District would be rezoned to create a new High Density Residential District, allowing a density of 45 du/ac to accommodate an estimated 273 units.

Additionally, the allowable density within the Town Center District would be increased to 50 du/ac to accommodate an estimated 280 new units. Due to the allowable density, these areas would be suitable for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. The allowable densities within the remaining Districts of the CTCC would remain unchanged, except that the unit cap would be removed to allow development within these Districts up to the existing maximum allowable density regardless of the number of units already developed within the CTCC area. With these proposed changes, an estimated 1,926 units could be accommodated within the CTCC area.

Alternative 1 also includes one opportunity site on Katella Avenue adjacent to the CTCC area (Site #115, 4955 Katella), which is proposed to be upzoned to 60 du/ac to accommodate an estimated 321 units. The primary building on the site is a big box type structure which accommodates two tenants. One half of the building is occupied by a gym and the other half of the building is currently vacant (formerly an Office Depot). Due to its location near the CTCC area and other recently entitled residential development, this site has high potential for redevelopment.

Under Alternative 1, the remaining RHNA sites would be accommodated within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan.

The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan currently allows for residential development at 30 du/ac within the RM-30 and Residential Mixed Use districts. Alternative 1 proposes to expand the maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac to the majority of the Specific Plan area. With these amendments, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan can accommodate approximately 1,643 units (1,226 lower income units and 417 moderate/above moderate income units).

Table HOU- 4: Alternative 1 Sites Summary
Affordability Level and
Zoning
Density
(du/ac) Site Count Area (acres) Average Parcel Size (acres) Unit
Capacity
Lower Income
LASP1 30 41 55.3 1.4 1,226
CTCC2 45-50 2 14.6 N/A 553
PBP3 60 1 7.2 7.2 321
Lower Income Subtotal 44 77.1 - 2,100
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
LASP1 30 72 19.8 0.3 417
CTCC2 8-15 6 109.9 N/A 1,238
Moderate/Above Moderate Income Subtotal 78 129.7 - 1,655 Total 122 206.8 - 3,755
Notes:

1. LASP = Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan

2. CTCC = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0

3. PBP = Planned Business Park
Table HOU- 4 provides a summary of Alternative 1 and Figure HOU- 1 includes a map indicating opportunity sites and proposed densities. Changes to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan as well as opportunity site #115 would be implemented through the City’s typical public hearing process. However, as noted above, the City would be required to hold an election to implement changes to the CTCC. This process would involve the City Council taking a vote in Fall 2022 to place the proposed amendments on the ballot, conducting an impartial voter education plan

1 While the unit cap within the CTCC is 1,250 units, the City has approved the 135-unit Cypress Town Center project which has been included as an entitled project. Therefore, there are 1,115 remaining units that may be permitted within the CTCC as currently adopted.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-13
in Winter 2022 through Spring 2023, and holding an election in Spring 2023. Therefore, the following Alternative 2 is presented as a potential back-up option to Alternative 1 should voter approval of the CTCC amendments fail.

ALTERNATIVE 2: LINCOLN AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN MIXED DENSITY Under Alternative 2, the CTCC would remain unchanged and would be able to accommodate a total of 1,115 units affordable to moderate and above moderate income households.

Rather than applying a density of 30 du/ac to the majority of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area, Alternative 2 proposes to vary densities with the Specific Plan area between 30 du/ac and 60 du/ac. The highest density areas would be located on the east end of the Lincoln Avenue corridor, closest to Cypress College. With these changes, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan could accommodate the development of approximately 2,378 new units (1,838 lower income units and 540 moderate/above moderate income units).

Opportunity site #115 located on Katella Ave. in the PBP zone would also be included in Alternative 2 as described under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also includes an opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Ave. and Grindlay St. (Opportunity site #139, RM-20 zone). This 2.06-acre site currently includes an older office building and would be rezoned to RM-20 to accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate income units. Table HOU- 5 provides a summary of Alternative 2 and the map shown in Figure HOU- 2 illustrates the location and densities of the opportunity sites.

If the City proceeds with Alternative 2, amendments to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance would be undertaken through the normal public hearing process.

Table HOU- 5: Alternative 2 Sites Summary
Affordability Level
and Zoning Density Site Count Area (acres) Average Parcel Size (acres) Unit
Capacity
Lower Income
LASP 30 14 24.5 1.8 546
LASP 50 18 21.6 1.2 802
LASP 60 12 10.8 0.9 490
PBP 60 1 7.2 7.2 321
Lower Income Subtotal 45 64.0 1.5 2,159
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
LASP 30 38 9.1 0.2 190
LASP 50 24 6.5 0.3 234
LASP 60 7 2.7 0.4 117
RM-20 20 1 2.1 2.1 30
CTCC 8-17.2 7 124.5 N/A 1,115
Moderate/Above Moderate Income Subtotal 77 144.8 - 1,686 Total 122 208.8 - 3,845
Notes:

1. LASP = Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan

2. CTCC = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0

3. PBP = Planned Business Park

ADEQUACY OF SITES OF ACCOMMODATE RHNA
As shown in Table HOU- 6, when credits for pipeline projects (projects entitled and under review) and potential ADU development are taken into account, both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 provide an adequate number of sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-14 Housing Element
Table HOU- 6: Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate RHNA
Income Level RHNA Credits Remaining
RHNA
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Sites Inventory
Capacity Surplus Sites Inventory Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,150 5 1,145 2,100 306 2,159 365 Low 657 8 649 Moderate 623 56 567 1,655 17 1,686 48 Above Moderate 1,506 435 1,071 Total 3,936 504 3,432 3,755 323 3,845 413

AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The City’s 2001 General Plan indicates that adequate total infrastructure capacity is available to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs. As an urbanized community, Cypress already has in place the necessary infrastructure to support future development. All land currently designated for residential and mixed-use development is served by water and sewer lines, streets, storm drains, and telephone, and electric and gas lines.

As documented in the Housing Element Technical Report, none of the sites identified for residential development is affected by environmental constraints that would impact development.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-15
Figure HOU- 1: Alternative 1 Opportunity Sites
Cypress General Plan
HOU-16 Housing Element
Figure HOU- 2: Alternative 2 Opportunity Sites
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-17

DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING PLAN
This section first evaluates the accomplishments of the 2014-2021 Housing Element and then presents the City’s housing program strategy for the 2021-2029 planning period.

EVALUATION OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER ADOPTED HOUSING

ELEMENT
The City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element was adopted on October 14, 2013. It set forth housing programs with related objectives for the following issue areas:
• Conserving the existing supply of affordable housing; • Assisting in the provision of housing;
• Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing; • Removing governmental constraints as necessary; and
• Promoting equal housing opportunity.

This section reviews the appropriateness of these programs, the effectiveness of the Element, and the progress in implementation since 2014.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-18 Housing Element
Table HOU- 7: Review of Past Accomplishments Under 2014-2021 Housing Element Housing Program/Policy Accomplishments

CONSERVING THE EXISTING SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

1. Home Enhancement Loan Program
(HELP II)
Goal: Assist low- and moderate-income
homeowners with the improvement of their
homes.

Objectives/Time Frame:
• Provide rehabilitation assistance to 35 to 40
households. (Ongoing)
• Apply to County on an annual basis for
CDBG funds to supplement program
funding. (Ongoing)
• Explore entitlement city status for CDBG
funds. (Ongoing)
Progress: During the planning period, 37 homeowners were assisted through the HELP II program. The City continues to apply to the County annually for CDBG funds to operate the program. The City is still under the population threshold of 50,000 residents to qualify as a CDBG entitlement jurisdiction.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: The City was able to accomplish its objective of assisting 35-40 households during the planning period and there is continuous demand for the program. As the City’s housing stock ages, this program remains appropriate to continue to provide assistance to low and moderate income homeowners with units in need of rehabilitation and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

2. Code Enforcement Program
Goal: Bring substandard units into compliance
with City codes.

Objectives/Time Frame:
• Continue to implement the Code
Enforcement Program. (Ongoing)
• Encourage the use of HELP II funds for
rehabilitation. (Ongoing)
Progress: The City has maintained a proactive Code Enforcement Program to assure residential conformity to maintenance and building standards. Funding assistance is offered to homeowners through the HELP II program.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: The City’s program has brought cited residential units into compliance with City codes. As the housing stock continues to age, proactive code enforcement will be both appropriate and necessary to maintain the City’s residential standards and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

3. Neighborhood Improvement Program
Goal: Provide assistance for neighborhood
improvement and clean-up projects.

Objectives/Time Frame:
• Continue to sponsor neighborhood cleanup events. (Ongoing) • Provide information on rehabilitation
assistance. (Ongoing)
Progress: Implementation of the City-assigned tasks within the Lemon-Lime Neighborhood Improvement Plan have been completed. The City annually hosted spring and fall community clean-up days for Cypress residents throughout the planning period.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: Since City-assigned Improvement Plan tasks are complete and this area no longer has a disproportionate number of code enforcement issues, this program has not been included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

4. Orange County Partnership Program
Goal: Promote resident awareness and
application for County-run housing assistance
programs (i.e. Section 8 and MCC program).

Objectives/Time Frame:

Increase resident awareness about housing
programs offered by the County by advertising
them on the City’s website (ongoing) and by
offering staff assistance at City Hall by 2014.

Progress: Information about County-run housing assistance programs continues to be disseminated by City staff as appropriate.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: The Section 8 program, administered by the County of Orange, provides opportunities for very low-income households to rent units at affordable rates. This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-19
Housing Program/Policy Accomplishments

5. Mobile Home Park Preservation Program
Goal: Preserve the two mobile home parks in
Cypress.

Objectives/Time Frame:
• Maintain mobile home park zoning and
General Plan designations. (Ongoing)
• Provide tenants information on MPROP
resources as appropriate. (Ongoing)
Progress: The City maintains Mobile Home Park Zoning and General Plan designations to preserve the two parks within the City. Additionally, mobile home replacement units & infrastructure improvements are processed as nondiscretionary permits.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: As mobile home and manufactured housing is a viable source of affordable housing for families and senior residents, the City will continue to monitor the two mobile home parks. This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

6. Rent Deposit Program
Goal: Help income-qualified renters residing
in motels to cover the initial up-front costs of
securing an apartment.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Research similar emergency rental assistance
programs. Evaluate partnerships with nonprofits and funding options. (Ongoing) Progress: This program has not been implemented because efforts to secure program funding have been unsuccessful.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: Due to lack of funding sources, this program has been removed from the 2021-2029 Housing Programs.

7. Alternative Housing Models
Goal: Encourage the provision of more
innovative housing types that may be suitable
for the community, including community care
facilities, supportive housing, and assisted
living for seniors and the disabled, including
developmentally disabled persons.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Continue to provide appropriate standards to
encourage development of housing to meet
the needs of the City’s growing senior
population. Address standards and alternative
housing models with developers. (Ongoing)
Progress: In an effort to promote alternative housing models, the City amended the zoning ordinance to allow the development of assorted senior and assisted living facilities by right. The City approved a 244-unit senior housing development and an adjacent 152-bed capacity assisted living facility during the planning period. The senior housing project is complete and the 152-unit development is currently under construction.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

ASSISTING IN THE PROVISION OF HOUSING

8. Affordable Housing Development
Assistance
Goal: Facilitate affordable housing
development by for-profit and non-profit
housing developers/ corporations.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Continue to provide regulatory incentives to
private developers. Use assistance to
encourage affordable housing for larger
households, lot consolidation, and mixed use.
(Ongoing)
Progress: The City actively pursues securing long term affordability covenants on projects in exchange for increased density. During the planning period, the City approved 5 long term affordability covenants in exchange for density bonuses as well as long term affordability contracts for 15 Habitat for Humanity housing units.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: The City has effectively utilized land and financial assets to assist developers to produce affordable units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income units. This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-20 Housing Element
Housing Program/Policy Accomplishments

9. Second Unit Ordinance
Goal: Allow and promote second unit
development which can serve as a valuable
housing source for seniors, students, and
single persons.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Develop and provide informational materials
about the second unit ordinance at City Hall,
on the City’s website, and in other public
places to increase awareness. (Ongoing)
Progress: Cypress currently allows accessory dwelling units (ADUs) by right in appropriate residential zones pursuant to State law. In 2018 and 2019, the City’s Planning Division issued ministerial approvals for a total of 13 ADUs.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: ADUs are an effective way of integrating additional affordable housing into single family neighborhoods. This program continues to be appropriate and is modified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element to include an update to the City’s Zoning Code to comply with current State law pertaining to ADUs.

10. Sustainability and Green Building
Goal: Review ordinances and recommend
changes where necessary to encourage
energy-efficient housing design and practices
that are consistent with State regulations.

Encourage energy conservation devices for all
new and existing residential projects.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Maintain and distribute literature on energy
conservation, including solar power, additional
insulation, and subsidies available from utility
companies, the Federal, State, and local
government. Encourage homeowners and
landlords to incorporate these features into
construction and remodeling projects.
(Ongoing)
Progress: The building code incorporates extensive energy efficiency provisions. Energy efficiency upgrades are also qualifying projects under the City’s HELP II rehabilitation program for low- and moderate- income homeowners.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: Energy efficiency upgrades are an effective way reduce energy use and to buffer against increasing energy costs. This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

PROVIDING ADEQUATE RESIDENTIAL SITES

11. Residential and Mixed-Use Sites
Inventory
Goal: Ensure the provision of adequate and
appropriate sites for future housing
development.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Maintain a current inventory of residential and
mixed-use sites, and provide the information
to developers along with information on
incentives. (Ongoing)
Progress: The City amended the General Plan, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, and zoning ordinance in 2009 to increase the maximum density on key properties to allow for an increase in residential development to meet the City's housing goals. A map of these sites is included in the Amended Specific Plan.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: The site inventory is an effective way to help direct interested developers to potential sites for housing. The City will update the inventory for the 2021-2029 planning cycle and continue to implement this program.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-21
Housing Program/Policy Accomplishments

12. Lot Consolidation Program
Goal: Establish a lot consolidation program
which offers incentives such as a reduction in
development standards to merge adjacent
lots.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Encourage lot consolidation of smaller parcels
to accommodate affordable housing projects,
including a minimum of 16 units at a density of
at least 30 dwelling units per acre or higher.

Offer concessions for low- and very lowincome qualifying projects. (Ongoing) Progress: The City has adopted guidelines in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the Density Incentive Overlay Zone to encourage lot consolidation to facilitate pursuit of cohesive residential development opportunities in the area Effectiveness/Appropriateness: Lot consolidation is an effective way to encourage more cohesive, high quality residential development. This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

REMOVING GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS

13. Remove Development Constraints
Goal: Review City development standards for
the residential zones to identify standards that
may constrain the development of affordable
and market rate housing.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Periodically review development standards to
ensure that the development of lower-income
housing can occur. (Ongoing)
Progress: The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and City zoning ordinance have been revised to simplify and encourage the approval and development of affordable housing projects by permitting them by right.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: Periodic review of development standards is an effective way to ensure that affordable housing development can occur. This program continues to be appropriate and will be modified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element to address newly identified constraints.

14. Affordable Housing Density Bonus
Goal: Facilitate the development of mixedincome housing projects by offering density and other incentives.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Continue to advertise and administer the City’s
updated density bonus provisions throughout
the planning period. (Ongoing)
Progress: During the planning period, four residential projects have received a density bonus in exchange for providing a total of 10 affordable housing units.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: This program is effective in incentivizing the creation of affordable housing through allowing increased density. program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

15. Efficient Project Processing
Goal: Provide efficient development
processing procedures.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Continue to offer streamline development
processing for affordable housing
developments. (Ongoing)
Progress: With no Planning Commission and expedited staff review, the City continues to provide streamlined entitlement and development processing for all housing projects. Further streamlining results from frequent use of the CEQA Class 32 Environmental Exemption for infill housing projects.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-22 Housing Element
Housing Program/Policy Accomplishments

16. Water and Sewer Service Providers
Goal: Ensure that service providers are
updated on long-term planning activities in the
City.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Deliver a copy of the 2014-2021 Housing
Element to all public agencies or private
entities that provide water or sewer services to
properties within Cypress.

Progress: A copy of the 2014-2021 Housing Element has been provided to all public agencies and entities that provide water, sewer, and other utility services for the City.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: This program continues to be appropriate and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

PROMOTING EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES

17. Fair Housing Program
Goal: Further fair housing practices in the
community.

Objectives/Time Frame:

Provide educational information on fair
housing to the public. Refer fair housing
complaints to the Orange County Fair Housing
Council (OCFHC).

Progress: The City advocates and embraces fair housing practices through promotion and distribution of educational information to the public at City Hall kiosks and on the City's website. The City also maintains an active partnership with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County to assist with housing disputes and issue resolution.

Effectiveness/Appropriateness: This program is modified to address the AFFH analysis and is included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-23

SUMMARY OF HOUSING ELEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Since 2014, the City of Cypress has accomplished and made significant progress towards many of its housing goals. Major accomplishments include the following:
• Providing housing rehabilitation assistance to more than 29 low- and moderate-income homeowners through the HELP II program, funded by County of Orange Community Development Block Grant funds. • Continuing code enforcement efforts to bring substandard residential units into compliance with City Codes. • Approval of a 244-unit senior housing development and an adjacent 152-bed capacity assisted living facility that will provide much needed senior housing for the City’s elderly population. • Approval of four long term affordability covenants in exchange for density bonuses. • Approval of long term affordability contracts for 15 Habitat for Humanity housing units. • Zoning Code updates to increase the allowable maximum density, encourage lot consolidation, and permit affordable housing by-right in key areas.
• Continuing relationship with the Fair Housing Council of Orange County to provide information and technical advice to residents on landlord/tenant issues.
• Continuing to host spring and fall community clean up days.

During the prior planning period, a number of housing units have been constructed in Cypress, including units affordable to lower-income households. Figure HOU- 3 and Table HOU- 8 provide detailed information about the location and type of development that has occurred since 2014. It is important to note that Figure HOU- 3 indicates the total number of units for which construction has been completed and a certificate of occupancy has been issued, while Table HOU- 8 indicates the number of units that have been issued a building permit.

Single Family
Attached
Single Family
Detached
Multi-Family
2-4 units
Multi-Family
5+ Units
Mobile
Homes
Second
Units
Total
per year
2014 19 0 5 16 0 0 39
2015 10 5 0 0 0 0 15
2016 71 47 2 19 0 0 139
2017 43 3 6 97 0 1 150
2018 96 137 0 0 0 5 238
2019 64 103 0 0 0 5 172
2020 0 1 2 0 0 2 5
Total 303 296 15 132 0 12 758

Cypress General Plan
HOU-24 Housing Element
Figure HOU- 3: Housing Units Constructed 2014-2020
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-25
Table HOU- 8: Units permitted from January 2014 to December 2020 Year Single Family
Attached
Single Family
Detached
Multi-Family
2-4 units
Multi-Family
5+ Units
Mobile
Homes
Second
Units
Total
per year
2014 19 0 5 16 0 0 39
2015 10 5 0 0 0 0 15
2016 71 47 2 19 0 0 139
2017 43 3 6 97 0 1 150
2018 96 137 0 0 0 5 238
2019 64 103 0 0 0 5 172
2020 0 1 2 0 0 2 5
Total 303 296 15 132 0 12 758
Since 2014, a total of 758 new residential units have been permitted in Cypress, including 303 attached condominiums and single-family homes, 296 detached single-family homes, and 147 units in multi-family buildings.

No net mobile home units were added, because all were replacements within the existing mobile home parks. A total of 12 second units/ADUs were also permitted on single-family residential lots. Table HOU- 9 compares the City’s accomplishments to the RHNA.

Table HOU- 9: Regional housing growth needs compared to units permitted Income
Category
Regional Housing
Needs (RHNA)
Number of New Units
Constructed
Number of Units
Rehabilitated1
Number of Units
Conserved2
Very Low 71 9 18 151
Low 50 8 19 400
Moderate 56 17 0 0
Above Moderate 131 724 0 0
Totals 308 758 37 551
Notes:

1. Includes 37 single-family homes assisted with HELP II funds.

2. Includes Section 8 (111), mobile home units (360), and Tara Village covenants (80) Cypress General Plan
HOU-26 Housing Element

HOUSING PROGRAM STRATEGY
The goals, policies, and programs contained in this Housing Element reflect a revision to those previously adopted to incorporate what has been learned from the prior Element and to adequately address the community's identified housing needs, as identified through public input and from the housing needs assessment.

The goals and policies address identified housing needs for the City of Cypress, and are implemented through a series of housing programs offered through the City’s Community Development Department. Housing programs define the specific actions the City will undertake to achieve the stated goals and policies. According to Section 65583 of the State Government Code, a jurisdiction’s housing programs must address the following five major areas:
• Conserving the existing supply of affordable housing; • Assisting in the provision of housing;
• Providing adequate sites to achieve a variety and diversity of housing; • Removing governmental constraints as necessary; and
• Promoting equal housing opportunity.

The housing programs described on the following pages include existing programs as well as several new programs which have been added to address the City’s housing needs. The program summary (Table HOU- 12) included at the end of this section specifies for each program the following: eight-year objective(s), time frame, funding source(s), and agency responsible for program implementation.

The Housing Plan is focused on programs to provide a variety of housing types, including rental and ownership units, for each of the income categories: market rate, low-, very low-, and extremely low-income (<30% AMI) households. To achieve this, the City has prioritized funds for projects that include units for extremely low- and very low-income units. City staff periodically reviews Housing Element programs and objectives and the City’s progress in meeting the objectives. Additionally, the City prepares and provides to the CA Department of Housing and Community Development an annual progress report on the Housing Element which outlines the City’s progress on program implementation and toward the City’s RHNA.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-27

CONSERVING THE EXISTING SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Conserving and improving the existing housing stock is an important goal for Cypress. While most of the housing stock is in good condition, over 95 percent of the City’s housing stock will be over 30 years old by the end of the 2021-2029 planning cycle (the age at which most homes need significant rehabilitation). The City has a proactive approach to conserve the current housing stock with the coordination of rehabilitation, code enforcement, and neighborhood improvement plans.

1. HOME ENHANCEMENT LOAN PROGRAM (HELP II)
The Home Enhancement Loan Program (HELP II) utilizes CDBG funds to assist low- and moderate-income singlefamily homeowners with the provision of interior and exterior improvements of their homes. Currently, deferred loans of up to $20,000 are available for help with correcting health and safety code violations, exterior improvements (such as new roof and paint), and interior improvements, including new plumbing and floor covering.

Lower income (80% MFI) homeowners may qualify for $20,000 loans which are completely forgiven after 10 years.

Eligible home improvements are prioritized as follows:
1) Health, safety, and general welfare correction items 2) Improvements to promote “curb appeal” and enhance community property values This on-going program is marketed through the City’s website, the City’s quarterly newsletter, brochures available at City facilities including City Hall and the Senior Center, public announcements on the City’s cable channel, and on the City’s on-hold info service. The City’s Code Enforcement officer also refers clients to the program and it is promoted when the City conducts neighborhood clean-ups.

As part of this program, the City will again explore the potential of becoming an entitlement city in order to receive CDBG funds directly from the Federal government, rather than competing with other cities in the Orange County program. Entitlement cities are generally defined as having a population of 50,000. As of 2020, the CA Department of Finance estimates the Cypress population to be 49,272; therefore, it is likely that the City’s population will reach 50,000 during the planning period.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Provide rehabilitation assistance to five households annually, with the goal of assisting 35 to 40 households over the planning period.
• Annually apply to the County for CDBG funds to fund the program. • Monitor the City’s population and apply to become an entitlement City to allow for the direct allocation of CDBG funds if the City population grows to 50,000 residents.

2. CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
The objective of the Code Enforcement Program is to bring substandard housing units into compliance with City codes. Cypress building inspectors work closely with the Code Enforcement officer to identify units in need of housing assistance. Property owners in violation of City codes are provided information on rehabilitation loans or grants, for which they may be eligible; to correct code violations.

In 2021, the City Council approved the Neighborhood Preservation Pilot Program, a proactive program which prioritizes community engagement and education and addresses targeted code violations within a targeted neighborhood. The City anticipates the program will begin in Fall 2021 and will be implemented for a two-year period. Throughout program implementation, the pilot program will be evaluated for effectiveness and potential expansion to other areas of the City.
2021-2029 Objectives
• On an ongoing basis with annual review, continue to operate the Code Enforcement Program to stem housing deterioration.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-28 Housing Element
• Proactively evaluate 1,200 single-family and multi-family units for code violations with the goal of achieving voluntary compliance for 85 percent of identified violations. • Make appropriate referrals to the HELP II program on an ongoing basis. • Implement the Neighborhood Preservation Program in 2021-2023 and annually evaluate its effectiveness.

Provide an evaluation report to City Council in 2023 and consider ongoing implementation and/or potential expansion dependent on pilot program outcomes. The program includes the following:
o Survey to obtain feedback about resident areas of concern; o 2-4 community workshops/neighborhood meetings to identify neighborhood concerns, identify neighborhood leaders, and educate residents on topics such as code requirements, the code enforcement process, and available support services;
o 2-4 neighborhood clean-up events. The target neighborhood will be canvased for code violations that can be resolved through the clean-up campaign. Equipment and roll-off bins will be provided by the City’s contractor; all neighborhood residents invited to participate. o Proactively inspect all properties in the target neighborhood to identify code violations. Aim to achieve voluntary compliance, with citations used as a last resort.

3. ORANGE COUNTY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
As a means of further leveraging housing assistance, the City will cooperate with the Orange County Housing and Community Development department and Orange County Housing Authority to promote resident awareness and application for County-run housing assistance programs. These programs include:
• Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC),
• Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP),
• Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP),
• Housing Choice Vouchers Program (HCV),
• Home Ownership Program (HOP), and
• Section 8 Rental Subsidies.

The County offers a variety of housing assistance programs that can supplement the City’s efforts. As the City has little control over how the County’s programs are administered, the City will be responsible for providing program information on the City’s website and at City Hall.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Increase resident awareness about housing programs offered by the County by advertising them on the City’s website and by offering staff assistance at City Hall. Beginning in 2023, annually include information about Orange County housing programs in the City’s newsletter.

4. MOBILE HOME PARK PRESERVATION
The two mobile home parks in Cypress contain 362 mobile home units. There are 306 spaces in the Lincoln Center Mobile Home Park and 56 spaces in the Lincoln Cypress Mobile Home Park. Mobile homes provide relatively affordable housing for many seniors and lower-income families, and the City is interested in seeing these mobile home parks remain. The Cypress General Plan established a distinct mobile home park land use designation, and the Zoning Code provides for a Mobile Home Park Zone (MHP-20A). With these designations currently in place, a park owner seeking closure would have to first justify a General Plan amendment and zone change to the City Council, and comply with State regulations governing mobile home park closures.

The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) offers a Mobile Home Park Resident Ownership Program (MPROP) to assist resident organizations, non-profit housing providers, and local public agencies to acquire and own mobile home parks. The program offers short- and long-term three percent interest loans for the purchase or rehabilitation of a mobile home park. 2021-2029 Objectives
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-29
• Preserve the long-term use of the existing two mobile home parks by maintaining mobile home park zoning and general plan land use designations.
• Annually include a Housing Resource Update in the City newsletter which will include information on the availability of State MPROP funding for tenants interested in purchasing the park. • Should tenants of the park indicate interest in purchasing the park as a means of maintaining control over space rent increases, provide information on State MPROP funding and assistance in preparing the application, as appropriate.

5. PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION There are 428 publicly assisted rental housing units affordable to lower and moderate income households located within Cypress, as of January 2022. Of these units, 220 units located within four developments are considered atrisk of converting to market rate between October 15, 2021 and October 15, 2031. These developments are listed in Section 2.3.7.1 of the Housing Element Technical Report. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Contact the property management company or property owner of the identified at-risk properties annually to evaluate their risk of conversion to market rate. If the property management company or property owner indicate that they are considering conversion of the units, then the City will undertake the following additional steps:
o Assist the property owner in identifying/securing alternate sources of funding to preserve the affordable units;
o Contact regional nonprofit housing organizations, such as Jamboree Housing Corporation, Mercy Housing California, and National Core, regarding the potential opportunity to acquire the affordable units. Assist with communications between the property owner and nonprofit organization to facilitate the sale of affordable units to the nonprofit organization. Assist the nonprofit organization with identifying/securing funding for the acquisition.
• As part of annual communications with property owners, ensure that property owners are aware of new State tenant notification requirements prior to conversion from low income to market rate units (3-year, 1-year, and 6-month notices required).

6. REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PROTECTED UNITS DURING SITE

REDEVELOPMENT
Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3) establishes requirements for the replacement of protected units during the redevelopment of a site identified in the sites inventory with new residential units (pursuant to AB 1397).

Protected units include: units that are subject to deed restrictions, covenants, ordinance, or law that restricts their rent and occupancy to low or very low income households; units that are subject to any other valid form of rent or price control imposed by a public entity; and, units that have been occupied by low or very low income households within the past five years. Redevelopment of properties containing protected units must include replacement units that are restricted to be affordable to the same or lower income level as the existing units being removed.

Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in Government Code Section 65915(c)(3).

The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3) and 65915(c)(3) to ensure that protected units are required to be replaced as part of new residential development projects on sites identified in the sites inventory. Upon receipt of an application for a new residential development, City staff shall review the existing site plan and any other pertinent information to determine the presence of protected units on the site to ensure implementation of the required replacement provisions. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Within 18 months of Housing Element adoption, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require the replacement of protected units consistent with state law.
• Evaluate proposed residential development projects to ensure compliance replacement provisions.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-30 Housing Element

ASSISTING IN THE PROVISION OF HOUSING
The following programs are aimed at addressing the overall need for the provision of both affordable homeownership and rental housing in Cypress as well as housing for special needs populations. New construction is a major source of housing for prospective homeowners and renters, but generally requires public sector support for the creation of units affordable to lower income households.

7. ALTERNATIVE HOUSING MODELS
The City recognizes the changing housing needs of its population, including aging seniors and disabled residents (including the developmentally disabled) in need of supportive services. To meet such needs, the City can encourage the provision of more innovative housing types that may be suitable for the community, including community care facilities, supportive housing, and assisted living for seniors and the disabled. Assisted living facilities are designed for individuals needing assistance with activities of daily living but desiring to live as independently as possible for as long as possible. Such facilities bridge the gap between independent living and nursing homes, and offer residents help with daily activities such as eating, bathing, dressing, laundry, housekeeping, and assistance with medications. Assisted living can help to meet the housing and supportive services needs of Cypress’ senior and disabled populations. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Provide appropriate standards to encourage development of senior housing to meet the needs of the growing senior population. By the end of 2023, create an informational pamphlet to be available on the City’s website and at the public counter providing information regarding these standards and alternative housing models. • Actively promote outside funding opportunities and regulatory incentives such as density bonuses and the HELP II program to offset the costs of providing affordable units. Beginning in 2023, annually provide information in the City’s newsletter regarding these programs. • Continue to permit community care facilities by right in residential zones pursuant to applicable State law. • Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish formal reasonable accommodation procedures within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.
• Create a reasonable accommodation application and informational brochure to reflect the procedures adopted in the Zoning Ordinance within 24 months of Housing Element adoption.

8. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
The City’s Community Development Department plays an important role in facilitating development of affordable housing. City staff has worked with numerous developers over the years to provide land cost write-downs, regulatory incentives, and direct financial assistance to facilitate the development of both ownership and rental housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. Historically, the focus of the former Redevelopment Agency was to expend funds to meet replacement and inclusionary obligations generated by new development in the Redevelopment Project Areas. As the Agency has been dissolved, the City has modified the program to focus on regulatory incentives, including modified or reduced development standards for projects that provide units affordable to lower-income households.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Utilize State density bonus law and the updated Density Bonus Ordinance (see Program 16) to provide regulatory incentives to private developers to increase the supply of affordable housing in Cypress. • Provide a report for City Council consideration with a menu of fee waiver options for affordable housing developments. Formalize City Council direction with Zoning Ordinance amendments, if necessary, by the end of 2023.
• Conduct a study to analyze the feasibility of converting older motels to affordable housing by the end of 2023.

Should the study result in identification of potential properties for conversion, seek funding sources and contact potential nonprofit organizations for partnership.

9. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-31
Allowing for the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) offers a valuable affordable housing option to specific types of residents within the community. ADUs can benefit seniors, students, and other small households.

Allowing for ADUs also provides a source of income for the property owner, which can be a particular benefit to senior homeowners with limited income. The City has not updated its provisions related to ADUs (referred to as second units in the existing City regulations) since 2006; therefore, amendments to the City’s zoning ordinance are necessary to bring it into compliance with current State law. After ordinance amendments have been completed, City staff will continue to monitor State regulations to ensure that the City’s regulations remain in compliance with State law and that development standards are not arbitrary, excessive, or burdensome so as to unreasonably restrict the ability of homeowners to create ADUs.

Staff will continue to administer and promote the development of ADUs by providing information at City Hall and on the City’s website. The City will create updated informational materials based on new state requirements for ADUs and new incentives as they are implemented. The City will also advertise the $25,000 homeowners grant available from the California Housing Finance Agency for ADU construction.

To further incentivize the production of ADUs, the City will implement a pre-approved plan program, expedited review, and fee waivers for homeowners that are willing to deed restrict the ADU based on affordability. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Update the City’s Zoning Ordinance provisions relating to ADUs to be in compliance with State law by 2024. • Continue to monitor State regulations to ensure the City’s ordinance remains in compliance. • Develop and provide informational materials about ADU development at City Hall and on the City’s website by 2023. Review informational materials annually to ensure they include current requirements and incentive programs.
• Implement the following programs by 2026: pre-approved plans available at low- to no-cost, expedited review, and fee waivers in exchange for affordability deed restrictions.

10. SUSTAINABILITY AND GREEN BUILDING
Cypress is concerned about the continued availability of all resources for the development of affordable housing.

One opportunity for energy conservation and cost savings, as required by Government Code Section 65583(1)(7), is encouraging “green buildings,” which are structures that are designed, renovated, re-used or operated in a manner that enhances resource efficiency and sustainability. These structures reduce water consumption, improve energy efficiency, and lessen a building’s overall environmental impact.

The City will review ordinances and recommend changes where necessary to encourage energy-efficient housing design and practices that are consistent with State regulations. The City will periodically distribute literature or post information on its website regarding energy conservation, including solar power, energy-efficient insulation, and subsidies available from utility companies, and encourage homeowners and landlords to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects. When possible, the City will encourage energy conservation devices including, but not limited to, lighting, water heater treatments and solar energy systems for all new and existing residential projects. The City will encourage maximum utilization of Federal, State, and local government programs, including the Orange County Home Weatherization Program, that are intended to help homeowners implement energy conservation measures. Additionally, as part of the HELP II program outlined above, residents can apply for loans to increase the energy efficiency of their homes. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Maintain information on energy conservation, including solar power, additional insulation, and subsidies available from utility companies on the City’s website. Encourage homeowners and landlords to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects through interactions at the public counter. • Provide information on Federal, State, and local government programs, such as the Orange County Home Weatherization Program and the City’s HELP II program on the City’s website.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-32 Housing Element
• Annually provide information in the City’s newsletter on water and energy conservation and related utility and government programs.

11. SERVICES FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS Since the last Housing Element update, the City began participating in two programs which provide services to individuals and families experiencing homelessness within Cypress.

The City contracts with a homeless outreach and engagement service provider to provide social service resources and referrals to the City’s homeless population. The City’s Police Department has a dedicated Homeless Liaison Officer and six specialty-trained police officers for homeless issues. The annual cost of the program of approximately $90,000 is currently funded by a state grant which is set to expire in 2022. City staff will seek other grant opportunities to fund this program.

The City also provides funding in conjunction with other cities in the North Orange County Service Planning Area to maintain and operate two homeless shelter facilities in the County – the Buena Park Navigation Center and the Placentia Navigation Center. In total, the two shelters provide 225 beds which are available to individuals from any of the participating cities.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Annually appropriate funding for the Cypress Police Department’s Homeless Liaison Officer position and offer training every two years to officers related to engagement with individuals experiencing homelessness in order to provide social service resources and referrals.
• Seek alternative grant funding to operate the homeless outreach and engagement program in 2022. • Annually appropriate funding for the Buena Park and Placentia Navigation Centers in conjunction with other North Orange County Service Planning Area cities and refer individuals to the shelters as necessary.

PROVIDING ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES
A critical component of addressing the housing needs of all segments of the community is the provision of adequate sites to support development of all types, sizes, and prices of housing. The City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and specific plans establish regulations that govern the location of housing in the City, thereby affecting the supply of land available for residential development.

12. RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE SITES INVENTORY
As an established City where the majority of remaining residential development opportunities will occur through infill, an active program for site identification is essential in Cypress. The City of Cypress has been allocated a RHNA of 3,936 units (1,150 very low income, 657 low income, 623 moderate income, and 1,506 above moderate income). After projects that are entitled and ADU development projections, the City needs to plan for the development of 3,432 units (1,145 very low income, 649 low income, 567 moderate income, and 1,071 above moderate income).

The City performed a parcel level analysis of the City in order to identify potential opportunity sites for housing development as described in the Housing Resources section of the Housing Element Technical Report. As a result of this analysis, the City has identified two potential alternatives to accommodate the City’s remaining shortfall and maintain adequate sites for all income groups throughout the 2021-2029 planning period. The identification of two alternatives was necessary because the preferred alternative (Alternative 1) requires voter approval to rezone a portion of the identified sites. Due to potential unknowns related to this process, a second backup alternative was also identified (Alternative 2). Both alternatives include rezoning programs and both are sufficient to accommodate the City’s RHNA. As part of the rezoning program, a minimum of 60 acres will allow multi-family residential development by right (without approval of a discretionary permit), sufficient to accommodate the shortfall for lower income units. Further, all sites identified for lower income units will have a minimum allowable density of at least Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-33
20 du/ac, a maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac or greater, a minimum lot size of one half acre, and will be able to accommodate at least 16 units, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2. The City will complete all rezoning identified in the sites inventory within 18 months of Housing Element adoption. Tables summarizing the parcels to be rezoned under both alternatives are provided in the Housing Resources section of the Technical Report.

The City will monitor development on identified opportunity sites in the sites inventory throughout the planning period to ensure compliance with No Net Loss requirements (SB 166). To ensure ongoing residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA, the City will develop and implement a formal evaluation procedure to evaluate residential capacity on a project-by-project basis, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863. If approval of a development results in a reduction in capacity below the capacity needed to accommodate the RHNA, the City will identify and rezone additional sites to ensure “no net loss” in capacity.

As a means of facilitating the development of affordable and mixed-income housing on identified residential and mixed-use sites, the City will make the sites inventory available by providing information in discussions with potential developers and including the sites inventory and potential incentives for development on the City’s website and in the City’s quarterly newsletter.

2021-2029 Objectives
• Rezone identified parcels in the sites inventory within 18 months of Housing Element adoption. For Alternative 1, this process will include: the City Council adopting a resolution to put amendments to the CTCC on the ballot in Fall 2022; conducting an impartial voter education plan in Winter 2022-Spring 2023; and holding an election in Spring 2023 to approve amendments to the CTCC. Proposed amendments to the LASP will be initiated through the City’s normal public hearing process and completed within 18 months of Housing Element adoption. Should the ballot measure to amend the CTCC be rejected, then the City will proceed with the City’s normal public hearing process for the zoning ordinance amendments outlined in Alternative 2 in Spring 2023. • The rezone program shall include the following provisions of Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i) for sites accommodating lower incomes: (1) by-right development of multi-family developments in which 20 percent or more of units are affordable to lower income households; (2) Accommodation of at least 16 units per site; (3) minimum density of 20 units per acre; (4) at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites: allow 100 percent residential use, and require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project. • Develop and implement an evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 to ensure adequate sites are available to meet the RHNA throughout the planning period. • Maintain an up-to-date sites inventory and provide this information to interested developers in conjunction with information on available development incentives.

13. LOT CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM
Parcels identified as part of the sites inventory range in size from less than 0.1 acres to larger than 20 acres. All of the smaller sites identified are located within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area. In some cases, these sites are narrow or shallow, which could be seen as an additional constraint to the development of housing. To encourage the development of residential and mixed-use projects, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan includes a lot consolidation program which offers incentives such as a reduction in development standards (e.g., parking, landscaping, and open space requirements) and a density bonus to merge adjacent lots; however, this section of the Specific Plan is out of date and the provisions lack necessary elements that would increase certainty of the incentive for developers. The City will amend these provisions to provide clearer guidance and incentives to developers proposing lot consolidation.

The City may also offer to subsidize a portion of development fees to encourage lot consolidation and to promote more intense affordable residential and mixed-use development on underutilized sites within the Lincoln Avenue Cypress General Plan
HOU-34 Housing Element
Specific Plan area. The City will promote the program at City Hall and on its website, and will evaluate requests for funding on a case-by-case basis.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Amend the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan to provide clearer provisions and incentives related to lot consolidation which will provide approval certainty for developers within 18 months of Houing Element adoption.
• Promote lot consolidation in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan by creating updated informational materials on lot consolidation incentives by 2024.

14. BY RIGHT APPROVAL OF PROJECTS WITH 20 PERCENT AFFORDABLE UNITS ON “REUSE” AND SHORTFALL SITES
In accordance with AB 1397 (2017), the Zoning Ordinance will be amended to allow by right (without discretionary permit approval) housing developments which voluntarily include 20 percent affordable units on sites that were identified in previous planning cycles. Opportunity Site 127 is the only “reuse” site that has been included in the sites inventory. Additionally, the rezoning program for sites that have been identified to meet the City’s RHNA shortfall for lower income units will also allow by right approval for projects with 20 percent affordable units. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Update the Zoning Ordinance within 18 months of Housing Element adoption to allow by right development of projects with 20 percent affordable units on reuse sites and sites identified to meet the RHNA shortfall for lower income units.

REMOVING GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Under current State law, the Cypress Housing Element must address and, where legally possible, remove governmental constraints affecting the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The following programs are designed to mitigate government constraints on residential development and facilitate the development of a variety of housing.

15. REMOVE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
As part of the Housing Element update, the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including development standards and other regulations, were analyzed to identify potential governmental constraints to residential development. This analysis is included in the Housing Constraints section of the Technical Report. The analysis identified the following constraints, which will be addressed through Zoning Ordinance amendments and other measures:
• Emergency Shelters: Amend the emergency shelter standards within the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with State law (SB 2 and AB 139), including the total allowable capacity must be the same or greater than the point-in-time count; distance requirements limited to no more than 300 feet from another shelter; maximum length of stay up to 180 days; and required parking based on staffing levels only. • Employee Housing: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for employee housing for six or fewer employees in the residential zones subject to the same standards as single family residences per the Employee Housing Act.
• Density Bonus Ordinance: Update the City’s density bonus provisions to comply with State law (most recently AB 1763 and AB 2345).
• Low Barrier Navigation Centers: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow the development of low barrier navigation centers by right in mixed use and nonresidential zones that permit multi-family residential uses, if the center meets specified requirements (AB 101).
• Transitional/Supportive Housing: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to define transitional and supportive housing as residential uses subject only to the same regulations as comparable residential uses.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-35
• Supportive Housing: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compliance with AB 2162, related to by right development of supportive housing and requiring no parking when supportive housing developments are within one half mile of public transit.
• Reasonable Accommodation: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include specific provisions to formalize the procedure for processing reasonable accommodation requests and including approval criteria. • Residential Care Facilities: Review the Zoning Ordinance to ensure the provisions related to residential care facilities are objective and facilitate the development of such facilities. Should constaints be identified, amend the Zoning Ordinance to mitigate or remove the constraints. • Multifamily Parking Standards: Evaluate the Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plans to ensure consistency in requirements and amend the Zoning Ordinance to address any inconsistencies and introduce mitigating strategies to lower the development cost of parking facilities, such as tandem parking, compact parking, and shared parking in mixed-use developments.

After amendments have been completed as identified above, the City will continue to monitor its development regulations and processes, as well as State laws pertaining to residential development, to identify and remedy constraints throughout the planning period.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Complete amendments related to emergency shelters by January 2022. • Complete all other identified zoning ordinance amendments within 18 months of Housing Element adoption. • Periodically review development standards and City processes to identify and remedy potential constraints to residential development. Monitor state legislation to ensure ongoing compliance with new laws related to the development of housing

16. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
The Cypress Zoning Code (Section 9, Division 3) sets forth provisions for density bonuses and other incentives in return for guarantees of affordable dwelling units in new construction. Prospective developers are provided with a list of standards for density bonus projects in the City, including tenant/owner income requirements, rent/mortgage limits, length of affordability, and requirements that affordable units be of comparable quality to market rate units in the project; these standards are enforced through a Density Bonus Agreement which serves as a contract between the City and the developer.

Cypress last updated its density bonus provisions in 2009 as a means of implementing Government Code Section 65915. As previously noted, the City’s density bonus provisions are out of compliance with current state law and will need to be updated. Nonetheless, the City has been successful in implementing the density bonus program and four projects received density bonuses during the last planning period.

The City currently provides information to developers about the density bonus ordinance on the City website and at City Hall.

2021-2029 Objectives
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with state density bonus provisions within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.
• Continue to advertise and administer the City’s updated density bonus provisions throughout the planning period. Create an informational brochure to reflect changes in the new Density Bonus Ordinance by 2024.

17. EFFICIENT PROJECT PROCESSING
The Cypress Community Development Department has a streamlined review process. Residential projects in Cypress generally receive concurrent processing and are governed by one decision-making body (the City Council), thereby shortening review time and minimizing related holding costs. In order to further streamline review of qualifying multi-family residential projects, the City will establish a streamlined, ministerial review process pursuant to SB 35.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-36 Housing Element
Objective design standards are standards that are uniformly verifiable by reference to the City’s development regulations. Objective design standards increase transparency and certainty for developers going through the review process. In compliance with SB 330, the City will review all existing design standards to ensure objectivity and ensure any new design standards are similarly objective.

Currently, multifamily residential projects with four or more units in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones require a conditional use permit. To further streamline the development of multifamily residential projects, the City will remove the CUP requirement and create a new site plan review process to facilitate the review of larger projects for compliance with objective design standards.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Continue to offer streamlined processing for affordable housing developments throughout the planning period. • Establish and implement a streamlined, ministerial review process for multi-family projects qualifying under SB 35 within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.
• Develop objective design standards in compliance with SB 330 within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the CUP requirement for multifamily projects with four or more units in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones and replace it with a streamlined site plan review process within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.

18. WATER AND SEWER SERVICE PROVIDERS
In accordance with Government Code Section 65589.7, immediately following City Council adoption, the City must deliver a copy of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services to properties within Cypress.
2021-2029 Objectives
• Immediately following the adoption and certification of the Housing Element, staff will deliver copies to all providers of sewer and water service within the City of Cypress.

PROMOTING EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
To adequately meet the housing needs of all segments of the community, the Housing Element must include program(s) that promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, family size, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, age, or physical disability.

19. REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
As previously noted, the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not include provisions for the application or approval of requests for reasonable accommodations. Therefore, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is necessary.

Reasonable accommodation procedures provide flexibility in development standards to eliminate barriers in housing opportunities for persons with disabilities. In addition to establishing provisions within the Zoning Ordinance, City staff will ensure that information is available on how to request a reasonable accommodation with respect to zoning, permit processing, or building laws. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish formal reasonable accommodation procedures within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.
• Create a reasonable accommodation application and informational brochure to reflect the procedures adopted in the Zoning Ordinance within 24 months of Housing Element adoption. • Continue to inform and educate the public on the availability of the reasonable accommodation procedure through the dissemination of information on the City’s website and at the Community Development Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-37
Department’s public counter. Annually include information on reasonable accommodations in the City’s newsletter.

20. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
The City of Cypress is committed to supporting fair housing rights and addressing fair housing issues through its contract with the Orange County Fair Housing Council and other means. The City is committed to implementing Government Code Section 8899.50(b), which requires the City to administer its programs and activities related to housing and community development in a manner which affirmatively furthers fair housing and take no action that is materially inconsistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.

Additionally, in response to the fair housing analysis included in Appendix B of the Technical Report, the City has developed a set of actions to affirmatively further fair housing, as outlined in Table HOU- 10. 2021-2029 Objectives
• Throughout the planning period and into the future, administer all programs and activities related to housing and community development in a manner which affirmatively furthers fair housing and take no action that is materially inconsistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing in compliance with Government Code Section 8899.50(b).
• See Table HOU- 10.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-38
Table HOU- 10: Summary of Fair Housing Meaningful Actions Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 2021-2029 Metrics Housing Mobility
Source of Income
Protection laws (SB 329
and SB 222) outreach to
increase Housing Choice
Voucher use
Include information on Source of Income Protection laws in landlord targeted section of the City’s new fair housing webpage and in the City’s newsletter annually.

Include information on Source of Income Protection laws in ADU application materials.
2023; Review and
update annually;
include in
newsletter
annually
City-wide
Increase HCV use and resident application
to other County housing programs by 10%
over the course of the planning period.

Continue to distribute the City newsletter to
all households Citywide (approximately
16,000) annually. Orange County
Partnership Program
(Program 3)
Include information about Orange County housing
programs in the City’s newsletter to increase resident
awareness and application.

Annually
beginning in 2023 City-wide
New
Opportunities in
Higher
Opportunity Areas
Affirmative Marketing
Plan for density bonus
projects
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require developers to
submit and implement an Affirmative Marketing Plan for
affordable housing projects and density bonus projects
2023 City-wide
Achieve 35% of new units developed to be
located in High Resource areas.

Opportunity Site
Promotion
Publish information about key sites inventory sites on the City’s website. Reach out to local housing developers
regarding specific sites and facilitate communications
between developers and property owners, where
appropriate.

Publish
information on
sites inventory by
2023; Contact
developers
annually

LASP, CTCC
Inclusionary Program
Feasibility Study
Conduct a feasibility study on the implementation of an inclusionary housing ordinance. Provide recommendations to City Council for next steps based on the study.
2024 City-wide
Support affordable
housing funding
applications
Provide letters of support for nonprofit developers for funding applications for affordable projects located in high resource areas
Ongoing City-wide
Place-based
Strategies for
Community
Revitalization
Neighborhood
Preservation Pilot
Program
Implement a survey to obtain feedback from residents on areas of concern.

Conduct 2-4 community workshops/neighborhood
meetings to identify neighborhood concerns and leaders
and educate residents on topics such as code
requirements, code enforcement process, and available
support services.

Coordinate 2-4 neighborhood clean-up events. The target neighborhood will be canvased for code violations that can 2022-2023 Target neighborhood in eastern
portion of the City
Achieve voluntary compliance for 85% of
code violations
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-39
Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 2021-2029 Metrics be resolved through the clean-up campaign. Equipment
and roll-off bins will be provided by the City’s contractor; all neighborhood residents invited to participate.

Proactively inspect all properties in the target
neighborhood to identify code violations. Aim to achieve voluntary compliance, with citations used as a last resort.

Provide an evaluation report to City Council to consider ongoing implementation and/or expansion of the program.

Recreational
opportunities in the
CTCC
During development process, promote walkability and
connectivity to open space and other services by requiring sidewalks and other public improvements.

Facilitate development of park facilities in the CTCC as outlined in the Specific Plan.

Ongoing,
evaluated on a
project basis.

CTCC
Create one additional park or recreation
facility and continue to expand recreation
activities in the new nine-acre park
Prioritize capital
improvements in
moderate resource areas
Ensure currency in public and infrastructure improvements with development of CTCC.

Prioritize projects located in moderate resource areas and areas having higher concentrations of minority or lower income residents (northeast of City) as part of the annual CIP/budget process.

Annually
beginning in 2023
Moderate resource areas; areas
with higher minority or lower
income concentrations. Focus
efforts in the moderate resource
areas (CTCC and Northeast
neighborhoods)
Implement projects outlined in the FY
2022-23 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), specifically projects in the Northeast
neighborhood (Community Center
improvements, Senior Center
improvements, and Orange Avenue arterial
street rehabilitation).

Displacement
Anti-displacement
measures for small
businesses
Provide targeted outreach to small businesses located on redeveloping properties through the Economic
Development Division Aid small businesses that are
displaced by assisting in the search for available areas to relocate in the City.

Ongoing; triggered
when a project
application is
received
LASP Retain local businesses and jobs to result
in an overall net gain in jobs
Tenant Protection Act of
2018 (AB 1482) outreach
Create landlord-targeted and tenant-targeted educational materials related to: maximum annual rent increases, just cause evictions, and financial compensation requirements to increase housing stability for vulnerable populations.

Include materials on the City’s dedicated fair housing
website and City newsletter.
2023; Review and
update annually;
include in
newsletter
annually
City-wide Reduce the number of complaints on
unlawful rent increases and evictions
Preservation of
affordable housing units
at risk of conversion
Contact the management company or property owner of
identified at-risk properties to evaluate their risk of conversion. Take follow-up steps as outlined in Program 5.

Annually Identified at-risk projects only Preserve affordability of 220 at-risk units.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-40 Housing Element
Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeline Geographic Targeting 2021-2029 Metrics (Program 5) Ensure property owners are aware of tenant notification requirements prior to conversion to market rate (3-year, 1- year, and 6-month notices).

Replacement of existing
protected units during
site redevelopment
(Program 6)
Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require replacement of
protected units pursuant to AB 1397.

Evaluate proposed development projects to ensure
compliance.

Within 18 months
of adoption
Ongoing
LASP Require replacement of 100% of protected
units during redevelopment.

Outreach and
Enforcement
Improve availability of
local fair housing data
Contact Orange County Fair Housing Council to advocate
that the City receive city-specific data
2023; Follow-up
annually if
necessary
City-wide Receive annual report from FHC with cityspecific data Expand advertisement of
fair housing resources
Create an updated, dedicated webpage on the City’s
website with information on fair housing rights/resources 2023; Review and
update annually City-wide
Track hits on webpage to increase
exposure. Based on webpage hits,
continue to expand resources available on
the City webpage.

Publish information directing residents to fair housing resources in the City’s quarterly newsletter
Annually,
beginning in 2023 City-wide At least one newsletter coving housingrelated issues annually Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-41

QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES AND PROGRAMS SUMMARY
The City has established quantified objectives for the number of housing units to be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved through implementation of the City’s Housing Program Strategy over the eight-year planning period, as shown in Table HOU- 11. Table HOU- 12 provides a summary of the City’s Housing Programs for quick reference.

Table HOU- 11: Quantified Objectives
Income Group New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/Preservation2 Extremely Low 575 81
Very Low 575 91 159
Low 657 181 427
Moderate 623 1043 105
Above Moderate 1,506 2183
Total 3,936 357 691
Notes:

1. HELP II Program

2. Includes Section 8 (111 very low income units), mobile home park preservation (360 low income units), and preservation of at-risk units (48 very low income units; 67 low income units; 105 moderate income units).

3. There is no funding available for rehabilitation for moderate and above moderate income households. This number is derived from the estimated number of substandard units in the City based on Code Enforcement cases (475 units, see Section 2.3.4 of the Technical Report) multiplied by the percent of households with moderate (22%) and above moderate (46%) incomes.

Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-42
Table HOU- 12: Housing Element Program Implementation Summary Housing Program Program Goal 2021-2029 Objective/
Time Frame
Funding
Source
Responsible
Agency
Conserving the Existing Supply of Affordable Housing

1. Home Enhancement
Loan Program (HELP II)
Assist low- and moderate-income homeowners with
the improvement of their homes.

Provide rehabilitation assistance to 35 to 40 households over the planning period.

Apply to County on an annual basis for CDBG funds to fund the program.

Explore entitlement city status for CDBG funds.

CDBG
Community
Development
Department;
OC Community
Services

2. Code Enforcement
Program
Bring substandard units into compliance with City
codes.

Continue to implement the Code Enforcement Program (Ongoing with annual review).

Proactively evaluation 1,200 units for code violations; aim to achieve 85% voluntary compliance.

Encourage the use of HELP II funds for rehabilitation.

Implement Neighborhood Preservation Pilot Program in 2021-2023. Evaluate annually and provide a report to Council in 2023 to consider ongoing implementation/ expansion.

General Fund;
CBDG
Community
Development
Department

3. Orange County
Partnership Program
Promote resident awareness and application for
County-run housing assistance programs (i.e.

Section 8 and MCC program).

Increase resident awareness about housing programs offered by the County by offering staff assistance at City Hall and by advertising them on the City’s website. Include information in the City’s newsletter (annually beginning in 2023).

General Fund;
Orange County
HUD funds
Community
Development
Department

4. Mobile Home Park
Preservation Program Preserve the two mobile home parks in Cypress.

Maintain mobile home park zoning and General Plan designations.

Annually include a Housing Resource Update in the City newsletter which will include information on the availability of State MPROP funding for tenants interested in purchasing the park.

Provide tenants information on MPROP resources as appropriate.

General Fund;
MPROP
Community
Development
Department
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-43
Housing Program Program Goal 2021-2029 Objective/
Time Frame
Funding
Source
Responsible
Agency

5. Preservation Of
Affordable Housing Units At
Risk Of Conversion Preserve the 220 affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate between 2021 and 2031.

Contact the property management company/owner of at-risk properties annually to evaluate their risk of conversion. If the property owner indicates potential conversion of units, then the City will undertake the following additional steps:

1. Assist the property owner in identifying/securing alternate sources of funding to preserve the affordable units;

2. Contact regional nonprofit housing organizations, regarding the potential opportunity to acquire the affordable units and facilitate as necessary between property owner and nonprofit regarding acquisition. Assist the nonprofit organization with identifying/securing funding for the acquisition.

Annually provide a written notice to property owners to ensure they are aware of new State tenant notification requirements.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department

6. Replacement Of Existing
Protected Units During Site
Redevelopment
Preserve affordable housing stock by requiring
replacement of protected units as part of
redevelopment.

Within 18 months of Housing Element adoption, amend the Zoning Ordinance to require the replacement of protected units consistent with state law.

Evaluate proposed residential development projects to ensure compliance replacement provisions.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department
Assisting in the Provision of Housing

7. Alternative Housing
Models
Encourage the provision of more innovative housing
types that may be suitable for the community,
including community care facilities, supportive
housing, and assisted living for seniors and the
disabled, including developmentally disabled
persons.

Provide appropriate standards to encourage development of housing to meet the needs of the City’s growing senior population. Create an informational pamphlet, available on website and at public counter, regarding standards and alternative housing models (2023).

Promote outside funding opportunities and incentives (i.e. density bonus and HELP II).

Providing information on programs in the City’s newsletter (annually beginning in 2023) Permit community care facilities by right in residential zones pursuant to State law (ongoing).

Implement reasonable accommodation program objectives (see Program 19).

General Fund
Community
Development
Department
Cypress General Plan
HOU-44 Housing Element
Housing Program Program Goal 2021-2029 Objective/
Time Frame
Funding
Source
Responsible
Agency

8. Affordable Housing
Development Assistance
Facilitate affordable housing development by forprofit and non-profit housing developers/ corporations.

Utilize State density bonus law and the updated Density Bonus Ordinance (see Program 16) to provide regulatory incentives to private developers to increase the supply of affordable housing in Cypress.

Provide a report for City Council consideration with a menu of fee waiver options for affordable housing developments. Formalize City Council direction with Zoning Ordinance amendments, if necessary, by the end of 2023.

Conduct a study to analyze the feasibility of converting older motels to affordable housing by the end of 2023. Should the study result in identification of potential properties for conversion, seek funding sources and contact potential nonprofit organizations for partnership.

General Fund;
CDBG and
other funds as
available
Community
Development
Department

9. Accessory Dwelling Units
Allow and promote ADU development which can
serve as a valuable housing source for seniors,
students, and other small households.

Update Zoning Ordinance provisions for ADUs to comply with State law by 2024.

Continue to monitor State regulations to ensure ongoing compliance.

Develop and provide informational materials about ADU development at City Hall and on the City’s website by 2023. Review materials annually to ensure they are up-to-date.

Implement the following programs by 2026: pre-approved plans, expedited review, and fee waivers in exchange for affordability deed restrictions.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department

10. Sustainability and
Green Building
Review ordinances and recommend changes where
necessary to encourage energy-efficient housing
design and practices that are consistent with State
regulations. Encourage energy conservation
devices for all new and existing residential projects.

Maintain information on the City’s website about energy conservation, and subsidies/programs available from utility companies, the Federal, State, and local government (beginning in 2023; review and update annually).

Encourage homeowners and landlords to incorporate these features into construction and remodeling projects.

Include information in the City’s newsletter on conservation and related utility and government programs (annually beginning in 2023).

General Fund;
CDBG
Community
Development
Department
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-45
Housing Program Program Goal 2021-2029 Objective/
Time Frame
Funding
Source
Responsible
Agency

11. Services for Individuals
and Families Experiencing
Homelessness
Provide services to individuals/families experiencing
homelessness including social services and
referrals to emergency housing and other
resources.

Annually appropriate funding for the Cypress Police Department’s Homeless Liaison Officer and offer ongoing training every two years to officers related to engagement with individuals experiencing homelessness in order to provide social service resources and referrals.

Seek alternative grant funding to operate the homeless outreach program past 2022.

Annually appropriate funding for the Buena Park and Placentia Navigation Centers in conjunction with other North Orange County Service Planning Area cities and refer individuals to the shelters as necessary.

State Grant /
General Fund
Police Department/
Community
Development
Department
Providing Adequate Housing Sites
Cypress General Plan
HOU-46 Housing Element
Housing Program Program Goal 2021-2029 Objective/
Time Frame
Funding
Source
Responsible
Agency

12. Residential and MixedUse Sites InventoryEnsure the provision of adequate and appropriate sites for future housing development.

Rezone identified parcels in the sites inventory within 18 months of Housing Element adoption. For Alternative 1, this process will include: the City Council adopting a resolution to put amendments to the CTCC on the ballot in Fall 2022; conducting an impartial voter education plan in Winter 2022-Spring 2023; and holding an election in Spring 2023 to approve amendments to the CTCC. Proposed amendments to the LASP will be initiated through the City’s normal public hearing process and completed within 18 months of Housing Element adoption. Should the ballot measure to amend the CTCC be rejected, then the City will proceed with the City’s normal public hearing process for the zoning ordinance amendments outlined in Alternative 2 in Spring 2023.

The rezone program shall include the following provisions of Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i) for sites accommodating lower incomes: (1) by-right development of multi-family developments in which 20 percent or more of units are affordable to lower income households; (2) Accommodation of at least 16 units per site; (3) minimum density of 20 units per acre; (4) at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites:
allow 100 percent residential use, and require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.

Develop and implement an evaluation procedure pursuant to Gov. Code Section 65863 within 18 months of adoption to ensure adequate sites are available throughout the planning period.

Maintain an up-to-date sites inventory and provide this information to interested developers in conjunction with information on available development incentives.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department

13. Lot Consolidation
Program
Establish a lot consolidation program which offers
incentives such as a reduction in development
standards to merge adjacent lots.

Amend the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan to provide clearer provisions and incentives related to lot consolidation which will provide approval certainty for developers within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.

Promote lot consolidation in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan by creating updated informational materials on lot consolidation incentives by 2024.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department

14. By Right Approval of
Projects with 20%
Affordable Units on “Reuse”
and Shortfall Sites
Further incentivize affordable housing development
on “reuse” and shortfall sites.

Update the Zoning Ordinance within 18 months of adoption to allow by right development of projects with 20% affordable units on sites that were identified in previously planning cycles and sites identified to meet the RHNA shortfall for lower income units.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department
Removing Governmental Constraints
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-47
Housing Program Program Goal 2021-2029 Objective/
Time Frame
Funding
Source
Responsible
Agency

14. Remove Development
Constraints
Identify and remove development standards and
other regulations that may constrain the
development of affordable and market rate housing.

Complete amendments related to emergency shelters by January 2022.

Complete all other identified Zoning Ordinance amendments within 18 months of adoption.

Periodically review City development standards and process and State law to identify and remedy constraints to residential development.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department

16. Affordable Housing
Density Bonus
Facilitate the development of mixed-income housing
projects by offering density and other incentives.

Amend to Zoning Ordinance to comply with state density bonus law within 18 months of adoption.

Continue to advertise and administer the City’s updated density bonus provisions throughout the planning period. Create an informational brochure to reflect changes in the new Density Bonus Ordinance by 2024.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department

17. Efficient Project
Processing
Provide efficient development processing
procedures.

Continue to offer streamline development processing for affordable housing developments.

Establish and implement a streamlined, ministerial review process for multi-family projects qualifying under SB 35 within 18 months of adoption.

Develop objective design standards in compliance with SB 330 within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.

Amend the Zoning Ordinance to remove the CUP requirement for multifamily projects with four or more units in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones and replace it with a streamlined site plan review process within 18 months of Housing Element adoption.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department
Cypress General Plan
HOU-48 Housing Element
Housing Program Program Goal 2021-2029 Objective/
Time Frame
Funding
Source
Responsible
Agency

18. Water and Sewer
Service Providers
Ensure that service providers are updated on longterm planning activities in the City.

Deliver a copy of the 2021-2029 Housing Element to all public agencies or private entities that provide water or sewer services to properties within Cypress. General Fund Community
Development
Department
Promoting Equal Housing Opportunities

19. Reasonable
Accommodations
Ensure that measures are in place to accommodate
the unique housing needs of persons with
disabilities.

Amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish formal reasonable accommodation procedures within 18 months of adoption.

Create a reasonable accommodation application and informational brochure to reflect the procedures adopted in the Zoning Ordinance within 24 months of Housing Element adoption.

Provide educational information on the City’s website and at City Hall. Include information in the City’s newsletter (annually beginning in 2023).

General Fund
Community
Development
Department

20. Affirmatively Furthering
Fair Housing
Promote housing opportunities for all people and
segments of the community.

Administer all programs and activities related to housing and community development in a manner which affirmatively furthers fair housing in compliance with Government Code Section 8899.50(b). (Ongoing)
See Table HOU- 10.

General Fund
Community
Development
Department
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-49

GOALS AND POLICIES
The prior sections of the Housing Element establish the housing needs, opportunities and constraints in the City of Cypress, as well as the Housing Plan and programs required to meet the City’s long-range housing goals. This section presents the goals and policies the City intends to implement to address a number of important housingrelated issues, and will serve as a guide to City officials in daily decision-making. The following five issue areas are addressed by the goals and policies of this Element:
• Conserving and improving the condition of the existing stock of affordable housing; • Assisting in the development of affordable housing;
• Providing adequate sites to achieve a diversity of housing; • Removing governmental constraints, as necessary; and
• Promoting equal housing opportunity.

CONSERVING AND IMPROVING HOUSING STOCK (MAINTENANCE AND

PRESERVATION OF HOUSING)
HOU-1: Increase the supply of sound housing at prices affordable by all segments of the community through the rehabilitation of substandard housing units.

HOU-1.1: Focus rehabilitation assistance in the City’s rehabilitation target areas to create substantive neighborhood improvement and stimulate additional improvement efforts.

HOU-1.2: Continue to provide rehabilitation and home improvement assistance to low- and moderate-income households, seniors, and the disabled, including persons with developmental disabilities.

HOU-1.3: Preserve and improve the quality of affordable rental housing by providing rehabilitation and refinancing assistance to owners of rental properties.

HOU-1.4: Coordinate with non-profit housing providers in the acquisition and rehabilitation of older apartment complexes and motels, and maintain these as long-term affordable housing.

HOU-2: Maintain and improve the supply of sound, affordable housing in Cypress through the conservation of the currently sound housing stock and residential neighborhoods in the City.

HOU-2.1: Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the importance of property maintenance to long-term housing quality.

HOU-2.2: Conserve existing affordable rental housing through placement of long-term affordability controls on assisted housing and through provision of rent subsidies to buy down the cost of market rate units.

HOU-2.3: Encourage vigorous enforcement of existing building, safety, and housing codes to promote property maintenance, and bring substandard units into compliance with City codes.

HOU-2.4: Encourage retention of the two mobile home parks in Cypress to provide a relatively affordable form of housing.

DEVELOPMENT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING (HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES) HOU-3: Encourage the provision of a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price to meet the existing and future needs of Cypress residents. Establish a balanced approach to meeting housing needs of both renter and owner households.

Cypress General Plan
HOU-50 Housing Element
HOU-3.1: Provide regulatory incentives to facilitate the development of affordable housing.

HOU-3.2: Provide homeownership assistance to low- and moderate-income households.

HOU-3.3: Support the provision of affordable housing to accommodate large families.

HOU-3.4: Facilitate the development of senior housing with supportive services.

HOU-3.5: Require affordable housing units, except those for the elderly, to be dispersed throughout a project, and not grouped together in a single area.

HOU-3.6: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing.

HOU-3.7: Encourage the inclusion of space for childcare in new housing developments, including affordable housing developments.

PROVISION OF ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES
HOU-4: Ensure the provision of adequate and appropriate housing sites through appropriate land use, zoning, and specific plan designations to accommodate the City’s share of regional housing needs.

HOU-4.1: Maintain an up-to-date inventory of potential sites available for future development, and provide the information to the development community.

HOU-4.2: Facilitate development of mixed-use projects within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, including stand-alone residential development (horizontal mixed-use) and housing above ground-floor commercial uses (vertical mixed-use).

HOU-4.3: Consistent with State law, provide opportunities for additional rental housing by allowing second units within single-family districts.

HOU-4.4: Ensure compatibility of new residential development with existing development to enhance the City’s residential neighborhoods.

REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
HOU-5: Mitigate any potential governmental constraints to housing production and affordability.

HOU-5.1: Offer regulatory incentives and concessions, including density bonuses, to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing.

HOU-5.2: Monitor all regulations, ordinances, departmental processing procedures, and residential fees related to rehabilitation and/or construction to assess their impact on housing costs, and revise as appropriate to ensure that they do not constrain housing development.

HOU-5.3: Maintain the City’s expedited and coordinated permit processing system.

HOU-5.4: Provide priority development review processing for low- and moderate-income housing applications.

EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY (ACCESSIBILITY OF HOUSING)
Cypress General Plan
Housing Element HOU-51
HOU-6: Promote equal opportunity for all residents to reside in the housing of their choice.

HOU-6.1: Continue active support and participation with the Orange County Fair Housing Council in the provision of information regarding fair housing services and tenant/landlord mediation.

HOU-6.2: Address the special housing needs of persons with disabilities through provision of supportive housing, homeowner accessibility grants, and adoption of reasonable accommodation procedures.

HOU-6.3: Encourage the provision of adequate housing to meet the needs of families of all sizes.

HOU-6.4: Support continued efforts to implement the Orange County Continuum of Care program for the homeless and persons and families at-risk of homelessness.

CITY OF CYPRESS
2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT

TECHNICAL REPORT
JUNE 2022

CITY OF CYPRESS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
5275 ORANGE AVENUE
CYPRESS, CA 90630
City of Cypress ii Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Cypress iii Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Data Sources.......................................................................................................................1

2. Housing Needs Assessment............................................................................................. 3

2.1. Demographic Profile............................................................................................................3

2.1.1. Population Growth and Trends...........................................................................................................3

2.1.2. Age Characteristics..............................................................................................................................4

2.1.3. Race and Ethnicity ...............................................................................................................................5

2.1.4. Employment ........................................................................................................................................5

2.2. Household Profile................................................................................................................6

2.2.1. Household Type...................................................................................................................................6

2.2.2. Household Income...............................................................................................................................7

2.2.3. Special Needs Populations ................................................................................................................10

2.3. Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................................................16

2.3.1. Housing Growth.................................................................................................................................16

2.3.2. Housing Type and Tenure..................................................................................................................17

2.3.3. Vacancy Rate .....................................................................................................................................17

2.3.4. Housing Age and Condition ...............................................................................................................18

2.3.5. Housing Costs and Affordability ........................................................................................................19

2.3.6. Housing Affordability.........................................................................................................................20

2.3.7. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion.............................................................................................23

2.3.8. Existing Housing Needs .....................................................................................................................26

2.4. Regional Housing Needs....................................................................................................27

3. Housing Constraints...................................................................................................... 30

3.1. Governmental Constraints.................................................................................................30

3.1.1. Land Use Controls..............................................................................................................................30

3.1.2. Residential development standards..................................................................................................32

3.1.3. Provision for a Variety of Housing Types...........................................................................................38

3.1.4. Housing for Persons with disabilities.................................................................................................44

3.1.5. Site Improvements............................................................................................................................47

3.1.6. Development Fees.............................................................................................................................48

3.1.7. Local Processing and Permit Procedures...........................................................................................50

3.1.8. Building Code.....................................................................................................................................53

3.1.9. Transparency on Development Regulations .....................................................................................53

3.1.10. State and Federal Regulations...........................................................................................................53

3.2. Market Constraints ...........................................................................................................54

3.2.1. Timing and density ............................................................................................................................54

3.2.2. Availability of Financing.....................................................................................................................54

3.2.3. Foreclosures......................................................................................................................................55

3.2.4. Development costs............................................................................................................................55

3.3. Infrastructure Constraints..................................................................................................56

3.3.1. Water.................................................................................................................................................56

3.3.2. Wasterwater......................................................................................................................................57 City of Cypress iv Table of Contents

3.3.3. Transportation infrastructure............................................................................................................57

3.4. Environmental Constraints................................................................................................57

3.4.1. Flooding.............................................................................................................................................57

3.4.2. Seismic Hazards.................................................................................................................................58

3.4.3. Urban Fires........................................................................................................................................58

3.4.4. Aircraft Overflights............................................................................................................................58

3.4.5. Noise..................................................................................................................................................59

4. Housing Resources........................................................................................................ 61

4.1. Land Resources.................................................................................................................61

4.1.1. Credits Towards the RHNA................................................................................................................61

4.1.2. Residential Sites Inventory ................................................................................................................63

4.1.3. Availability of Infrastructure and Public Services..............................................................................71

4.1.4. Risk of Displacement .........................................................................................................................71

4.1.5. Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate RHNA.......................................................................................74

4.2. Financial Resources...........................................................................................................74

4.3. Administrative Resources..................................................................................................77

4.3.1. Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA)........................................................................................78

4.3.2. Habitat for Humanity.........................................................................................................................78

4.3.3. JAMBOREE HOUSING CORPORATION (JHC) ......................................................................................78

4.3.4. MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA ..........................................................................................................78

4.3.5. National CORE ...................................................................................................................................78

4.4. Opportunities for Energy Conservation ..............................................................................78

4.4.1. Southern California Edison Programs................................................................................................79

4.4.2. Southern California Gas Company Programs ....................................................................................79 Appendix A – Sites Inventory ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix B - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing...................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix C - Public Outreach....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

City of Cypress v Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2- 1: Regional Population Growth Trends (1990-2020)........................................................................................3 Table 2- 2: Age Distribution (2010 and 2018) ................................................................................................................4 Table 2- 3: Racial and Ethnic Composition (2010 and 2018).........................................................................................5 Table 2- 4: Occupation of Residents (2018) ..................................................................................................................6 Table 2- 5: Household Characteristics (2010 and 2018)................................................................................................7 Table 2- 6: HCD Income Categories ..............................................................................................................................8 Table 2- 7: Household Distribution by Income Category (Cypress and Orange County)...............................................8 Table 2- 8: Change in Median Household Income.........................................................................................................8 Table 2- 9: Household Income Levels by Tenure (2017) ...............................................................................................9 Table 2- 10: Poverty by Household Type.....................................................................................................................10 Table 2- 11: Special Needs Groups .............................................................................................................................10 Table 2- 12: Disability Status .......................................................................................................................................12 Table 2- 13: Inventory of Homeless Services and Facilities.........................................................................................15 Table 2- 14: Regional Housing Growth Trends............................................................................................................16 Table 2- 15: Housing Units by Type (2000-2020) ........................................................................................................17 Table 2- 16: Housing Tenure (2010 and 2018)............................................................................................................17 Table 2- 17: Age of Housing Stock (2018)...................................................................................................................19 Table 2- 18: Median and Average Market Rents by Number of Bedrooms (October 2020).........................................19 Table 2- 19: Annual Median Home Prices (2018-2020)...............................................................................................20 Table 2- 20: Change in Condominium Value in Cypress (2018-2020).........................................................................20 Table 2- 21: Estimated Affordable Housing Price by Income and Household Size (2020) ..........................................22 Table 2- 22: Inventory of Subsidized Rental Housing (2021).......................................................................................23 Table 2- 23: Rent Subsidies Required .........................................................................................................................24 Table 2- 24: Market Value of At-Risk Units ..................................................................................................................25 Table 2- 25: Cost Burden by Tenure............................................................................................................................26 Table 2- 26: Cost Burden by Income Level, Tenure, and Household Type1 ................................................................26 Table 2- 27: Overcrowding by Tenure..........................................................................................................................27 Table 2- 28: Cypress Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2021-2029)......................................................................28 Table 3- 1: Residential Land Use and Zoning..............................................................................................................30 Table 3- 2: Residential Development Standards..........................................................................................................32 Table 3- 3: Residential Parking Requirements.............................................................................................................33 Table 3- 4: Density Incentive Overlay Zone Development Standards..........................................................................34 Table 3- 5: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards .............................................................................37 Table 3- 6: Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan Allowable Residential Uses ......................................37 Table 3- 7: Housing Types by Zone.............................................................................................................................39 Table 3- 8: Comparison of Planning Fees1 ..................................................................................................................48 Table 3- 9: Residential Development Fees ..................................................................................................................49 Table 3- 10: Project Fees for Typical Residential Developments.................................................................................50 Table 3- 11: Typical Permit Processing Timelines .......................................................................................................51 City of Cypress vi Table of Contents
Table 3- 12: Location of Development Information on Cypress City Website ..............................................................53 Table 3- 13: Disposition of Home Purchase and Improvement Loan Applications (2017) ...........................................55 Table 4- 1: Cypress Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2021-2029)........................................................................61 Table 4- 2: RHNA Credits and Remaining Need..........................................................................................................62 Table 4- 3: ADU Affordability Assumptions ..................................................................................................................62 Table 4- 4: Alternative 1 Sites Summary......................................................................................................................63 Table 4- 5: Alternative 2 Sites Summary......................................................................................................................65 Table 4- 6: Density and Capacity Achieved on Past Projects ......................................................................................68 Table 4- 7: Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate RHNA...............................................................................................74 Table 4- 8: Financial Resources Available for Housing Activities ................................................................................74 Table A- 1: Alternative 1 Sites Inventory.................................................................... A-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table A- 2: Alternative 2 Sites Inventory.................................................................... A-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 1: Racial and Ethnic Composition (2018) .................................................... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 2: Trends in Racial/Ethnic Composition, Cypress & Orange County (2010-2018)B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 3: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Minority Concentration ..................... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 4: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Population with a Disability .............. B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 5: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Children Living in Married-Couple HouseholdsB-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 6: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Children Living in Female-Headed HouseholdsB-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 7: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent LMI Households ............................... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 8: Percent White Population by Census Tract............................................. B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 9: Domains and Indicators for Opportunity Maps ........................................ B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 10: Minority Concentration and 2021 TCAC/HCD Resource Category ....... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 11: RHNA Unit Distribution by TCAC Opportunity Areas............................. B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 12: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization (2021) ............................. B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 13: RHNA Unit Distribution by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score ......................... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 14: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity (Cypress and Orange County).... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 15: Cost Burden by Household Type (Cypress and Orange County).......... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 16: Loan Applications and Denial by Race/Ethnicity ................................... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table B- 17: Special Needs Populations.................................................................... B-Error! Bookmark not defined.

City of Cypress vii Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2- 1: Population Change (1990-2020).................................................................................................................4 Figure 2- 2: Median Household Income (2018)..............................................................................................................9 Figure 3- 1: Cypress Zoning Map.................................................................................................................................31 Figure 4- 1: Alternative 1 Opportunity Sites .................................................................................................................66 Figure 4- 2: Alternative 2 Opportunity Sites .................................................................................................................67 Figure 4- 3: Typical Existing Conditions of Underutilized Sites ....................................................................................73 Figure B- 1: Minority Concentration and Distribution of RHNA Units .............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 2: White Majority Tracts (Cypress).................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 3: Percent of Population with a Disability (Region).........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 4: Persons with a Disability by Type (2012 & 2018).......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 5: Population with a Disability and Distribution of RHNA Units.......................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 6: Proportion of Adult Population Living Alone and Living with a Spouse ......Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 7: Children living in Married Couple Households and Distribution of RHNA UnitsError! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 8: Children in Female-Headed Households and Distribution of RHNA Units .Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 9: Concentration of Low and Moderate Income Households in the Region....Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 10: Poverty Status (2010-2014) .....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 11: Poverty Status (2015-2019) .....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 12: Low and Moderate Income Household Concentration and RHNA Unit DistributionError! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 13: Housing Choice Voucher Concentration ..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 14: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty ...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 15: Median Income (2015-2019) ....................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 16: TCAC Opportunity Areas (Region)...........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 17: TCAC Opportunity Areas and RHNA Unit Distribution .............................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 18: TCAC Education Scores (Region)............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 19: GreatSchools Ratings for Cypress Schools .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 20: TCAC Education Scores (Cypress)..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 21: TCAC Economic Score (Region)..............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 22: Jobs Proximity Index (Region)..................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 23: TCAC Economic Score (Cypress)............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 24: Jobs Proximity Index (Cypress)................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 25: TCAC Environment Score (Region) .........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 26: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores and RHNA Unit Distribution........................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 27: Cypress AllTransit Performance Score ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 28: Orange County AllTransit Performace Score ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 29: Cost Burdened Renters (2014).................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 30: Cost Burdened Renters (2019).................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 31: Cost Burdened Owners (2019).................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

City of Cypress viii Table of Contents
Figure B- 32: Overcrowded Households (Region) .........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 33: Median Year Housing Built.......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure B- 34: Sensitive Communities.............................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

City of Cypress ix Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Cypress 1 Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION
A successful strategy for improving housing conditions, availability, and affordability must be preceded by an assessment of the housing needs of the community and the region. This Housing Element Technical Report provides an assessment of the City’s housing needs in the following four components:
 An analysis of the City’s demographic, household and housing characteristics and related housing needs (Section 2);
 A review of potential market, governmental, infrastructure, and environmental constraints to meeting Cypress’ identified housing needs (Section 3);
 A summary of available sites, financial resources, administrative resources, and opportunities for energy conservation (Section 4); and
 An assessment of fair housing issues, including a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and identification of related goals and actions (Section 5).

This Technical Report is incorporated in the 2021-2029 Housing Element Update as Appendix H of the General Plan, Volume III-Technical Appendices.

1.1. DATA SOURCES
Various information sources have been consulted in the preparation of this Technical Report. The American Community Survey (ACS) is relied upon heavily in this Technical Report to provide data on City and regional demographic, economic, and housing characteristics. The ACS is released annually by the U.S. Census Bureau and is based on data extrapolated from a questionnaire which is sent out to a random cross section of the population. The 2010 Decennial Census is utilized to provide historical background and change over time in some sections. Several other data sources are used to supplement the ACS and other Census Bureau data, including:
 Population and housing estimate data for 2020 provided by the State Department of Finance;  Data on household income and housing affordability from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy dataset (CHAS).  Housing market information, such as home sales and rents, was obtained through internet rent surveys on Zillow.com and Craigslist and CoreLogic sales activity reports;  SCAG’s 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) provides information on existing and projected housing needs, as well as projected population and employment growth;  Information on the disposition of home purchase and improvement loans is from data collected through the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by LendingPatterns;  Information on Cypress’ development standards is drawn from the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Appendix I of the Municipal Code) and applicable Specific Plans for planned developments.

City of Cypress 2 Introduction
 Data and maps for Appendix B – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is primarily from the CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer. Data from the CA Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD Opportunity Area Maps was also utilized in this section.

This Housing Element Technical Report will provide the basis for identifying appropriate policies and programs for the 2021-2029 Housing Element and is adopted by the City as part of the Housing Element.

City of Cypress 3 Housing Needs Assessment

2. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This section of the Housing Element examines the characteristics of the City’s population and housing stock as a means of better understanding the nature and extent of unmet housing needs. The Housing Needs Assessment is comprised of the following components: 1) Demographic Profile; 2) Household Profile; 3) Housing Stock Characteristics; 4) Regional Housing Needs.

2.1. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
Demographic changes such as population growth or changes in age can affect the type and amount of housing needed in a community. This section addresses population, age, and race and ethnicity of Cypress resident.

2.1.1. POPULATION GROWTH AND TRENDS
Table 2- 1 and Figure 2- 1 present population growth trends in Cypress from 1990-2020, and compare this growth to neighboring jurisdictions and Orange County. As shown, Cypress, Orange County, and all the neighboring jurisdictions experienced the highest level of growth during the 1990s (18% in Orange County). During this time period, the growth level of Cypress was less than half of that of the County at 8 percent, due to its built-out character.

Census data from 2000 to 2010 show a significant slowdown in population growth rates for Cypress, surrounding jurisdictions, and Orange County in general during the decade. Countywide, population growth dropped to approximately 6%, while local communities experienced growth at a modest average of 1.4%. Only the City of Santa Ana experienced a decline in population. Cypress experienced a 3.4% growth in population, which is the highest rate of those surveyed.

Growth rates continued to modest between 2010 and 2020 for Cypress and neighboring communities. The population of Cypress in 2020 was estimated to be 49,272, approximately 3 percent more than in 2010. The growth rate of Orange County as a whole was 6 percent, about double that of Cypress. Of the surrounding communities shown, only Anaheim had a growth rate that was on par with the County. Lakewood was the only jurisdiction that saw a decline in population from 2010-2020. SCAG projects that the population of Cypress will grow to 51,299 by 2045. This represents a growth rate of approximately 4 percent over the next 25 years.

Table 2- 1: Regional Population Growth Trends (1990-2020) Jurisdiction 1990 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
1990-
2000
2000-
2010
2010-
2020
Anaheim 266,406 328,014 336,265 357,325 23.1% 2.5% 6.3% Buena Park 68,784 78,282 80,530 81,998 13.8% 2.9% 1.8%
Cypress 42,665 46,229 47,802 49,272 8.4% 3.4% 3.1%
Garden Grove 143,050 165,196 170,883 174,801 15.5% 3.4% 2.3% Lakewood 73,557 79,345 80,048 79,919 7.9% 0.9% -0.2%
Long Beach 429,433 461,522 462,257 472,217 7.5% 0.2% 2.2% Santa Ana 293,742 337,977 324,528 335,052 15.1% -4.0% 3.2% Westminster 78,118 88,207 89,701 92,421 12.9% 1.7% 3.0% Orange County 2,410,556 2,846,289 3,010,232 3,194,332 18.1% 5.8% 6.1% Sources:

1. U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010 Census

2. CA Dept. of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Unit Estimates, 2020.

City of Cypress 4 Housing Needs Assessment
Figure 2- 1: Population Change (1990-2020)
Sources:

1. U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010 Census

2. CA Dept. of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Unit Estimates, 2020.

2.1.2. AGE CHARACTERISTICS
Table 2- 2 displays the age distribution and median age of the City’s population in 2010 and 2018, and compares this with Orange County as a whole. As displayed in the table, adults aged 45 to 65 were the largest population group in the City in 2010 (29 percent) and 2018 (30 percent). The proportion of the population within the younger age groups (under 5, 5-17 years, and 18-24 years) decreased since 2010, while there was an increase in the older adult population.

The proportion of seniors (ages 65 and older) has increased from 13 percent to 15 percent. This is consistent with the City’s median age, which has also increased from 36.7 in 2010 to 41.7 in 2018. Factors contributing to this gradual shift in the City’s age structure include: an aging in place of young adults into middle age, a corresponding aging of the middle age population into senior citizens, and the limited number of new young adults and families moving into the community, due in part to high housing costs, low vacancy rates, and the built-out nature of the City.

Table 2- 2: Age Distribution (2010 and 2018)
Age Group
2010 2018
Cypress Cypress Orange County
Population Percent Population Percent Percent
Under 5 years 2,369 5.0% 2,229 4.6% 6.0%
5-17 years 8,974 18.8% 8,654 17.7% 17.0%
18-24 years 4,700 9.8% 4,292 8.8% 9.5%
25-44 years 11,685 24.4% 11,628 23.8% 27.4%
45-64 years 13,913 29.1% 14,878 30.4% 26.6%
65+ years 6,161 12.9% 7,274 14.9% 13.9%
Total 47,802 100.0% 48,955 100.0% 100.0%
Median Age 36.7 41.7 37.8
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

Overall, the age distribution for Cypress is similar to that of Orange County as a whole. The proportion of children (ages 17 and under) is approximately 22 percent in Cypress, compared to 23 percent in Orange County. However, Cypress does differ from Orange County in that is has a lower proportion of adults ages 25 to 44 at 24 percent compared to the County at 27 percent. The City’s adult population ages 45 to 65 and its senior population are both higher proportionately than that of the County. The City’s median age is also higher than the County’s median age.

City of Cypress 5 Housing Needs Assessment

2.1.3. RACE AND ETHNICITY
Historically, White residents have been the majority racial group within the City of Cypress. Table 2- 3 displays the racial and ethnic composition of Cypress’ population in 2010 and 2018, and compares this with the countywide distribution. While changes since 2010 have generally been slight, the City of Cypress is trending toward a more diverse population. In 2018, White residents made up 53 percent of the City’s population, representing a slight decrease since 2010. The proportion of White residents in Cypress is notably lower than that of the County as a whole (61 percent countywide). While only representing 4 percent of the total population in 2018, the number of Black or African American residents has increased by 30 percent since 2010. The Asian/Pacific Islander population has also increased, from 32 percent of the total population in 2010 to 35 percent of the total population in 2018, representing an 11 percent increase. The City’s Asian and Pacific Islander population is significantly higher than the County (35 percent compared to 20 percent). Vietnamese is the predominant Asian ethnicity represented in Cypress, making up almost 7 percent of the City’s total population. There are also significant populations of Chinese, Korean, and Filipino residents within the City.

Table 2- 3: Racial and Ethnic Composition (2010 and 2018) Racial/Ethnic Group
2010 2018
Persons Percent Persons Percent Orange Co.

Percent
White 26,000 54% 26,092 53% 61%
Asian/Pacific Islander 15,212 32% 16,948 35% 20%
Black or African American 1,444 3% 1,883 4% 2%
American Indian 289 <1% 173 <1% <1%
Other Race 2,497 5% 1,508 3% 12%
Two or More Races 2,360 5% 2,351 5% 4%
TOTAL 47,802 100% 48,955 100% 100%
Hispanic 8,779 18% 9,536 19% 34%
Non-Hispanic 39,023 82% 39,419 81% 66%
TOTAL 47,802 100% 48,955 100% 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

The Hispanic population increased by approximately 9 percent from 2010 to 2018. The estimated proportion of Hispanic residents in 2018 was 19 percent, still markedly lower than the County which has an estimated 34 percent Hispanic population.

2.1.4. EMPLOYMENT
An evaluation of the types of jobs held by community residents provides insight into potential earning power and the segment of the housing market into which they fall. Information on how a community’s employment base is growing and changing can help identify potential housing demand changes in the future.

The State Employment Development Department estimates that 24,200 Cypress residents are in the labor force. The City has seen a drastic increase in unemployment since March 2020 due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. In January 2020, the City’s unemployment rate was at 2.9%; however, it rose sharply in the spring and peaked at 15.5% in May 2020. As of September 2020, the unemployment rate within the City was 10.2%. The unemployment rate of the County was also at 2.9% in January and has seen a similar spike. As of September 2020, employment in Orange County as a whole was 9 percent. The long-term impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on employment within the City and County are still unknown.

Table 2- 4 presents the occupations of Cypress residents, based on the 2014-2018 American Community Survey estimates. The largest proportion of Cypress residents are employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations at 46 percent, followed by sales and office occupations at 24 percent. Approximately 43 percent of City of Cypress 6 Housing Needs Assessment
employed residents in Cypress commute less than 25 minutes to work, indicating that a large number of residents hold jobs within Cypress or in immediately adjacent communities.

Table 2- 4: Occupation of Residents (2018)
Occupation Population Percent
Management, business, science, and arts occupations 11,237 46.3% Service occupations 3,392 14.0%
Sales and office occupations 5,815 24.0%
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 1,338 5.5% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 2,460 10.1% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 24 0.1%
Total 24,266 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

Major businesses in Cypress include the following: professional healthcare, offices, and education (Cypress Community College), automotive and electronic corporate headquarters, and various types of manufacturing and distribution centers. The Cypress Business Park area (concentrated along Katella Avenue, west of Knott Avenue) encompasses a total of 800 acres, which includes a diverse array of well-known companies such as United Health Care, Honda North America Finance, Fuji, Rolls Royce, Mitsubishi Electric, and Yamaha.

In 2019, the Orange County Business Council updated the results of its Workforce Housing Scorecard. This report provides a comprehensive evaluation of the current and future state of Orange County’s housing supply and demand, and its impact on the business community. Based on the following criteria, the scorecard rates each jurisdiction’s record over 2016-2030 time period in addressing workforce housing needs:
 Total job growth
 Housing as a percent of total Orange County housing
 Jobs to housing ratio
 Change in housing density
Based on the above factors, Cypress ranks 21st of the 34 cities in Orange County. Rankings are weighted towards larger cities (Irvine was ranked 1st); therefore, a ranking of 21st is acceptable for Cypress as it the 22nd largest city within the County. It should be noted that Cypress ranked 14th in job growth, indicating the continuing need for new housing within the City.

2.2. HOUSEHOLD PROFILE
Household type and size, income levels, and the presence of special needs populations all affect the type of housing needed by residents and are important indicators of where intervention and/or housing programs may be needed.

Household income levels are indicators of housing affordability just as the ratio of owners to renters may impact the stability of the housing market. This section details the various household characteristics affecting housing needs in Cypress.

2.2.1. HOUSEHOLD TYPE
A household is defined as the total number of persons living in a housing unit, whether related or unrelated. The Census Bureau definition of a “family” is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. A single person living alone is also a household. “Other” households are City of Cypress 7 Housing Needs Assessment
unrelated people residing in the same dwelling unit. Group quarters, such as dormitories or convalescent homes, are not considered households.

Table 2- 5: Household Characteristics (2010 and 2018)
Household & Family Type
2010 2018 Percent
Number Percent Number Percent Change
Total Population 47,802 100.0% 48,955 100.0% 2.4%
In Group Quarters 502 1.1% 182 0.4% -63.7%
Total Households 15,729 100.0% 15,824 100.0% 0.6%
Family Households 12,656 80.5% 12,828 81.1% 1.4%
Married Couple Families 9,707 61.7% 9,787 61.8% 0.8%
Single Parent Households 1,210 7.7% 1,194 7.5% -1.3%
Non-family Households 3,073 19.5% 2,996 18.9% -2.5%
Householder Living Alone 2,558 16.3% 2,315 14.6% -9.5%
Householder 65+ (Alone) 1,083 6.9% 1,227 7.8% 13.3%
Average Household Size 3.02 3.08 2.0%
Average Family Size 3.35 3.44 2.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010 (5-year estimates) and 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

As shown in Table 2- 5, the 2014-2018 American Community Survey estimates 15,824 households in Cypress, with an average household size of 3.08 persons and average family size of 3.44 persons. Both household size and family size have increased slightly since 2010. The City’s average household and family size are similar to that as the County as a whole (3.02 and 3.51, respectively).

Families comprise the overwhelming majority of households in Cypress (81 percent). Over three quarters of family households are married couple households and this has remained steady since 2010. The proportion of single parent households has also remained steady at approximately 8 percent of all households. Non-family households comprised about 19 percent of all households in 2018, a decrease of 2.5 percent since 2010. The proportion of householders living alone has also decreased between 2010 and 2018; however, the proportion of senior householders living alone has increased by 13 percent since 2010. This is consistent with an increase in elderly population in the City.

2.2.2. HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Household income is one of the most important factors affecting housing opportunity and determining a household’s ability to balance housing costs with other basic necessities of life while avoiding housing problems such as cost burden and overcrowding.

2.2.2.1. INCOME DEFINITIONS
The State and federal governments classify household income into several groupings based upon the relationship to the County area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) utilizes the income groups presented in Table 2- 6. However, federal housing programs utilize slightly different income groupings and definitions, with the highest income category generally ending at >95% AMI. For purposes of the Housing Element, the State income definitions are used throughout, with the exception of data compiled by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which is specifically noted.

City of Cypress 8 Housing Needs Assessment
Table 2- 6: HCD Income Categories
Income Category Percent Annual Median Income (AMI)
Extremely Low <30% AMI
Very Low 0-50% AMI
Low 51-80% AMI
Moderate 81-120% AMI
Above Moderate 120%+ AMI
Source: CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development
For 2020, HCD determined the AMI for Orange County was $103,000. This figure is then used to develop income limits for each HCD income category based on household size. Table 2- 7 shows the household distribution by income group for Cypress and the County. Compared to Orange County, Cypress has fewer extremely low and very low income households (18 percent versus 25 percent). Cypress also has higher proportions of moderate and above moderate income households compared to the County.

Table 2- 7: Household Distribution by Income Category (Cypress and Orange County)
Income Category Cypress (%) Orange County (%)
Extremely Low (<30% AMI)1
18 25 Very Low (31-50% AMI)
Low (51-80% AMI) 14 16
Moderate (81-120% AMI) 22 18
Above Moderate (>120% AMI) 46 42
Source: SCAG, RHNA Final Allocation Calculator, March 2021.

Note:

1. SCAG’s RHNA methodology does not include the “extremely low” income category defined by HCD as up to 30% AMI. Instead, SCAG combines both the “extremely low” and “very low” categories into one “very low” category defined as households below 50% AMI. According to HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy used elsewhere in this Report, 10.3% of Cypress households are extremely low income. However, the precise methodology for developing income distribution by these two sources may differ.

2.2.2.2. INCOME CHARACTERISTICS
The 2014-2018 American Community Survey estimated the median annual income of households in Cypress to be $92,098. Figure 2- 2 illustrates the 2018 median household income for Cypress and surrounding communities and compares them to the median income for Orange County. Of the jurisdictions included, only Cypress and Lakewood had median household incomes greater than the County median of $85,398. (It should be noted that while Lakewood and Long Beach are communities nearby Cypress, they are located within Los Angeles County, not Orange County.) Table 2- 8 provides the median household income for Cypress and Orange County for 2000, 2010, and 2018. The median income in the County has increased more rapidly than in Cypress, which experienced an increase of 11 percent from 2010 to 2018.

Table 2- 8: Change in Median Household Income
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2018 Percent Change
2010-2018
Cypress $64,377 $83,196 $ 92,098 11%
Orange County $58,820 $74,344 $ 85,398 15%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Census, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

City of Cypress 9 Housing Needs Assessment
Figure 2- 2: Median Household Income (2018)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

Table 2- 9 shows the income level of Cypress households by tenure. A total of 52 percent of renter households were lower income (<80% AMI), compared to 31 percent of owner households. 15 percent of renter households were categories as extremely low income (<30% AMI) and 13 percent were very low income households.

Table 2- 9: Household Income Levels by Tenure (2017)
Income Level Renter Owner
Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely Low Income
(<30% AMI) 805 15.1% 820 7.7%
Very Low Income
(31-50% AMI) 675 13.0% 920 8.6%
Low Income
(51-80% AMI) 1,200 23.1% 1,600 15.0%
Moderate Income & Above
(> 80% AMI) 2,510 48.3% 7,310 68.6%
TOTAL 5,190 100% 10,650 100%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 ACS.

2.2.2.3. HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY
The federal government publishes national poverty thresholds that define the minimum income level necessary to obtain the necessities of life.

Table 2- 10 shows the number of households within the City living in poverty by household type. A total of 916 households within the City are below the federal poverty threshold, representing approximately 6 percent of all households. The majority of households living in poverty are family households (56 percent). Of the family households, over 44 percent are female-headed households. Another significant group living in poverty are seniors, with senior households making up 18 percent of households living in poverty.

City of Cypress 10 Housing Needs Assessment

Table 2- 10: Poverty by Household Type
Household Type Below Poverty Level
Number Percent
Family Households 514 56.1%
Female-Headed Households 227 24.8%
With Children 147 16.0%
Non-Family Households 402 43.9%
Seniors (65+) 164 17.9%
Total 916 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

2.2.3. SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS
State law recognizes that certain households have more difficulty in finding adequate and affordable housing due to special circumstances and may also have lower incomes as a result of these circumstances. Special needs populations include the elderly, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, large households, farmworkers, and the homeless. Table 2- 11 summarizes the special needs populations in Cypress. Each of these population groups, as well as their housing needs, is described below.

Table 2- 11: Special Needs Groups
Special Needs Group Persons or
Households Renter Owner Percent of Total
Households with a Senior Member 4,975 -- -- 31.4%
Senior-headed Households 4,061 500 3,561 25.7%
Seniors Living Alone 1,227 310 917 7.8%
Single-Parent Households 1,194 -- -- 7.5%
Female Single-Parent Households 975 6.2%
Large Households (5+ members) 2,100 835 1,265 13.3%
Agricultural Workers 24 -- -- <0.1%
Persons with Disabilities 4,793 -- -- 9.8%
Homeless 39 -- -- 0.1%
Note: -- = Data not available.

Sources:

1. U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

2. 2019 City and County homelessness point-in-time counts processed by SCAG.

2.2.3.1. LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households consist of five or more persons and are considered a special needs group due to the limited availability of affordable and adequately sized housing. Large households often live in overcrowded conditions due to both the lack of large enough units and insufficient income to afford available units of adequate size.

In 2018, Cypress had a total of 2,100 large households, representing 13 percent of total households in the City. Of these large households, 40 percent (835 households) were renters and 60 percent (1,265) were owner households (Table 2- 11). Cypress has a sizeable number of larger homes compared to many communities in the region, with 37 percent of occupied housing units containing four or more bedrooms, according to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. However, only 11 percent of homes containing four or more bedrooms are occupied by renters even though renters make up 40 percent of large households, suggesting that large renter households may have a more difficult time finding adequately sized housing.

City of Cypress 11 Housing Needs Assessment

2.2.3.2. SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS
Approximately 15 percent (7,274 individuals) of Cypress residents are age 65 or older. This is an increase from 2010, when 13 percent of the population were seniors. Senior-headed households make up a significant proportion of total households at 26 percent. Out of senior-headed households, 88 percent are homeowners. Additionally, 30 percent of senior-headed households are seniors living alone.

The elderly have a number of special needs including, housing, transportation, health care, and other services.

Approximately 34 percent of the City’s elderly population has one or more disabilities that may need to be taken into consideration when finding appropriate housing. Rising rents are a particular concern due to the fact that most seniors are on fixed incomes. As shown later in Table 2- 22, there are three senior housing projects in the City providing 309 rental units, including 116 units affordable to a mix of very low-, low- and moderate-income households. The State of California Community Care Licensing Division identifies 12 residential care homes for the elderly in Cypress providing 72 beds for senior residents, age 60+, requiring 24-hour assisted living. All of these residential care facilities are small (six or fewer beds) board and care homes. Additionally, Westmont of Cypress, a new 166-bed residential care facility is slated to open in 2021.

For those seniors who live on their own, many have limited incomes and physical limitations, both of which may inhibit their ability to maintain their homes or perform minor repairs. Furthermore, the installation of grab bars and other assistance devices in the home may be needed. For financial assistance to complete such improvements, the City offers two Housing Rehabilitation Programs to eligible home owners. The Home Enhancement Loan Program (HELP II) provides loans to low- and moderate-income single-family homeowners. The County CDBG Rehabilitation Loan Program provides loans to lower-income single-family and mobile home homeowners.

The City of Cypress operates a Senior Center with a variety of programs for seniors in the community. Programs offered include recreational and social activities, a meals program, preventative healthcare, transportation services, and supportive services that include care management, community counseling, support groups and referral services.

The Cypress Senior Citizens Commission advises the City Council on all matters pertaining to the concerns of senior citizens. The City’s Department of Recreation and Community Services provides staff services to the Senior Citizens Commission.

2.2.3.3. SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
Single-parent households typically have a special need for such services as childcare and health care, among others and often live with only one income. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, there were 1,194 single-parent households within the City (Table 2- 11). Of these households, 82 percent were female single-parent households (975 households).

Female-headed households with children in particular tend to have lower incomes, which limits their housing options and access to supportive services. Of the female-headed households with children in Cypress, 147 households lived in poverty (Table 2- 10). These households not only need assistance with housing subsidies, but accessible and affordable childcare as well.

The City of Cypress provides a variety of youth programs, including a teen center at Arnold/Cypress Park; a skate plaza at Veterans Park; after-school daycare; as well as various intramural sports leagues, arts and dance classes, day camps, and teen dances. The Cypress Boys and Girls Club also provides low-cost after-school programs at King Elementary, Arnold Elementary, and the Cypress Main Clubhouse located in Cedar Glen Park. A before school program is also offered at King Elementary. The Boys and Girls Club does not turn away families due to inability to pay and has a robust scholarship program. Children are provided with snacks, homework help, mentorship programs and other activities as part of the program. In the summer, the program hours are expanded to provide full day childcare from 7:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. The City’s Youth Action Committee advises the Recreation and Community Services Commission on activities and concerns of youth.

City of Cypress 12 Housing Needs Assessment

2.2.3.4. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
A disability is defined as a long-lasting condition that impairs an individual’s mobility, ability to work, or ability to care for himself/herself. Persons with disabilities include those with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities. Thus, disabled persons often have special housing needs related to limited earning capacity, a lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated with a disability.

According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey, an estimated 10% of Cypress residents (4,793 persons) have one or more disabilities. Approximately 34 percent of the senior population has one or more disabilities.

Ambulatory difficulties were the most prevalent disability type among the general population as well as seniors.

Table 2- 12: Disability Status
Disability Type Persons with
Disability
Percent of
Total
Persons with
Disability, Age 65+
Percent of
Total
With a hearing difficulty 1,672 34.9% 980 39.5%
With a vision difficulty 708 14.8% 317 12.8%
With a cognitive difficulty 1,831 38.2% 744 30.0%
With an ambulatory difficulty 2,607 54.4% 1,755 70.7%
With a self-care difficulty 1,125 23.5% 718 28.9%
With an independent living difficulty 1,613 33.7% 1,069 43.1% Total Persons with Disabilities 4,793 100.0% 2,481 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

Disabled individuals have unique housing needs because they may be limited in mobility or in their ability to care for themselves. In addition, the earning power of disabled persons may be limited. Their housing need is also often compounded by design and location requirements, which can drive up housing costs. For example, wheelchair-bound or semi-ambulatory individuals may require ramps, holding bars, special bathroom designs, wider doorways, lower cabinets, and other interior and exterior design features. Affordable housing and housing programs that address accessibility can assist these individuals with their specific housing needs.

There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a disability: rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and group homes. The design of housing accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serving this needs group. Approximately 50% of the City’s affordable rental housing units are reserved for seniors and disabled persons. Incorporating barrier-free design in all new multifamily housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (that is, modifications or exceptions) in their zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to allow covered ramps in the setbacks of properties that have already been developed to accommodate residents with mobility impairments. The City of Cypress allows a ramp projecting up to four feet into the setback area, with a building permit.

The City does not require special building codes or onerous project review to construct, improve, or convert housing for persons with disabilities. Residential and community care facilities with six or fewer persons are permitted by right in all residential zoning districts, except the mobile home park zoning district. Residential and community care facilities with seven or more persons are permitted in the multiple-family zoning districts, subject to conditional use permit approval.

City of Cypress 13 Housing Needs Assessment
The State of California Community Care Licensing Division identifies five adult residential facilities in Cypress that provide 24-hour non-medical care for adults ages 18-59 who are unable to provide for their own daily needs. These five facilities provide a combined capacity for 28 adults.

2.2.3.5. PERSONS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
According to Section 4512 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code a developmental disability means “a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.” Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment.

More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) estimates that 799 persons with developmental disabilities were residing in the City of Cypress as of June 2019. Approximately two-thirds of individuals with developmental disabilities residing in the City were children under age 17 and the majority developmentally disabled individuals resided in the home of their parent, family, or guardian.

The Regional Center of Orange County, is one of 21 regional centers in the State that provides point of entry to services for people with developmental disabilities. The center is a private, non-profit community agency that contracts with local businesses to offer a wide range of services to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

In order to assist in the housing needs for persons with Developmental Disabilities, the City will implement programs to coordinate housing activities and outreach with the Regional Center of Orange County and encourage housing providers to designate a portion of new affordable housing developments for persons with disabilities, especially persons with developmental disabilities, and pursue funding sources designated for persons with special needs and disabilities.

2.2.3.6. INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
In collaboration with other nonprofit organizations, the Orange County Department of Community Resources is responsible for the county-wide biennial point-in-time homeless count. For the purpose of the point-in-time count, the definition of homelessness includes unsheltered individuals and families “with a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings, including a car, park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or camping ground”. The count of sheltered homeless individuals and families includes those “living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, or local government programs for low-income individuals)” on the night designated for the count.

Based upon the 2019 point-in-time count, there were a total of 6,860 homeless individuals residing within Orange County, with 39 individuals counted in Cypress. All of the homeless individuals within the City were unsheltered as there are no homeless shelters located within the City. Since 2013, the homeless population in Orange County has City of Cypress 14 Housing Needs Assessment
steadily increased, with the largest increase occurring between 2017 and 2019 (43 percent increase). The 2019 Count indicated that 35 out of the 39 persons counted within Cypress were individuals and not part of a homeless family unit.

The City partners with a homeless outreach and engagement service provider to provide social service resources and referrals to the City’s homeless population. Additionally, the Cypress Police Department has a dedicated Homeless Liaison Officer and six specialty-trained officers for homeless issues. There is no emergency shelter within the jurisdictional boundaries of Cypress; however, the Police Department in conjunction with the outreach service provider assist homeless individuals within the City with placement in other shelters, primarily the recently opened Buena Park Navigation Center. Saint. Irenaeus Catholic Church is a long-term service provider within the City providing assistance through their Helping Other People Everyday (HOPE) program. The HOPE program provides one-time rent payment assistance and motel vouchers, as well as food distribution, gas vouchers, and other services to people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. A list of other agencies that provide shelter and services to Cypress homeless are listed in Table 2- 13.

City of Cypress 15 Housing Needs Assessment
Table 2- 13: Inventory of Homeless Services and Facilities Organization Beds and/or Services Provided
Anaheim Interfaith Shelter - Halcyon
P.O. Box 528
Anaheim, CA 92815
(714) 774-8502
Provides transitional housing and supportive services for up to 9 homeless families at a time for a 6-9 month period. Case management counseling, and other services are provided.

Buena Park Navigation Center
6494 Caballero Boulevard
Buena Park, CA 90620
(714) 410-4060
Provides transitional housing (150 beds), healthcare services, and other services.

Casa Youth Shelter
10911 Reagan Street
P.O. Box 216
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
(714) 995-8601
Provides temporary shelter, counseling, children’s services and outreach services for 12-17 year old runaway, homeless and/or abused youth. Serve an estimated 200 youth annually.

Fullerton City Lights
224-228 E. Commonwealth Avenue
Fullerton, CA 92832
(714)525-4751
Provides 137 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) apartments for individuals and couples with incomes between 30-60% AMI.

Fullerton Interfaith Emergency Services
(New Vista Shelter)
244 E. Valencia, Room 16
Fullerton, CA 92634
(714) 680-3691
Provides transitional housing for families and singles for up to 4 months. Also provides food, basic supplies, case management, referrals, and childcare assistance.

H.I.S. House
P.O. Box 1293
Placentia, CA 92670
(714)993-5774
Provides 40 beds for families and individuals for up to 6 months.

Services include job counseling and referrals, job training, financial management, counseling, and life skills classes.

Lutheran Social Services
215 N. Lemon Street
Fullerton, CA
(714) 738-1058
Provides clothing, limited transportation, referrals, prescriptions, utilities, counseling and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes.

Salvation Army
Emergency Family Services Offices
1515 West North Street
Anaheim, 92801
(714) 491-1020
Provides food distribution, utility assistance, transportation (gas vouchers, bus tickets), clothing, household items, and other forms of assistance and community referrals.

Sheepfold Women’s Services Center
P.O. Box 4487
Orange, CA 92863
(714) 237-1444
(877) 743-3736
The Service Center in Anaheim provides assistance with legal obligations, medical and dental appointments to abused women and their families. Sheepfold also provides transitional housing at a facility in Brea for battered women and their children, with a capacity of 6 families.

St. Irenaeus Catholic Church
Helping Other People Everyday (HOPE)
5201 Evergreen
Cypress, CA 90630
(714) 826-0760 x 135
Provides food bank (distribution twice monthly), daily food bags for homeless, hygiene kits, gas cards, bus passes utility assistance, counseling services, medical care referrals, one-time rental assistance, motel vouchers to women and children, and referral to City Net homeless services.

City of Cypress 16 Housing Needs Assessment

2.2.3.7. FARMWORKERS
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through seasonal agricultural work. Farmworkers have special housing needs because they earn lower incomes than many other workers and move throughout the season from one harvest to the next. According to the 2017 Census of Agriculture compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (a division of the US Department of Agriculture), there were a total of 1,772 farmworkers working on farms within Orange County. The 2014-2018 ACS estimates that 24 Cypress residents hold farming, fishing or forestry occupations. Therefore, farmworkers residing in Cypress make up about one percent of total farmworker jobs within the County. Additionally, Cypress residents employed in this occupation are mostly employed as gardeners, landscapers, or in plant nurseries. There is no agriculturally designated land within Cypress.

Because farmworkers make up such a small percentage of the City’s total population no specific programs for this special needs group are necessary. The housing needs of farmworkers can adequately be addressed through the general programs and services available to all lower and moderate income households.

2.3. HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
This section identifies the characteristics of Cypress’ physical housing stock. This includes an analysis of housing growth trends, housing conditions, housing prices and rents, and housing affordability.

2.3.1. HOUSING GROWTH
Table 2- 14 displays housing production in the City, compared to neighboring cities and Orange County as a whole.

Between 2000 and 2010, Cypress experienced a slight reduction in housing units, in contrast to the County which saw an almost 8 percent increase in housing stock over the same decade. The surrounding communities generally saw very modest growth in the early 2000s that was below the overall County growth rate.

Table 2- 14: Regional Housing Growth Trends
Jurisdiction Total Housing Units Percent Change
2000 2010 2020 2000-2010 2010-2020
Cypress 16,164 16,068 16,631 -0.6% 3.5%
Anaheim 99,719 104,237 110,745 4.5% 6.2%
Buena Park 23,690 24,619 25,134 3.9% 2.1%
Garden Grove 46,703 47,741 48,257 2.2% 1.1%
Lakewood 27,310 27,470 27,598 0.6% 0.5%
Long Beach 171,632 176,032 177,783 2.6% 1.0%
Santa Ana 74,588 76,919 78,761 3.1% 2.4%
Westminster 26,940 27,650 28,002 2.6% 1.3%
Orange County 969,484 1,046,118 1,111,421 7.9% 6.2%
Sources:

1. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Census

2. CA Dept. of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Unit Estimates, 2020.

The California Department of Finance estimates that in 2020 there are 16,631 housing units within the City of Cypress.

This represents a 3.5 percent increase since 2010. With the exception of Anaheim, Cypress had a higher growth rate than all of the other surrounding jurisdictions. The increase in housing stock in the County was notably higher at 6 percent. As Cypress is a maturing suburban community with primarily small site and infill development, it is expected that the increase in the housing stock in the City would be modest and lower than the County-wide rate.

City of Cypress 17 Housing Needs Assessment

2.3.2. HOUSING TYPE AND TENURE
Table 2- 15 presents the mix of housing types in Cypress. The California Department of Finance estimates that of the 16,631 units in Cypress, 12,946 are single family units (78 percent). Approximately 20 percent of the City’s housing stock is multi-family units. Cypress also has two mobile home parks containing 421 mobile home units, comprising approximately 2.5 percent of the local housing stock.

The composition of the City’s housing stock has remained relatively unchanged over the last two decades. The greatest change has been a 13 percent increase in the number of attached single family units in the City. The number of multifamily units in the City has remained nearly the same since 2010.

Table 2- 15: Housing Units by Type (2000-2020)
Unit Type
2000 2010 2020
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent
Single-Family (SF) Detached 9,887 61.7% 9,817 61.1% 10,034 60.3% SF Attached 2,444 15.3% 2,572 16.0% 2,912 17.5%
Total SF 12,331 77.0% 12,389 77.1% 12,946 77.8%
2 to 4 Units 512 3.2% 574 3.6% 580 3.5%
5 or more units 2,817 17.6% 2,684 16.7% 2,684 16.1%
Total Multi-Family 3,329 20.8% 3,258 20.3% 3,264 19.6%
Mobile Homes & Other 361 2.3% 421 2.6% 421 2.5%
Total Housing Units 16,021 100.0% 16,068 100.0% 16,631 100.0% Vacancy Rate 2.3% -- 2.6% -- 3.1% --
Sources:

1. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Census

2. CA Dept. of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Unit Estimates, 2020.

Housing tenure refers to whether a housing unit is owned, rented or is vacant. Tenure is an important indicator of the housing climate of a community, reflecting the relative cost of housing opportunities, and the ability of residents to afford housing. Tenure also influences residential mobility, with owner units generally evidencing lower turnover rates than rental housing. Table 2- 16 indicates the total number of renter occupied and owner occupied housing units for 2010 and 2018. The ownership rate within the City has declined slightly from 72 percent in 2010 to 66 percent in 2018.

However, the homeownership rate continues to be higher than the countywide homeownership rate of 57 percent.

Table 2- 16: Housing Tenure (2010 and 2018)
Occupied Housing Units
2010 2018
Households Percent Households Percent
Renter 4,423 28% 5,332 34%
Owner 11,306 72% 10,492 66%
TOTAL 15,729 100% 15,824 100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2006-2010 and 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

2.3.3. VACANCY RATE
A vacancy rate measures the overall housing availability in a community and is often a good indicator of how efficiently for-sale and rental housing units are meeting the current demand for housing. A vacancy rate of 5 percent for rental City of Cypress 18 Housing Needs Assessment
housing and 2 percent for ownership housing is generally considered healthy and suggests that there is a balance between the demand and supply of housing. A lower vacancy rate may indicate that households are having difficulty in finding housing that is affordable, leading to overcrowding or households having to pay more than they can afford.

A low vacancy rate or a particularly tight housing market may also lead to high competition for units, raising rental and housing prices substantially.

The 2014-2018 American Community Survey estimated that the overall vacancy rate for the City was 3.1 percent, a slight increase compared to the 2.6 percent vacancy rate in 2010. Taking into consideration tenure, the vacancy rate for owner-occupied units was 1.0 percent and the rental vacancy rate was 1.2 percent. These vacancy rates suggest a very tight housing market for both residents looking to purchase a home and renters. This high demand may result in higher housing costs for both homeownership and renting a home and may create a challenge for lower income families to find affordable housing.

2.3.4. HOUSING AGE AND CONDITION
The age of a community’s housing stock can provide an indicator of overall housing conditions. Typically, housing over 30 years in age is likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work and other repairs. Table 2- 17 displays the age of occupied housing stock by tenure as of 2018. Over two thirds of the City’s housing stock was built between 1960 and 1979. Of the City’s current housing stock, over 95 percent will be over 30 years old by the end of the 2021-2029 planning cycle. As a built-out community, the City has a low proportion of newer units, with less than 5 percent built since 2000.

A greater proportion of rental housing (21 percent) was constructed between 1980 and 1999, when compared to owneroccupied housing (12 percent). Conversely, a greater proportion of owner occupied housing was constructed between 1960 and 1979 (72 percent), compared to renter-occupied housing (62 percent).

The City’s Code Enforcement Division estimated that the City handles an average of 30 code enforcement cases per month, typically involving minor property maintenance issues. According to City staff, approximately three percent of these cases involve substantial health and safety issues. Using this estimate as a baseline, City staff estimates that approximately 475 housing units within the City are in substandard condition. The City’s Code Enforcement program is complaint based and the vast majority of complaints of violations are for older single family homes. Additionally, the Cypress City Council approved a Neighborhood Preservation Pilot Program in March 2021 which is intended to provide community education and outreach as well as proactive enforcement within one focus neighborhood. The goal of the program is to empower property owners and residents to address minor violations early before they create more serious health and safety issues.

Many more costly property maintenance issues identified by the Code Enforcement Division can be addressed by utilizing the City’s HELP II Program. Eligible applicants must meet the specific low income criteria. The HELP II Program was historically funded with both Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and redevelopment agency (RDA) funds; however, with the loss of redevelopment funding in 2012, fewer funds are available for this program.

City of Cypress 19 Housing Needs Assessment
Table 2- 17: Age of Housing Stock (2018)
Year Structure Built Renter Occupied Units Owner Occupied Units Total Occupied Units Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
2010 or later 47 0.9% 89 0.8% 136 0.9%
2000-2009 115 2.2% 486 4.6% 601 3.8%
1980-1999 1101 20.6% 1305 12.4% 2,406 15.2%
1960-1979 3292 61.7% 7563 72.1% 10,855 68.6%
1940-1959 698 13.1% 953 9.1% 1,651 10.4%
1939 or earlier 79 1.5% 96 0.9% 175 1.1%
Total 5,332 100.0% 10,492 100.0% 15,824 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

As the housing stock ages, there is a continued need for code enforcement and housing rehabilitation programs. The City provides both an on-going code enforcement program and a housing rehabilitation program for low-income singlefamily homeowners.

2.3.5. HOUSING COSTS AND AFFORDABILITY
The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a higher prevalence of overpayment and overcrowding. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of the housing stock to Cypress residents.

2.3.5.1. RENTAL HOUSING MARKET
According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey, the rental vacancy rate in the City was 1.2 percent, indicating a tight rental market in the City. A point-in-time survey of available rental units within the City listed on Zillow and Craigslist was conducted in late October 2020. While not comprehensive, it provides a snapshot of the types of units available, as well as typical market rents. Table 2- 18 includes the results of the survey by number of bedrooms. A total of 39 units were listed for rent with a median rent of $2,121. In comparison, the 2014-2018 American Community Survey estimated the median rent in the City to be $1,834 per month. One-bedroom units were the most prevalently available in the City with rents ranging from $1,450 to $2,295 and a median rent of $1,680. Two-bedroom apartments were also common and commanded a median rent of $2,160.

Table 2- 18: Median and Average Market Rents by Number of Bedrooms (October 2020) Number of
Bedrooms
Units
Advertised Rent Range Average Rent Median Rent
0 1 $2,095 $2,095 $2,095
1 15 $1,450-$2,295 $1,739 $1,680
2 12 $1,800-$2,500 $2,155 $2,160
3 7 $2,400-$3,800 $3,017 $3,000
4+ 4 $3,000-$3,500 $3,225 $3,200
All Units 39 $1,450-$3,800 $2,446 $2,121
Source: Zillow.com and Craigslist.com, Accessed October 29, 2020.

2.3.5.2. HOMEOWNERSHIP MARKET
Table 2- 19 compares median home sale prices over three years for Cypress and nearby communities. The August 2019 median home sales price in Cypress represented a 5 percent decrease from 2018. Orange County as a whole also experience a slight decrease in median sales prices during that time period, and many neighboring jurisdictions City of Cypress 20 Housing Needs Assessment
saw only slight increases. All of the communities listed experienced an increase in home sale prices between August 2019 and August 2020, with the Cities of Cypress, Anaheim, and Long Beach seeing double-digit increases. In August 2020, the median home sales price for Cypress was $711,500, representing an increase of over 15 percent from August 2019. Similarly, home sales prices in Orange County as a whole increased by almost 12 percent between August 2019 and August 2020.

Table 2- 19: Annual Median Home Prices (2018-2020)
Jurisdiction 2018 Median
Sales Price
August 2019
Median Sales
Price
August 2020
Median Sales
Price
Percent
Change
2018-2019
Percent
Change
2019-2020
Cypress $650,000 $617,500 $711,500 -5.0% 15.2%
Anaheim $580,000 $587,000 $649,000 1.2% 10.6%
Buena Park $572,000 $613,500 $645,000 7.3% 5.1%
Garden Grove $595,000 $600,000 $618,500 0.8% 3.1%
Lakewood $575,000 $595,000 $640,000 3.5% 7.6%
Long Beach $545,000 $564,500 $679,750 3.6% 20.4%
Santa Ana $540,000 $576,500 $607,000 6.8% 5.3%
Westminster $660,000 $675,000 $690,000 2.3% 2.2%
Orange County $725,000 $717,000 $800,000 -1.1% 11.6%
Source: Corelogic.com, California Home Sale Activity by City, August 2020.

Condominiums often provide a more affordable entry point into the housing market for young families and others that may not be able to afford the purchase price or down payment required for a single family home. The Zillow Home Value Index is a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the “typical” home value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range and provides data specifically for condominiums. Values for condominiums in Cypress are present in Table 2- 20. As shown, the value of condominiums has increased as rapidly as the housing market as a whole, with a four percent increase between August 2019 and August 2020.

Table 2- 20: Change in Condominium Value in Cypress (2018-2020) August 2018 August 2019 August 2020 Percent Change
2018-2019
Percent Change
2019-2020
Condominium Value $494,861 $499,973 $519,854 1.0% 4.0%
Source: Zillow Home Value Index, accessed March 2021.

2.3.6. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
The affordability of housing in Cypress can be assessed by comparing market rents and sales prices with the amount that households of different income levels can afford to pay for housing. Compared together, this information can reveal who can afford what size and type of housing as well as indicate the type of households that would most likely experience overcrowding or overpayment. The State has established the threshold of affordable housing cost at 30 percent of gross household income.1
Table 2- 21 provides estimates of affordable rents and home prices based on HCD’s 2020 income limits for Orange County, current mortgage rates (i.e., 3.0 percent for 30-year fixed-rate mortgage), and cost assumptions for utilities, taxes and insurance. These affordable costs can then be compared to current market rents and home sales prices to determine what types of housing opportunities a household can afford.

1 Affordable housing cost is set at 30% of income for all renters and owners except for median and moderate income homeowners.

Their affordable housing cost for home purchase is set at 35%.

City of Cypress 21 Housing Needs Assessment
Based on the housing costs presented earlier in Table 2- 19, Cypress residents with moderate incomes or less are unable to afford purchasing a home in Cypress. Additionally, based on the overall median rent presented in Table 2- 18, affordable rentals for lower income households are difficult to find in Cypress.

Extremely Low Income Households: Extremely low income households earn 30 percent of less of the AMI. Based on the assumptions utilized for Table 2- 21, the affordable home price for an extremely low income household ranges from $83, 263 for a 1-person household to $90,972 for a 5-person household; therefore, homeownership is out of reach for Cypress residents within this income category. Affordable rents for extremely low income households range from $552 to $709 per month. Based on median rents presented in Table 2- 18, even 1-bedroom units are unaffordable for all extremely low income households. Severe overpayment or overcrowding may occur as a result of these gap between market costs and affordability.

Very Low Income Households: Very low income households earn between 30 percent and 50 percent of the AMI.

Very low income households can afford between $999 and $1,400 on monthly rent, depending on household size.

However, based on market rents presented in Table 2- 18, rental units of any size in Cypress would require a very low income household to pay over the affordability threshold of 30 percent. Home ownership is also unaffordable for very low income households in Cypress, with affordable home prices for this income category ranging from $159,922 to $209,386, well below the City’s August 2020 median of $711,500.

Low Income Households: Low income households earn between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI. Depending on household size, a low income household can afford monthly rent between $1,672 and $2,436. Based on market rents in listed Table 2- 18, low income households would generally be able to afford one- and two-bedroom units within the City. However, larger rental units are still unaffordable for this income category, which may result in overpayment or overcrowding due to larger families renting smaller units. Based on Table 2- 21, low income households can afford home sale prices between $275,123 and $386,899. Therefore, homeownership is unaffordable for this income group when compared with the City’s median home sales price.

Median Income Households: Median income households earn between 80 and 100 percent of the AMI. Median income households can afford purchase a home with a purchase price ranging from $276,622 to $389,468. With the City’s median home sales price at $711,500 in August 2020, homeownership is unaffordable for median income households. Median income households can afford a monthly rent payment ranging from $1,681 for a one-person household to $2,451 for a five-person household. Based on median market rents within Cypress, median income households can generally afford one- and two-bedroom rental units and larger households may be able to afford some lower priced three-bedroom units. However, four and five person households may be overcrowded into smaller units or overpaying to afford an appropriately sized unit.

Moderate Income Households: Moderate income households earn 80 to 120 percent of the AMI. According to Table 2- 21, moderate income households can afford a home sales price ranging from $338,291 to $484,756. Therefore, with the median home sales price in Cypress at $711,500 in August 2020, homeownership is unaffordable to all income groups within the City except households with above moderate incomes. However, moderate income households may be able to afford some condominiums within the City, particularly smaller units.

Moderate income households can afford monthly rent from $2,041 for a one-person household to $3,008 for a fiveperson household. Based on market rents presented in Table 2- 18, moderate income households can generally afford one-, two-, and three-bedroom units within the City. While larger households may be able to obtain a lower priced fourbedroom home, overcrowding or overpayment may occur for these families.

City of Cypress 22 Housing Needs Assessment

Table 2- 21: Estimated Affordable Housing Price by Income and Household Size (2020) Income Category/
Household Size
Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing Cost
Utility
Allowance
(2019)
Taxes,
Insurance and
HOA
Affordable
Home Price
Affordable
Rent
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
1-Person $26,950 $674 $122 $236 $83,263 $552
2-Person $30,800 $770 $164 $270 $88,682 $606
3-Person $34,650 $866 $212 $303 $92,520 $654
4-Person $38,450 $961 $272 $336 $92,982 $689
5-Person $41,550 $1,039 $330 $364 $90,972 $709
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1-Person $44,850 $1,121 $122 $392 $159,922 $999
2-Person $51,250 $1,281 $164 $448 $176,261 $1,117
3-Person $57,650 $1,441 $212 $504 $191,020 $1,229
4-Person $64,050 $1,601 $272 $560 $202,616 $1,329
5-Person $69,200 $1,730 $330 $606 $209,386 $1,400
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1-Person $71,750 $1,794 $122 $628 $275,123 $1,672
2-Person $82,000 $2,050 $164 $718 $307,951 $1,886
3-Person $92,250 $2,306 $212 $807 $339,197 $2,094
4-Person $102,450 $2,561 $272 $896 $367,067 $2,289
5-Person $110,650 $2,766 $330 $968 $386,899 $2,436
Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1-Person $72,100 $1,803 $122 $631 $276,622 $1,681
2-Person $82,400 $2,060 $164 $721 $309,664 $1,896
3-Person $92,700 $2,318 $212 $811 $341,124 $2,106
4-Person $103,000 $2,575 $272 $901 $369,422 $2,303
5-Person $111,250 $2,781 $330 $973 $389,468 $2,451
Moderate Income (80 -120% AMI)
1-Person $86,500 $2,163 $122 $757 $338,291 $2,041
2-Person $98,900 $2,473 $164 $865 $380,327 $2,309
3-Person $111,250 $2,781 $212 $973 $420,566 $2,569
4-Person $123,600 $3,090 $272 $1,082 $457,644 $2,818
5-Person $133,500 $3,338 $330 $1,168 $484,756 $3,008
Assumptions: 2020 HCD income limits; 30.0% gross household income as affordable housing cost; 35.0% of monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance, 10% down payment; and 3.0% interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage loan. Utilities based on Orange County Housing and Community Development Utility Allowance Schedule.

Sources:

1. HCD, 2020

2. Orange County Housing and Community Development Utility Allowance Schedule, October 2019

3. Veronica Tam and Associates, 2020
City of Cypress 23 Housing Needs Assessment

2.3.7. ASSISTED HOUSING AT RISK OF CONVERSION
State Housing Element law requires an analysis of the potential for currently rent-restricted low-income housing units to convert to market rate housing within the next ten years. This section presents an inventory of all assisted rental housing in Cypress, and evaluates those units at risk of conversion during the ten-year period from October 15, 2021 through October 15, 2031.

2.3.7.1. ASSISTED HOUSING INVENTORY
There are a total of 428 publicly assisted rental housing units affordable to lower and moderate income households in seven apartment developments within Cypress, as presented in Table 2- 22. A total of 220 affordable units within four developments are at-risk of conversion to market rate over the next ten years. Three of the four developments with atrisk units are age-restricted to senior tenants, representing the majority of the units at-risk (215 units). The City will continue to monitor properties at-risk of conversion to market rate and work with property owners to preserve units and ensure tenants are notified of their rights should a conversion occur. The following section discusses potential preservation options for affordable units at-risk of converting to market rate.

Table 2- 22: Inventory of Subsidized Rental Housing (2021) Project Name Tenant
Type Total Units Affordable Units
Affordability
Level
Applicable
Programs
Potential
Conversion
Date
At-Risk
Cypress Park Senior Community
9021 Grindlay St. Senior 124 31
Very Low: 13
Low: 12
Moderate: 6
RDA Set-Aside 3/2029
Sumner Place
8542-8552 Sumner Place Family 5 5 Very Low: 1Low: 4 Density Bonus 3/2029 Cypress Sunrise
9151 Grindlay St. Senior 75 74 Very Low: 23Low: 51
Bond; RDA SetAside 7/2023
Cypress Pointe Senior
Community
5120 Lincoln Ave.

Senior 110 110 Very Low: 11
Moderate: 99 Density Bonus 4/2030
Subtotal 314 220
Not At-Risk
Tara Village Family Apartments
5201 Lincoln Ave. Family 170 80 Very Low: 40Low: 40
Bond; RDA SetAside 4/2064
Lincoln West Apartments
4552 Lincoln Ave. Family 67 4 Very Low: 4 Density Bonus 5/2073 Lincoln East Apartments
4620 Lincoln Ave. Family 67 3 Very Low: 3 Density Bonus 5/2073 Subtotal 304 87
Total 618 428
Source: City of Cypress Planning Division, 2021.

2.3.7.2. PRESERVATION OPTIONS
Preservation of at-risk units can be accomplished in a variety of ways: 1) provide rental subsidies to tenants; 2) facilitate transfer of ownership of the units to nonprofit organizations or purchase of similar replacement units by nonprofit organizations; 3) purchase of the affordability covenant; and 4) new construction of replacement units.

Rent Subsidy
One option for preservation of at-risk units is to provide rent subsidies to tenants to cover the gap between the affordable rent and market rent. Assuming availability of funding, the City could provide a voucher to very low and low City of Cypress 24 Housing Needs Assessment
income households, similar to Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The level of subsidy required is estimated to equal the market rent for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a low or very low income household. The moderate income units in Cypress Park and Cypress Pointe were not included in this analysis because based on the information provided in Table 2- 18 and Table 2- 21, moderate income one person households can afford the market rent for a one-bedroom unit.

Table 2- 23 estimates the subsidies required to preserve the housing affordability for the 115 very low and low income at-risk units. Based on the assumptions utilized in the Table, approximately $416,000 in rent subsidies would be required annually and about $8.3 million would be needed to provide subsidies for a 20-year period.

Table 2- 23: Rent Subsidies Required
Project Affordable Units
Cypress Park
Senior
Community
Sumner Place Cypress Sunrise
Cypress Pointe
Senior
Community
1-Bedroom
Very Low Income 13 23 11
Low Income 12 51
2-Bedroom
Very Low Income 1
Low Income 2
3-Bedroom
Low Income 2
Total 25 5 74 11
Total Monthly Rent Income based on
Affordable Housing Cost by Income
Group $33,051 $10,289 $108,249 $10,989
Total Monthly Market Rent $42,000 $12,480 $124,320 $18,480 Total Monthly Subsidies Required $8,949 $2,191 $16,071 $7,491 Total Annual Subsidies Required $107,388 $26,292 $192,852 $89,892 Average Annual Subsidies per Unit $4,296 $5,258 $2,606 $8,172 Average Monthly Subsidies per Unit $358 $438 $217 $681
Notes: Subsidies have been calculated using the following assumptions:

1. Senior units were assumed to be 1-bedroom; Family units were assumed to be a mix of 2- and 3-bedroom.

2. A 1-bedroom unit is assumed to be occupied by a 1-person household, a 2-bedroom unit by a 3-person household, a 3-bedroom unit by a 5-person household

3. Affordable monthly rent for low and very low income households based on Table 2- 21.

4. Market rent based on median market rent as presented in Table 2- 18 (1-bedroom = $1,680; 2-bedroom = $2,160; 3-bedroom = $3,000).

5. Moderate income 1-bedroom units were not included in this analysis because based on Table 2- 18 and Table 2- 21, moderate income one-person households can afford the market rent for a 1-bedroom unit.

Sources: See Table 2- 18 and Table 2- 21.

Transfer of Ownership
At-risk units can be preserved by transferring the ownership of these projects to nonprofit housing organizations. In addition to securing long-term affordability, eligibility for a greater range of government funding assistance is another benefit of this option. Since only a portion of the units in the Cypress Park Senior Community are restricted as affordable, purchase of this entire project by a nonprofit is likely not feasible. However, purchase of other existing units to be utilized as replacement units is a potential option.

Based on a survey of multi-family properties listed for sale and recently sold on Zillow, the average sales price per unit for existing multi-family units is $366,000.2 Based on this per unit value, Table 2- 24 provides estimated market values for the at-risk units within each of the four projects. Assuming a five percent down payment would be required for each project, a total of approximately $4 million would be needed to cover the down payment costs for all units. Additionally, nonprofits would need ongoing funding to cover the mortgage payment. Rental income from lower income households

2 Source: Zillow.com, Survey of multi-family properties with 3 or more units listed for sale or recently sold. Accessed July 27, 2021.

City of Cypress 25 Housing Needs Assessment
would likely not be sufficient to cover these costs, and some form of mortgage assistance to the organizations or rental subsidy would be necessary.

Table 2- 24: Market Value of At-Risk Units
Cypress Park
Senior Community
Sumner
Place
Cypress
Sunrise
Cypress Pointe
Senior Community Total
Number of Units 31 5 74 110 220
Estimated Market Value $11,346,000 $1,830,000 $27,084,000 $40,260,000 $80,520,000 Down Payment Needed
(5%) $567,300 $91,500 $1,354,200 $2,013,000 $4,026,000
Note: Estimated market value calculated using the average per unit sales price based on a Zillow.com survey of multi-family units listed for sale or recently sold in Cypress.

Source: Zillow.com, accessed July 27, 2021.

Purchase of Affordability Covenant
In some cases, affordability can be preserved by providing an incentive package to the project owners to maintain the affordability of the project. Incentives may include supplementing the subsidy amount received or writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance.

During the 2008-2014 planning period, the City negotiated with the owners of Tara Village to buy down affordability and to extend the affordability term on 80 of the project’s 170 units. With the City’s assistance, the affordability covenants on 40 units reserved for very low-income and 40 units for low-income households in Tara Village were extended from 30 years to 55 years, or until 2064. To achieve this, the City utilized funds from the redevelopment setaside (a funding source no longer available).

Replacement Costs
Many factors contribute to the cost to develop new housing, including project location, density, type of construction, and size of units. For the purpose of this analysis, an average development cost of $300,000 per unit is assumed.

Based on this assumption, approximately $66 million would be required to construct new replacement units for all of the units at-risk during the planning period.

Preservation Cost Comparison
Based upon the analysis above, providing rental subsidies may be the most affordable option for preserving affordability at a cost of approximately $8.3 million to provide subsidies for 20 years. Purchasing the units at market value or construction new replacement units are both significantly more expensive options ($80.5 million and $66 million, respectively).

2.3.7.3. PRESERVATION RESOURCES
As the City does not own or manage any affordable housing projects, the assistance of nonprofit organizations specializing in the acquisition and management of affordable housing would be needed to successfully preserve atrisk housing units in Cypress. Potential nonprofit organizations that acquire and manage affordable housing developments in the region include Jamboree Housing Corporation, Mercy Housing California, and National Core. In the event that the City is informed of a property owner's intent to convert units to market rate, the City would reach out to these organizations about the potential opportunity to preserve affordable units. Additional information about each of these organizations can be found in Section 4.3 of this Technical Report.

As noted above, significant financial resources may be necessary to preserve at-risk units. Potential financial resources include Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds, for which a nonprofit organization could apply for through the Orange County annual notice of funding availability. For acquisition of senior affordable units, HUD’s Section 202 program is a possible funding source. The State’s CalHome loan program and Multifamily Housing Program can also be used for property acquisition. Lastly, the Golden State Acquisition Fund Affordable Housing Innovation Program provides quick acquisition financing for the development or preservation of affordable housing.

City of Cypress 26 Housing Needs Assessment
The City can play a significant role in the preservation of at-risk units by monitoring at-risk projects and coordinating with nonprofit organizations should a property owner inform the City of their intent to convert units to market rate. The City can also provide information and assistance to nonprofits seeking financial assistance to preserve and/or acquire at-risk units. The City’s preservation efforts are included as a program in the Housing Element.

2.3.8. EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS

2.3.8.1. COST BURDEN
Cost burden remains a critical issue for many Cypress residents, particularly renters and lower income households.

Affordability problems occur when housing costs become so high in relation to income that households have to pay an excessive proportion of their income for housing. According to the metric utilized by HUD, a household is cost burdened if housing costs (including utilities) exceed 30 percent of gross household income. Severe cost burden occurs when housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income.

Table 2- 25 indicates the number of cost burdened households within Cypress by tenure. Cost burden impacts 46 percent of renter households and 28 percent of owner households. More renter households are also impacted by severe cost burden (18 percent), compared to owner households (11 percent).

Table 2- 25: Cost Burden by Tenure
Renter Households Owner Households Total Households
Number Percent
of Total Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total With Cost Burden >30% 2,365 45.6% 2,985 28.0% 5,350 33.8% With Cost Burden >50% 940 18.1% 1,170 11.0% 2,110 13.3% Total 5,190 100.0% 10,650 100.0% 15,840 100.0%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.

Table 2- 26 shows more detailed information on cost burden by income group, tenure, and household type. Overall, cost burden tends to impact proportionately more senior homeowners more than senior renters, with the exception of low income senior renters. Rates of overpayment for small families were over 50 percent in all lower income categories.

Extremely low income small family households who rent are particularly impacted, with 95 percent experiencing a cost burden and 87 percent experiencing a severe cost burden. Large family households were similarly impacted. The rate of overpayment for very low income large families was 92 percent. Overpayment is a significant issue for renting large families at nearly every income level, indicating that affordable larger rental units may be rare in Cypress.

Table 2- 26: Cost Burden by Income Level, Tenure, and Household Type1 Income Group Tenure
Cost Burden
Seniors Small Family Large Family
>30% >50% >30% >50% >30% >50%
<= 30% HAMFI2 Owner 64% 51% 80% 61% 0% 0%
Renter 56% 18% 95% 87% 100% 100%
31-50% HAMFI Owner 43% 19% 64% 55% 92% 77%
Renter 42% 7% 87% 50% 92% 42%
51-80% HAMFI Owner 29% 10% 67% 20% 36% 14%
Renter 72% 0% 64% 10% 75% 10%
81-100% HAMFI Owner 23% 7% 39% 4% 33% 3%
Renter 0% 0% 33% 0% 67% 0%
>100% HAMFI Owner 10% 1% 10% 1% 14% 0%
Renter 7% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0%
City of Cypress 27 Housing Needs Assessment
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.

Notes:

1. Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from the American Community Survey (ACS) data. Due to the small sample size, the margins for error can be significant. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of households in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.

2. HAMFI = HUD Area Median Family Income

2.3.8.2. OVERCROWDING
The Census defines overcrowding as an average of more than one person per room in a housing unit, including living and dining room but excluding kitchens, bathrooms, and hallways. Severe overcrowding occurs when a unit is occupied by more than 1.5 persons per room. The incidence of overcrowded housing is a general measure of whether there is an available supply of adequately sized housing units. Overcrowding can also occur when housing costs are high in relation to income and families are forced to live together in order to pool income to pay the rent or mortgage. Table 2- 27 shows the incidence of overcrowding in Cypress by tenure, as estimated by the 2014-2018 American Community Survey.

Table 2- 27: Overcrowding by Tenure
Overcrowding
Cypress Orange County
Number Percent
of Total Number Percent of Total
Owner Occupied Units 10,492 100.0% 592,269 100.0%
Not Overcrowded (1.00 or Less Occupants/Room) 10,230 97.5% 570,469 96.3% Overcrowded

1.01 to 1.50 Occupants/Room 235 2.2% 15,731 2.7%

1.51 or More Occupants/Room 27 0.3% 6,069 1.0%
Renter Occupied Units 5,332 100.0% 440,104 100.0%
Not Overcrowded (1.00 or Less Occupants/Room) 4,871 91.4% 370,391 84.2% Overcrowded

1.01 to 1.50 Occupants/Room 371 7.0% 43,900 10.0%

1.51 or More Occupants/Room 90 1.7% 25,813 5.9%
Total Overcrowded 723 4.6% 91,513 8.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

In 2018, an estimated total of 723 households experienced overcrowding in Cypress, representing just under 5 percent of all households in the City. County-wide approximately 9 percent of households experienced overcrowded conditions.

In Cypress, a higher proportion of renter households experienced overcrowding (9 percent) when compared to owner occupied households (3 percent). There are a total of 117 households in the City experiencing severe overcrowding.

2.4. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
State law requires all regional councils of governments to develop housing needs plans for its region and determine the portion allocated to each jurisdiction. This is known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process.

State Housing Element law further requires that each city and county develop local housing programs to meet its RHNA allocation, or its “fair share” of existing and future housing needs for all income groups, as determined by the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments. This fair share allocation concept seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of not only its resident population, but also for the jurisdiction’s projected share of regional housing growth across all income categories.

In the six-county Southern California region, which includes Cypress, the agency responsible for assigning these regional housing needs to each jurisdiction is SCAG. SCAG’s final RHNA allocation plan for the 6th Cycle was adopted by SCAG and approved by HCD in March 2021. The 6th Cycle RHNA methodology was notably different than previous cycles in that it included job accessibility and transit accessibility as factors in determining RHNA allocations for individual jurisdictions. Additionally, designated disadvantaged communities were given special consideration, and a City of Cypress 28 Housing Needs Assessment
portion of the RHNA for disadvantaged communities was distributed to other jurisdictions that are not disadvantaged.

By contrast, the 4th and 5th Cycle RHNA methodologies relied almost solely on project household growth. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units each community is required to provide “adequate sites” for through zoning, and is one of the primary threshold criteria necessary to achieve HCD approval of the Housing Element.

As defined by the RHNA process, Cypress’ new construction need for the 2021-2029 period has been established at 3,936 new units, distributed among the four income categories as shown in Table 2- 28. The City will continue to provide sites for a mix of single-family, multi-family and mixed-use housing, supported by a variety of programs to enhance affordability, to accommodate its RHNA and contribute towards addressing the growing demand for housing in the Southern California region, as discussed in the Housing Resources section of this Technical Report.

Table 2- 28: Cypress Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2021-2029) Income Level Percent of AMI1 Units Percent of Total RHNA Very Low2 0-50% 1,150 29%
Low 51-80% 657 17%
Moderate 81-120% 623 16%
Above Moderate 120%+ 1,506 38%
TOTAL 3,936 100%
Source: SCAG, 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, March 2021.

Notes:

1. AMI – Area Median Income

2. An estimated half of Cypress’ very low income housing needs (575 units) are for extremely low income households earning less than 30% AMI, pursuant to AB 2634.

City of Cypress 29 Housing Needs Assessment
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Cypress 30 Housing Constraints

3. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Although the City of Cypress strives to ensure the provision of adequate and affordable housing to meet the needs of the community, many factors can constrain the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing. These include market mechanisms, government regulations and policies, and infrastructure and environmental constraints.

This section addresses these potential constraints that may affect the supply and cost of housing in Cypress.

3.1. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Actions or policies of governmental agencies, whether involved directly or indirectly in the housing market, can impact the ability of the development community to provide adequate housing to meet consumer demands. For example, the impact of federal monetary policies and the budgeting and funding policies of a variety of departments can either stimulate or depress various aspects of the housing industry. Local or State government compliance or the enactment of sanctions for noncompliance with the federal Clean Air and Water Pollution Control Acts can impact all types of development.

State agencies and local government compliance with State statutes can complicate the development of housing.

Statutes such as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and rezoning and General Plan amendment procedures required by the California Government Code can also act to prolong the review and approval of development proposals by local governments. In many instances, compliance with these mandates establishes time constraints that cannot be altered by local governments. City policies can also impact the price and availability of housing in Cypress. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, building codes, fees, and other local programs to improve the overall quality of housing may serve as constraints to housing development. The following public policies can affect overall housing availability, adequacy, and affordability.

3.1.1. LAND USE CONTROLS
The Cypress General Plan and Zoning Ordinance provide for a range of residential land use designations/zones in the City. Land use designations/zones that allow for residential development are presented in Table 3- 1. The City’s Zoning Map is shown in Figure 3- 1.

Table 3- 1: Residential Land Use and Zoning
General Plan Land Use
Designation
Zoning
Designation
Max.

Density Description
Low Density Residential RS-15000; RS6000; RS-5000 5 du/ac Provides for the development of low density detached single family dwelling units.

Medium Density Residential RM-15 15 du/ac
Provides for development of medium density duplexes,
townhomes, condominiums, and apartments, or other
group dwellings.

High Density Residential RM-20 20 du/ac Provides areas for the development of apartments, condominiums, townhouses, or other group dwellings.

Mobile Home Park MHP-20A 12 du/ac Provides for the exclusive development of mobile home parks subject to certain restrictions.

Source: City of Cypress, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance, 2021 City of Cypress 31 Housing Constraints
Figure 3- 1: Cypress Zoning Map
City of Cypress 32 Housing Constraints

3.1.2. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The City’s Zoning Ordinance contains development standards for each zoning district consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance establishes development standards for each zone to ensure quality development in the community. Development criteria, as specified in the Zoning Ordinance, are presented in Table 3- 2. These development standards are typical and consistent with standards established in surrounding communities.

Table 3- 2: Residential Development Standards
Development Standard RS-15000 RS-6000 RS-50001 RM-152 RM-202 MHP20A Minimum Parcel Size 15,000 s.f. 6,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. 20 acres Minimum Parcel Width 100’ 60’ 50’ 100’ 100’ 250’
Minimum Setbacks
Front
(1st Story; 2nd Story) 30’; 35’ 20’; 25’ 10’ from driveway 20’ 20’ 20’ Side
(1st Story; 2nd Story) 10’; 15’ 5’ on 1 side;
10’ on 1 side.
0’ on 1 side; 10’
min bldg distance 5’;10’ 5’;10’ 10’
Street Side
(1st Story; 2nd Story) 10’; 15’ 10’; 15’ 15’ 10’ 10’ 10’ Rear 25’ 10’ 15’ 10’ 10’ 5’;8’
Maximum Height 35’ 35’ 30’ or 2 stories 35’ 35’ –
Minimum Unit Size 1,500 s.f. 1,100 s.f. 1,200 s.f.
450 s.f. - studio;
600 s.f. - 1-bd;
750 s.f.- 2-bd;
900 s.f. - 3-bd
–
Density (du/acre) 2.5 5.0 8.712 153 203 12.4
Maximum Lot Coverage 35% 40% 40%, 40% 45% 75%
Minimum Landscaped
Open Area N/A N/A N/A 35% 35% 20% per
lot4
Source: City of Cypress, Zoning Ordinance, 2021
Notes:

1. RS-5000 allows for zero lot line development and may incorporate common areas and private streets

2. RM-15 and RM-20 allow buildings on existing lots with less than minimum parcel size or minimum width

3. Allowable density in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones may be increased by 20% for multi-family development projects that consolidate substandard parcels with substandard widths to create a minimum net aggregate parcel area of 30,000 square feet.

4. MHP-20A requires a minimum recreation area of 150 square feet per lot/space and 200 square feet per lot/space if children are allowed The cumulative effect of the City’s residential development standards does not constrain the expansion of housing opportunities. Density standards of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the densities established for General Plan land use categories. The setback requirements provide minimal light and air for development, are typical in the region, and do not unreasonably constrain housing opportunities. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance allows for multifamily development within the RM-15 and RM-20 zones on existing lots that do not meet minimum size or width requirements. The City has also incentivized lot consolidation in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones by allowing a 20 percent increase in density for consolidation of substandard parcels.

All residential uses are currently required to provide the number of parking spaces outlined in Table 3- 3. For single family residences, a two-car garage is generally required. This is consistent with most communities in Orange County.

City of Cypress 33 Housing Constraints
Parking requirements for multi-family developments are based on the number of bedrooms. Guest parking is also required for developments with four or more units. For multi-family developments, the Zoning Ordinance requires the spaces for each unit to be enclosed; however, it does not require them to be within a private garage. Given the typical site conditions for sites within Cypress, the requirement for enclosed spaces does not constitute a constraint to development. Due to allowable densities and lot sizes, enclosed parking garages are preferred by the development community as well as potential residents. The majority of sites in Cypress would not be able to accommodate the maximum density if surface parking was proposed, even if the number of spaces required was significantly lower.

Additionally, developers of affordable and senior housing who are eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65919-65918 are eligible to use the reduced parking standards established by State law.

Nevertheless, construction of required parking can represent a significant portion of the total development cost for multi-family developments. Therefore, a program has been included in the Housing Element to evaluate the City’s multi-family and mixed-use parking standards and potential mitigating strategies to lower the cost of development of required parking facilities.

Table 3- 3: Residential Parking Requirements
Use Parking Requirement
Single family dwelling units 2-car garage for units with up to four bedrooms; 3-car garage for units with 5+ bedrooms
Single-family dwelling units, small lot
development
2-car garage, 2 open spaces per unit (may be located on driveway), 1 unassigned open space for guests per unit
Multi-family dwelling units, excluding
condominiums
Studio: 1 enclosed space per unit
1-bedroom: 1 enclosed space plus 0.5 open space per unit 2-bedroom: 2 enclosed spaces per unit
3-bedroom: 2 enclosed spaces plus 0.5 open space per unit Guest Parking: 0.25 open spaces per unit for developments with 4+ units
Attached condominiums, townhomes, patio
homes, and detached condominiums with 2 or
fewer bedrooms
Studio: 1 enclosed space per unit
1-bedroom: 1 enclosed space plus 0.5 open space per unit 2-bedroom: 2 enclosed spaces per unit
3-bedroom: 2 enclosed spaces plus 0.5 open space per unit Guest Parking: 0.5 open spaces per unit
Detached condominiums with 3+ bedrooms 2-car garage plus 2 open spaces per unit Dormitories and group homes 1 space per room
Mobile home parks 1 covered space in conjunction with each mobile home plus 1 guest space for every 6 units
Planned Residential Developments 2 enclosed spaces per unit, one open space per unit, one open guest space per unit (open spaces may be located on driveway).

Source: City of Cypress, Zoning Ordinance, 2021
The City monitors closely its development standards and their impact on development. Periodically, the City made amendments to its Zoning Ordinance to ensure development standards respond to market trends. Cypress has adopted other provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that facilitate a range of residential development types and encourage affordable housing, as discussed below.

3.1.2.1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
The City’s Affordable Housing Density Bonus provisions (Article 3, Section12 of the Zoning Code) have not been updated to be consistent with State law since 2010. However, the City utilizes Government Code Section 65915-65918 to review projects seeking a density bonus as the State law has been modified significantly since 2010. AB 1763 made a number of changes to density bonus requirements for affordable projects. The bill requires a density bonus to be granted for projects that include 100 percent lower income units, but allows up to 20 percent of total units in a project City of Cypress 34 Housing Constraints
that qualifies for a density bonus to be for moderate-income households. Under the revised law, density bonus projects must be allowed four incentives or concessions, and for developments within ½ mile of a major transit stop, a height increase of up to three additional stories or 33 feet. A density bonus of 80 percent is required for most projects, with no limitations on density placed on projects within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The bill also allows developers to request the elimination of minimum parking requirements for rental units affordable to lower-income families that are either supportive housing or special needs housing, as defined. AB 2345 signed by the Governor in September 2020 further incentivizes the production of affordable housing. The Housing Plan includes a program to amend the zoning ordinance to ensure the affordable housing density bonus regulations conform to current state law.

The Affordable Housing Density Bonus provisions have been effective in creating affordable housing within the City.

During the planning period from 2014 to 2021, four residential projects utilized the density bonus incentive, resulting in a total of 10 income-restricted housing units, including three condominium units and seven rental units.

3.1.2.2. DENSITY INCENTIVE OVERLAY DISTRICT
This overlay zoning district is designed to address development of larger parcels of residential land in the City, either existing or newly combined. The intent is two-fold: 1) to ensure maintenance of the low-density residential character of the area while accommodating larger parcels of land, and 2) to provide for the option of multi-family residential development in single-family districts by providing density increases up to 11 units per acre for combining parcels. The maximum density of the underlying zone (RS 6000) is five units per acre. Table 3- 4 shows the development standards that apply to the Density Incentive Overlay.

Table 3- 4: Density Incentive Overlay Zone Development Standards Development Standard Requirement
Minimum Parcel Size 13,000 square feet
Minimum Structure Site per Unit 3,950 square feet
Minimum Parcel Width 100 feet
Minimum Parcel Depth 130 feet
Front and Rear Setbacks 20 feet
Sideyard Setback 5 feet (single-story), 10 feet (two-story) Street Setback 10 feet
Maximum Parcel Coverage 40%
Maximum Structure Height 35 feet
Minimum Dwelling Unit Size
450 sq ft – Studio
600 sq ft - 1 Bedroom
750 sq ft - 2 Bedroom
900 sq ft - 3 Bedroom
Source: City of Cypress, Zoning Code, 2021
The Density Incentive Overlay is located primarily in a single family residential pocket located south of Lincoln Avenue and east of Walker Street. A small area north of Forest Lawn Cemetery is also within the overlay.

3.1.2.3. SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT
The City established the RS-5000 zone district as a means of facilitating small lot, single family, urban residential development subject to special development standards and design guidelines. The zone allows for higher density than the City’s other single family residential zones while ensuring quality design and neighborhood compatibility.

City of Cypress 35 Housing Constraints

3.1.2.4. SPECIAL PURPOSE ZONING DISTRICTS
The Cypress zoning code establishes special purpose zones for public and semi-public (PS), planned residential (PRD), and planned community (PC) development. Special purpose zoning districts permit design and development standards to be established that are tailor-made for planned project areas with unique attributes. The PS zoning district sets aside properties to be developed with public uses, other than street rights-of-way. The district is also intended to identify and preserve historic and community significance for the enjoyment of future generations. Senior housing - Affordable is a conditionally permitted use in the PS zone.

The PRD zoning district is established to provide flexibility in the design of residential projects. The district allows for more creative and innovative residential subdivision and unit design, promoting more economical and efficient use of the land, a higher level of urban amenities, and preservation of the natural and scenic qualities associated with open spaces.

The PC zoning district is established to provide opportunities for the design and development of integrated, masterplanned projects in specific areas of the City. The district permits a compatible use of land uses, planned commercial developments, and business parks, and a variety of housing styles and densities.

3.1.2.5. LINCOLN AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN
Lincoln Avenue is one of Cypress’ commercial thoroughfares. To facilitate revitalization and economic investment along Lincoln Avenue, in 1990 the City adopted a Redevelopment Plan (now obsolete) for Lincoln Avenue and in 1999 adopted the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. The Specific Plan encourages both higher density multi-family residential and mixed-use development as a means of stimulating pedestrian and transit-oriented activity along this street. The Specific Plan initially separated the corridor into eight districts, four of which allow medium- to high-density residential development: 1) Residential Mixed Use (RM), 2) Commercial Mixed Use (CM), 3) Campus Village (CV), and 4) Downtown (D). Initially, the Plan permitted residential densities at a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre throughout the corridor, with increased densities possible through the City’s density bonus provision. In 2009, following the adoption of the 2008-2014 Housing Element, the City amended the Specific Plan to create a new Residential (R30) district within the existing PC Lincoln Avenue Zone. The R30 district permits exclusively high-density residential uses at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre, with the potential to utilize a density bonus as permitted by State law. The Council also amended the Residential Mixed Use district to allow up to 30 dwelling units per acre. In 2016, the City adopted another amendment to the Specific Plan which created a Commercial Preservation Overlay which is restricted commercial use only, and is focused on high performing commercial intersections within the Specific Plan area. Table 3- 5 provides the development standards for the five districts within the Specific Plan which encourage residential infill and mixed-use development.

The Specific Plan also provides development incentives, such as no processing fees, reduction of parking/landscaping requirements, density bonus, and increased floor area ratio and lot coverage for projects that provide amenities beyond those required (Section 7.3.1 of the Specific Plan).

The City has completed an extensive streetscape improvement project that significantly upgraded the visual image of the Lincoln Avenue corridor. With the Specific Plan and streetscape amenities in place, as well as efforts to revitalize and intensify housing development along the corridor, Lincoln Avenue has become a focal point for economic development and is positioned for significant change. As residential development has been realized in the Specific Plan area, the City has modified certain development standards to better facilitate development. For example, the City has reduced the front yard setback for residential projects in the Specific Plan area. Additionally, as part of the amendment to the Specific Plan in 2009, the specific development standards were reviewed and revised to ensure achievement of these higher densities in both exclusively residential and mixed-use developments.

Generally, the amended Specific Plan has been an effective mechanism for the creation of affordable units and the development of higher-density residential projects. Three residential projects were built within the Specific Plan area City of Cypress 36 Housing Constraints
over the last planning period (4552 Lincoln Ave.; 4620 Lincoln Ave.; and 9071-91 Walker St.) for a total of 153 housing units. Additionally, each project received a density bonus, resulting in a total of nine new income-restricted affordable units. However, in order to accommodate the 6th Cycle RHNA, future amendments to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan have been included in the Housing Programs for the Housing Element.

City of Cypress 37 Housing Constraints
Table 3- 5: Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Development Standards Development Standard Residential
Mixed Use
Commercial
Mixed Use
Campus
Village Downtown R30 Residential
Minimum Parcel Size 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 20,000 sf 10,000 sf 10,000 sf Minimum Lot Frontage 150 ft 150 ft 300 ft 100 ft 100 ft Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 0.5:1 -
Maximum FAR with Density
Bonus1 - 1:1 1:1 - -
Maximum Height for Residential
Buildings 50 ft 30 ft 30 ft 35 ft 50 ft
Max. % Lot Coverage - - - 60 -
Maximum Front Setback - - - 10 ft -
Minimum Setbacks
Front 10 ft 10 ft 2 ft2 2 ft 10 ft
Side 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft
Side – adjacent to residential
zone
20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft -
Rear 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft
Rear – adjacent to residential
zone
20 20 20 20 -
Minimum Unit Size (s.f.) 450 - studio; 600 - 1-bd; 750 - 2-bd; 900 - 3-bd Density (du/acre) 30 20 20 20 30
Source: City of Cypress, Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, amended 2016.

Notes:

1. An FAR of 1:1 can only be achieved with a one acre parcel and either a mix of high density residential, retail, restaurant, cultural/entertainment in the CV or a mix of high density residential and commercial in the CM districts.

2. Buildings may encroach into the front 10’ landscape setback area, but no closer than 24” from the boundary of the public right-of-way. Parking shall not encroach into the 10’ landscaped setback area.

3.1.2.6. CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0 The Cypress Town Center and Commons (CTCC) Specific Plan 2.0 establishes a comprehensive master plan and regulatory framework for the use and development of approximately 154.4 acres of land encompassing the Los Alamitos Race Track, former golf course and surrounding land. The Specific Plan area is divided into six land use districts that govern the design and development of a mixed-use, sustainable community. One of the primary features of the plan is the town center district, which is intended to be the City's "main street" and a gathering place for the community, and will include a vibrant mix of entertainment, retail, restaurant, commercial and residential uses. The Specific Plan allows for 250 residential units within the Town Center District and an additional 1,000 units spread throughout the Residential, Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR), and MixedUse (Town Center/SFR/MDR) Districts. Table 3- 6 summarizes the maximum allowable density and allowable residential uses within each district of the Specific Plan.

City of Cypress 38 Housing Constraints
Table 3- 6: Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan Allowable Residential Uses District
Max.

Allowable
Density1
Allowable Residential Uses
Residential: Single-Family
Detached Subdistrict
5 du/ac;
8 du/ac2
Permitted: Single-family dwellings; Senior Housing; Small Community Care Facilities
CUP: Detached condominiums; Condominium conversions
Residential: Single-Family
Attached Subdistrict 10 du/ac
Permitted: Single-family dwellings; Condominiums/townhouses; Duplexes; Senior Housing; Small Residential and Community Care Facilities; Group Homes
CUP: Condominium conversions
Town Center 20 du/ac3 Permitted: Multi-family dwelling units; Live/work units; Senior Housing/MediumDensity Residential 20 du/ac; 15
du/ac4
Permitted: Senior Housing; Condominiums/townhouses; Duplexes; Multifamily dwelling units; single-family dwelling units; Assisting living and memory care facilities; Small Residential and Community Care Facilities; Group homes
CUP: Detached condominiums/townhouses; Condominium conversions; Density bonuses; Dormitories; Convalescent/rest homes; Large residential and community care facilities
Mixed Use (Town
Center/MDR)
15-20 du/ac,
dependent
upon use
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Town Center and Senior Housing/Medium Density Residential Districts
Mixed-Use (Town
Center/SFR/MDR)
8-20 du/ac,
dependent
upon use
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Town Center and Residential Districts; All permitted and conditionally permitted uses relating to medium-density development in the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District
Source: City of Cypress, Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0, 2017 Notes:

1. While these densities effectively limit the number of residential units within each district, the total number of residential units in the Residential District, the Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential District and the Mixed-Use Districts shall not exceed 1,000 units.

2. Density is 5 du/ac for lots within 100 feet of Cerritos Avenue and 8 du/ac for lots more than 100 feet from Cerritos Avenue.

3. A maximum of 250 residential units are permitted in the Town Center District, including live/work units.

4. Maximum allowable density is 20 du/ac for senior housing and 15 du/ac for other residential uses.

3.1.3. PROVISION FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
Housing Element law specifies that jurisdictions must identify adequate sites to be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to encourage the development of various types of housing for all economic segments of the population, including multi-family residential housing, factory built housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing. Table 3- 7 summarizes the housing types permitted in each of the Cypress zoning districts.

City of Cypress 39 Housing Constraints
Table 3- 7: Housing Types by Zone
Housing Types
Permitted
Zoning District
RS-15000/
RS-6000
RS5000RM-15/
RM-20
MHP20AOP/
CN
CG/
CH PS-1A LA1 CTCC2
Single-Family P CUP P CUP P
Multiple-Family
2 - 3 units
4+ units
P
CUP
P/CUP3
P/CUP3
P
P
Mixed Use CUP
Senior Housing CUP5 CUP6 P
Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) CUP
Manufactured Housing P P P P
Mobile Home Park P
Live/Work Unit CUP P
Second Units P P P P P
Residential Care
Facilities (6 or fewer) 4 P P P CUP CUP CUP P P
Residential Care
Facilities (7 or more) 4 CUP CUP CUP CUP P CUP
Group Homes P P P P P
Transitional Housing/
Supportive Housing4 P P P CUP CUP CUP P P/CUP
Emergency Shelters P
P = Permitted CUP = Conditional Use Permit
Source: City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance; Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan; Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0.

Notes:

1. LA = Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. This column indicates whether a use is permitted or conditionally permitted in one or more districts within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. Refer to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan for detailed information on specific districts.

2. CTCC = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0. This column indicates whether a use is permitted or conditionally permitted in one or more districts within the CTCC. Refer to Table 3- 6 for more information on specific districts.

3. Multi-family residential development is a permitted use in the Residential Mixed Use and R30 districts of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and requires a CUP in the Commercial Mixed Use and Campus Village Districts.

4. Transitional housing and supportive housing are permitted as community care facilities.

5. Assisted Living Facilities are conditionally permitted.

6. Senior housing in the PS-1A zone must have an affordable component.

3.1.3.1. SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
Single family housing is permitted by-right in the RS-15000, RS-6000, RM-15, and RM-20 zones. It is also permitted within the Residential, Senior Housing/Medium-Density Residential, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR), and Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) Districts of the CTCC Specific Plan. Due to the special provisions for small lot development in the RS-5000 zone and the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan (Residential Mixed Use District), a conditional use permit is required for single family developments in these zones.

3.1.3.2. MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING
The Zoning Ordinances provides for multi-family developments in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones, with maximum allowable densities ranging from 15 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Developments with three or less units are permitted by-right in these zones while developments with four or more units require a conditional use permit. Multi-family developments with densities up to 20 units per acre are permitted by right in the Town Center, Senior Housing/MediumDensity Residential, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR), and Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) Districts of the CTCC Specific Plan. Duplexes are also permitted by right in the Single-Family Attached Subdistrict of the CTCC Specific Plan.

City of Cypress 40 Housing Constraints
Within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, multi-family developments are permitted by-right in the Residential Mixed Use and R30 districts and require a conditional use permit in the Commercial Mixed Use and Campus Village Districts.

3.1.3.3. MIXED USE
Mixed use projects combine both non-residential and residential uses on the same site. Mixed use development can help reduce the effects of housing cost burden by increasing density and offering opportunities for reduced vehicular trips by walking, bicycling or taking public transportation. Mixed use development is allowed by conditional use permit in the Commercial Mixed Use, Downtown, Campus Village, and Residential Mixed Use districts of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan.

3.1.3.4. LIVE/WORK UNITS
The Cypress Zoning Ordinance defines live/work facilities as “an integrated dwelling unit and working space (e.g., the creation and retail sales of arts and crafts), occupied and utilized by a single housekeeping unit in a structure that has been modified or designed to accommodate joint residential occupancy and work activity located in a commercial, industrial, or mixed-use zoning district, and which includes complete kitchen and sanitary facilities in compliance with applicable building standards and working space reserved for and regularly used by one or more occupants of the unit.

May include limited walk-in trade.”
Live/work units are conditionally permitted in the OP and CN zones and are permitted by-right in the Town Center, Mixed-Use (Town Center/MDR), and Mixed-Use (Town Center/SFR/MDR) districts of the CTCC Specific Plan.

3.1.3.5. SENIOR HOUSING
The Cypress Zoning Ordinance does not provide a definition for senior housing; however, California Civil Code Section

51.3 defines “senior citizen” as a person 62 years of age or older, or 55 years of age or older in a senior citizen housing development, and “senior citizen development” as a residential development developed, substantially rehabilitated, or substantially renovated for, senior citizens that has at least 35 dwelling units.

In the PS-1A zone, affordable senior housing is allowed with a conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance is silent on senior housing within the other zones; however, assisted living facilities are conditionally permitted in the City’s multi-family zones.

The CTCC Specific Plan contains significant provision for senior housing. The Specific Plan defines “senior housing” as independent living units or other independent housing that is occupied by a qualifying resident under State law who is 55 years of age or older, and may include common dining areas and other community facilities. Senior housing is permitted by-right in all districts of the Specific Plan, except for the Town Center. Within the Senior Housing/Medium Density Residential District senior housing development is permitted at a greater density (20 du/ac) than other multifamily development (15 du/ac) and is also subject to more flexible development standards (i.e. reduced setbacks).

3.1.3.6. MANUFACTURED HOUSING/MOBILE HOMES
Manufactured housing and mobile homes offer an affordable housing option to many low and moderate income households. The California Department of Finance estimated that there were 421 mobile homes in the City as of January 2020. According to the National Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Act of 1974, a manufactured home built and certified after June 15, 1976, and constructed on a permanent foundation may be located in any residential zone where a conventional single-family detached dwelling is permitted subject to the same restrictions on density and to the same property development regulations. Manufactured homes are currently allowed in all residential zones, subject to foundational regulations found in Government Code Section 65852.3. Manufactured housing is treated the same as single-family dwellings, and is subject to the same property development standards and permitting process. Zoning regulations requires manufactured housing to be architecturally compatible (roofing overhangs, roofing materials, exterior siding, stucco, etc.) with single-family dwellings. Mobile home parks are allowed within the MHP-20A zone.

City of Cypress 41 Housing Constraints

3.1.3.7. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (SECOND UNITS)
Per Government Code Section 65852.2, an “accessory dwelling unit” is defined as “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower-income households and seniors.

The City of Cypress last updated its Zoning Ordinance with regards to ADUs (formerly known as second units) in 2006.

The Ordinance permitted second units by-right in all single-family residential zones. However, with substantial changes in State Law since 2006, the City’s Zoning Ordinance currently does not comply with State requirements and City staff utilizes Government Code Section 65852.2 to review proposed ADU applications.

Recent State legislation, including AB 68, AB 587, AB 881, and SB 13, address standards and regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The bills modify the fees, application process, and development standards for accessory dwelling units, with the goal of lowering barriers to accessory dwelling unit development and increasing overall numbers of accessory dwelling units. Some of the key provisions include:
• Prohibiting standards related to lot coverage standards, lot size, FAR, or open space that have the effect of limiting ADU development
• Allowing ADUs within or attached to attached garages, storage areas, or accessory structures • Removing requirements to replace parking when a garage or carport is demolished to develop an ADU • Prohibiting maximum sizes for ADUs that are less than 850 sf (1,000 for units with 2+ bedrooms) Since the City's regulations pertaining to second units have not been updated since 2006, the Housing Plan of this Housing Element includes a program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to comply with current State regulations relating to Accessory Dwelling Units.

3.1.3.8. BOARDING HOUSES
Boarding houses are facilities in which food and/or shelter is provided to unrelated persons. Examples listed in the Zoning Ordinance include convalescent/rest homes, group homes and other similar operations. Group homes are a permitted use in all residential zones and convalescent/rest homes are conditionally permitted in the RM-15, RM-20, OP, CG, and CH zones.

3.1.3.9. RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Lanterman Act) is the part of California law that sets out the rights and responsibilities of persons with developmental disabilities. The Lanterman Act impacts local zoning ordinances by requiring the use of property for the care of six or fewer disabled persons to be classified as a residential use, permitted by right, under zoning provisions. More specifically, a State-authorized, certified or licensed family care home, foster home, or a group home serving six or fewer disabled persons or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour-a-day basis is considered a residential use that is to be permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes. Due to the unique characteristics of larger (more than six persons) residential care facilities, many jurisdictions require a discretionary use permit to ensure neighborhood compatibility in the siting of these facilities.

The Cypress Zoning Code defines residential care facilities as “types of community care facilities, defined by the California Health and Safety Code Section 1502(a)(1) et seq., which include any family home, group care facility, or similar facility, where twenty-four (24) hour-a-day non-medical care is provided to persons residing on the premises, in need of assistance, guidance, personal services, protection, supervision, and training essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection of the individual. The establishments shall be licensed by the State of California Department of Social Services for non-medical care in compliance with the provisions of the State Community City of Cypress 42 Housing Constraints
Care Facilities Act or other applicable state law; and no medical care shall be provided at the establishments except incidental medical service as may be allowed, without additional authorization, certification, or licensing for non-medical care in compliance with State law. Also includes: children’s homes, orphanages, rehabilitation centers, self-help group homes, and transitional houses.”
Small residential care facilities (six or fewer persons) are permitted by-right in all residential zones in the City of Cypress as required by state law. Large residential and community care facilities (seven or more persons) are conditionally permitted in the City’s multi-family zones. Residential care facilities of any size are conditionally permitted within the City’s commercial zones. Additionally, residential care facilities are permitted within certain districts of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. The CTCC Specific Plan permits small facilities by-right and requires a conditional use permit for large facilities.

As written, the Zoning Ordinance complies with State law pertaining to residential care facilities. However, further review is needed to ensure the Zoning Ordinance requirements do not constrain the development of larger facilities serving seven or more individuals. The Housing Element includes a program to further review the Zoning Ordinance and made amendments should constraints to the development of large facilities be identified.

Review of the California Community Care Licensing Division inventory of community care facilities identifies five adult residential facilities in Cypress. These facilities provide 24-hour non-medical care for adults ages 18-59 who are unable to provide for their own daily needs, and currently provide assistance to 28 adults in Cypress. There are 12 residential care homes for the elderly, providing 72 beds for seniors age 60+ who need 24-hour assisted living. The City’s regulations have served to provide needed housing opportunities for seniors and persons with disabilities, and do not treat such housing for persons differently based on the personal characteristics of the residents.

3.1.3.10. SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY (SRO)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) residences are small, one-room units occupied by a single individual, and may either have shared or private kitchen and bathroom facilities. SROs are rented on a monthly basis typically without rental deposit, and can provide an entry point into the housing market for extremely low-income individuals, formerly homeless, and disabled persons.

The City has adopted provisions in its Zoning Ordinance (Section 3.17.210) to accommodate and regulate establishment of SRO uses. SRO uses are allowed with a conditional use permit in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Commercial Mixed Use (CM) and Campus Village (CV) districts. The City requires the following for SROs:
 Submittal of a management plan outlining policies and procedures; as well as an annual report to the City  Resident manager available on a 24-hour basis for 16 or more units  Requirement for weekly or monthly tenancies
 Restricted occupancy to very low and low income households at affordable rents  Single occupancy rooms must be 175-220 square foot in size; double occupancy rooms must be 275-450 square foot in size and be not more than 10 % of all rooms in the development  All rooms shall include a kitchen, bathroom, and closet  Each SRO project shall have one monitored entrance, storage spaces, laundry facilities, and mailboxes for each room
These requirements provide flexibility in unit sizes and reflect common practice for SRO developments. The City’s conditional use permit requirement does not place an undue timing or financial hardship on development of SRO projects. While the City has not had any applications for SROs, several of the older, long-term stay motels on Lincoln Avenue present potential opportunities for conversion. The City’s SRO ordinance can facilitate the provision of housing affordable to extremely low and very low income households.

City of Cypress 43 Housing Constraints

3.1.3.11. EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTERS An emergency shelter is a facility that provides shelter to homeless families and/or homeless individuals on a limited short-term basis. According to the 2019 Point-in-Time Count for Orange County, there were 39 unsheltered people living in homelessness in Cypress. State law requires emergency shelters to be permitted by right in at least one zone where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year-round shelter. In 2009, the City amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow emergency shelters for the homeless as a permitted use in the Commercial Mixed Use (CM) District of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area. The CM District has a variety of commercial and residential uses, is a transportation corridor, and has potential sites for emergency shelters, particularly existing motels/hotels located along the corridor.

In addition to application of CM District development standards, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, the City can also specify written, objective standards to regulate the following aspects of emergency shelters to enhance compatibility:
 The maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility;  Off-street parking based on staffing levels only;
 The size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas;  The provision of onsite management;
 The proximity of other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart;
 The length of stay;
 Lighting; and
 Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

In reviewing the standards for emergency shelters within Section 3.17.240 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance, the City’s standards are not in compliance with State law. Specifically, AB 139 requires a City to permit by-right emergency shelter facilities with adequate capacity to serve the number of individuals identified in the most recent point-in-time homeless count. The City’s standards with regard to length of stay, distance/separation, and parking are also out of compliance with State law. The Housing Element includes a program to make amendments to the City’s emergency shelter standards to ensure they comply with all applicable state laws.

AB 101 requires cities to allow a Low Barrier Navigation Center development by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” is defined as “a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier shelters may include options such as allowing pets, permitting partners to share living space, and providing storage for residents’ possessions. AB 101 also sets a timeline for jurisdictions to act on applications for Low Barrier Navigation Center developments. The requirements of this bill are effective through the end of 2026, at which point they are repealed. The Housing Plan of this Housing Element includes a program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multi-family uses.

3.1.3.12. TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
California Health and Safety Code (Section 50675.2) defines "transitional housing" and "transitional housing development" as buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months. Residents of transitional housing are usually connected to supportive services designed to assist the homeless in achieving greater economic independence and a permanent, stable living situation. Transitional housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, City of Cypress 44 Housing Constraints
single-family homes, and multi-family apartments and typically offers case management and support services to help return people to independent living (often six months to two years).

California Government Code Sections 65582 defines supportive housing as housing with no limits on the length of stay that is occupied by a “target population” and links this population with the provision of housing and social services. “Target population” means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people (California Government Code Sections 65582(f) and (g)).

Cypress currently permits transitional and supportive housing as “Community Care Facilities”. With six or fewer persons, this use is permitted by right in all residential zones (excluding the MHP-20A zone). Transitional housing or supportive housing for more than six persons is conditionally permitted in the RM-15, RM-20, and all commercial zones.

Transitional and supportive housing is also permitted in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. In the CTCC Specific Plan, facilities with six or fewer persons are permitted by right in certain districts and larger facilities (seven or more persons) are conditionally permitted in certain districts (see Table 3- 6). State law requires transitional and supportive housing to be defined as a residential use and subject only to the same regulations as comparable residential uses. Therefore, a Zoning Ordinance amendment to define transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, rather than as community care facilities, has been included in the Housing Element Programs.

AB 2162 requires supportive housing projects of 50 units or fewer to be permitted by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, when the development meets certain conditions. The City may choose to allow larger supportive housing projects by right in these zones. The bill also prohibits minimum parking requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of a public transit stop. The Housing Plan of this Housing Element includes a program to amend the Zoning Ordinance to clarify where supportive housing developments are permitted by right, and that there are no minimum parking requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of public transit.

3.1.3.13. EMPLOYEE AND FARM EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5) requires that employee housing providing accommodations for size or fewer employees be deemed a residential use subject to the same standards as single family residences. While the Cypress Zoning Ordinance allows for employee housing with administrative site plan approval in its commercial zones, it does not permit employee housing in any of the residential zones. Therefore, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is included in the Programs of the Housing Element to allow for employee housing subject to the same standards as single family residences.

The Census indicates there are currently 24 Cypress residents employed in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.

The City has no parcels remaining in agricultural use. Therefore, given the absence of farmworkers in the community, the City has not identified a need for specialized farmworker housing beyond overall programs for housing affordability.

3.1.4. HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act impose an affirmative duty on local governments to make reasonable accommodations (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning and other land use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.

City of Cypress 45 Housing Constraints
The City has conducted a review of zoning and building code requirements and permitting procedures to identify potential constraints for housing for persons with disabilities. The City’s policies and regulations regarding housing for persons with disabilities are described below.

3.1.4.1. ZONING AND LAND USE
Restrictive land use policies and zoning provisions can constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities.

City of Cypress 46 Housing Constraints
Definition of Family
Local governments may restrict access to housing for households failing to qualify as a “family” by the definition specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, a restrictive definition of “family” that limits the number of and differentiates between related and unrelated individuals living together may illegally limit the development and siting of group homes for persons with disabilities but not for housing families that are similarly sized or situated.3 The City of Cypress Zoning Ordinance does not include a definition of “family”; therefore, there are no constraints related to differentiation between related and unrelated individuals occupying a dwelling unit.

Residential Care Facilities
Under the State Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (aka Lanterman Act), small licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons must be treated as regular residential uses and permitted by right in all residential districts. The City of Cypress permits small licensed residential care facilities in all residential zones and does not have additional development standards for these facilities and is therefore in compliance with the Lanterman Act.

As previously noted, the City indends to further analyze the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the requirements pertaining to large facilities do not constrain the development of such facilities. This analysis and any resulting Zoning Ordinance amendments have been included as a program in the Housing Element.

Parking Standards
Development in the City is required to meet parking standards for people with disabilities as required by state law, including requirements for the number and design of disabled parking spaces. The City provides flexibility in that the Zoning Ordinance allows for the City Council to approve parking waivers where applicants can demonstrate that adequate parking is provided on site.

Reasonable Accommodation
Development standards that may be acceptable in most cases may, under unique circumstances, constrain the development or improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. State and Federal law require jurisdictions to accommodate requests from persons with disabilities to waive specific requirements or standards of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that their homes are accessible. For example, a setback and encroachment standard may need to be relaxed in order to accommodate the construction of a ramp. Whether a particular modification is reasonable depends on the circumstances, and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Although the City has permitted reasonable accommodations to allow ramps to encroach up to four feet into the front yard setback to provide first floor wheelchair access, there are no formal reasonable accommodation provisions in the Cypress Zoning Code outlining the criteria for approval or formalizing a procedure for the processing of accommodation requests.

3.1.4.2. BUILDING CODES
The City enforces the California Building Code (CBC), particularly Chapters 11A (Housing Accessibility) and 11B (Accessibility to Public Buildings, Public Accommodations, Commercial Buildings and Publicly Funded Housing), which regulate the access and adaptability of buildings to accommodate persons with disabilities. Furthermore, Government Code Section 12955.1 requires that 10 percent of the total dwelling units in multi-family buildings without elevators consisting of three or more rental units or four or more condominium units are subject to the following building standards for persons with disabilities:
3 California court cases (City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 1980 and City of Chula Vista v. Pagard, 1981, etc.) have ruled an ordinance as invalid if it defines a “family” as: (a) an individual; (b) two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption; or (c) a group of not more than a specific number of unrelated persons as a single housekeeping unit. These cases have explained that defining a family in a manner that distinguishes between blood-related and non-blood related individuals does not serve any legitimate or useful objective or purpose recognized under the zoning and land use planning powers of a municipality, and therefore violates rights of privacy under the California Constitution.

City of Cypress 47 Housing Constraints
• The primary entry to the dwelling unit shall be on an accessible route unless exempted by site impracticality tests.
• The public and common areas shall be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. • All the doors designed to allow passage into and within all premises shall be sufficiently wide to allow passage by persons in wheelchairs.
• All premises within covered multifamily dwelling units shall contain the following features of adaptable design:
o An accessible route into and through the covered dwelling unit. o Light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and other environmental controls in accessible locations.
o Reinforcements in bathroom walls to allow later installation of grab bars around the toilet, tub, shower stall, and shower seat, where those facilities are provided. o Useable kitchens and bathrooms so that an individual in a wheelchair can maneuver about the space.

Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, CBC, and federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is assessed and enforced by the Building Division of the Community Development Department as a part of the building permit submittal. The City has not adopted any amendments to the CBC that might diminish the ability to accommodate persons with disabilities.

3.1.4.3. CONCLUSION
The City has not adopted unique restrictions that would constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. The City does not impose additional zoning, building code, or permitting procedures other than those allowed by State law. There are no City initiated constraints on housing for persons with disabilities caused or controlled by the City. However, while the City works with reasonable accommodation applicants, there are no formalized criteria or processing procedures within the Cypress Zoning Code. Therefore, to mitigate this constraint, the Housing Plan of this Housing Element includes a program to update the Zoning Code to include provisions for reasonable accommodations which are consistent with state and federal law.

3.1.5. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Developers of single-family residential tracts in the City are required to install arterial and local streets; sewer and water lines; storm drainage; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; street lighting; underground utilities; and landscaping in the public right-of-way within and adjacent to a tract. These facilities are in most cases dedicated to the City or other agencies which are responsible for maintenance. Without the site improvement requirement, there are no other means of providing necessary infrastructure. Requirements for site improvements are at a level necessary to meet the City's costs and are necessary to protect health, safety, and welfare.

The cost of these required off-site improvements vary with the sales price of each dwelling unit depending on the nature of development (i.e., level of improvements required). The City may also impose development impact fees on future housing developments in order to recover some of the cost of installing off-site improvements including upgrading the circulation system and other urban service systems to serve increased density. The developed portions of Cypress have the majority of necessary infrastructure, such as streets, electrical and water facilities, already in place. However, due to the age of the existing housing stock and the related infrastructure, many areas of the City where recycled and infill housing development is expected to occur may require infrastructure improvements to ensure sufficient capacity at build-out. The City’s discretionary permit process incorporates the applicable required improvements and/or impact fees (approved by City resolution), as conditions of approval, on a project-by-project basis.

The General Plan Circulation Element, along with the Subdivision Ordinance, establishes the City’s street width standards. Interior residential streets (local streets) are required to have a right-of-way width of 60 feet and a standard 40 foot curb-to-curb width, with two travel lanes and two parking lanes. Sidewalks are required to be at least four feet wide in residential areas and five feet wide in multi-family residential areas. Small lot subdivisions and planned City of Cypress 48 Housing Constraints
developments have allowed decreased widths for such improvements when the street is privately constructed and maintained.

3.1.6. DEVELOPMENT FEES
The City collects various fees from developers to cover the costs of processing permits, including fees for planning approvals, subdivision map act approvals, environmental review, public works and plan check services, and building permits, among others. In addition to these service fees associated with development processing, the City also charges several impact fees to offset the future impact of development on parks, traffic, and other infrastructure.

Table 3- 9 lists residential development fees in Cypress. The City Council approved an update to the City’s Master Fee Schedule in 2019, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. The Master Fee Schedule update was the result of a two-year process and included a comprehensive user fee study which provided recommendations on fees based on the City’s need to recover costs for City services. Prior to this update, the City’s fees had not been updated since 2008; therefore, the increases to planning/development and building fees were significant with almost a 60 percent increase for building fees. In response to feedback received from stakeholders during the City’s public outreach process, building fee increases were rolled out incrementally, with three 20 percent increases over an 18-month period. The extended roll-out period also served to avoid adverse impacts to projects already underway.

Table 3- 8 provides a comparison of the City’s planning fees with other cities in the region. As shown, fees for the Cities of Cypress, Westminster, Garden Grove, and Los Alamitos were generally within the same range. Buena Park was the outlier, with significantly lower fees than the other cities.

Table 3- 8: Comparison of Planning Fees1
Fee Type Cypress Westminster2 Buena Park Los Alamitos Garden Grove
Conditional Use Permit Major: $7,003
Minor: $3,579 $6,455 $1,600 Major: $2,547Minor: $1,273 $3,150 Variance $2,476 $4,240 SFR: $525
All other: $1,350 $926 $2,525
Zone Change $5,553 $8,720 $1,400 $2,500 $2,700
General Plan Amendment $2,826 $5,000 $1,400 $2,438 $2,925 Tentative Parcel Map $2,370 $6,160 $780 $1,457 $2,138
Tentative Tract Map $2,993 $7,915 $1,475 $1,665 $3,788
Sources: City of Cypress, 2020; City of Westminster, 2020; City of Buena Park, 2020; City of Los Alamitos, 2020; City of Garden Grove, 2020 Notes:

1. The fees listed above are generally base fees; if the cost of providing the service exceeds the base fee, the balance is collected from the applicant.

2. Westminster provides a reduction in fees when multiple entitlements are processed simultaneously.

City of Cypress 49 Housing Constraints
Table 3- 9: Residential Development Fees
Planning1
Conditional Use Permit
Minor
Major
$3,579
$7,003
Design Review Committee
Preliminary (SFR)
Preliminary (Minor)
Preliminary (All Others)
Minor
Major
$1,037
$832
$1,700
$1,371
$3,345
Development Agreement – Establish/Revise $3,907
Development Agreement - Annual Review $457
Minor Zoning Adjustment (Director’s Review) $498
Extension of Time $582
Environmental Evaluation
Exempt
Negative Declaration
Mitigated Negative Declaration
$198
$748
$1,455
Environmental Impact Report Review & Certification $11,245 General Plan Amendment/Revision $2,826
Specific Plan – Staff Review $3,812
Tentative Parcel Map $2,370
Tentative Tract Map $2,993
Variance $2,476
Zone Change $5,553
Engineering/Public Works Fees
Final Parcel/Tract Map Check $901
Impact Fees
School Impact Fee $3.935/square foot
Sewer Connection Fee $4,973/unit2
Park Development Fee $23,421/unit
Citywide Traffic Improvement Fee
$595/unit - Low Density;
$508/unit - Medium Density;
$358/unit - High Density;
$152/unit – Retirement Community;
$44/unit - Senior Housing (Attached)
Regional Traffic Improvement Fee
$52/unit - Low Density;
$44/unit - Medium Density;
$31/unit - High Density;
$13.46/unit – Retirement Community;
$3.85/unit - Senior Housing (Attached)
Sources: City of Cypress, 2020; Orange County Sanitation District, 2020; Notes:

1. Unless otherwise noted, all fees are the minimum fee for the service. The final fee is based on actual costs, which may exceed the minimum fee.

2. Base Charge is for a 3-bdrm Single Family Residence (SFR); fees for other SFR or Multi-family Residential are a percentage of the Base Charge depending on the size of the unit.

Table 3- 10 provides a summary of project fees for typical residential developments in Cypress. As shown, the fees per unit decrease significantly as the number of units in the project increases. For a 67-unit apartment project, the fees totaled $31,691 per unit. By contrast, the fees for a single family residence were $61,729.

City of Cypress 50 Housing Constraints
In general, these fees can be a constraint on housing development and compromise affordability because the additional cost borne by developers contributes to overall increased housing unit cost. However, the fees are necessary to maintain adequate planning services and other public services and facilities in the City. Additionally, as part of the City’s density bonus ordinance, the City may subsidize or waive a portion of the development fees for affordable housing projects to make development of affordable units more financially feasible.

Table 3- 10: Project Fees for Typical Residential Developments Fee Type 67-unit Apartment
Project1
Single Family
Residence2
3-unit Condominium
Project3
Entitlement Fees
Preliminary Project Review $1,700 $1,700 $1,700
Preliminary WQMP Review $1,038 N/A $500
Formal Design Review/CUP $3,345 N/A $5,303
Tentative Map N/A N/A $2,370
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)6 $1986 N/A $1986
Landscape Design Review & Inspection $593 N/A $593
Development Impact and Permit Fees
Building Plan Check (valuation based) $38,653 $3,141 $5,642 Grading Permit & Inspection $5,267 N/A $1,504
WQMP Plan Check $2,346 N/A $949
Drainage Fee $16,276 $2,941 $2,324
Sewer Connection Fee $171,599 $7,269 $9,001
Public Improvement Permit & Inspection $7,447 N/A $1,384 PW Plan Check Fee $1,742 N/A N/A
Subdivision Fee N/A N/A $790
Traffic Impact Fee4 (City) $04 $595 $929
Traffic Impact Fee4 (Regional) $04 $52 $80
Building Permit Fee (valuation based) $67,115 $5,870 $8,691 Park Development Fee7 $1,569,207 $23,421 $46,842
School Fees $234,893 $16,601 $20,379
Business Tax5 $1,890 $139 $364
Total $2,123,309 $61,729 $109,543
Total per Unit $31,691 $61,729 $36,514
Source: City of Cypress, Planning Division, 2021.

Notes:

1. Project assumptions: Site area: 1.87-acres; Unit size: 606-916 s.f./unit; Project Valuation: $7,270,743; Infill development on a lot previously containing commercial development.

2. Project assumptions: Site area: 0.37-acre site; Unit size: 4,865 s.f. SFR; Project valuation: $535,010.

3. Project assumptions: Site area: 0.23 acre site; Unit size: 1,641-1,710 s.f./units; Project valuation: $1,400,520.

4. Projects on sites that were previously developed receive credits toward this fee

5. Business Tax/fees apply to the developer’s/contractor’s business.

6. CEQA Categorical Exemptions, Class 32 – Infill Development were applied to discretionary permits

7. Projects developed on sites that previously contained residential units may receive credit for existing units on the site.

3.1.7. LOCAL PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
Development review and permit processing procedures are necessary steps to ensure that residential construction proceeds in an orderly manner. The following discussion outlines the level of review required for various permits and timelines associated with those reviews. The timelines provided are estimates; actual processing time may vary due to the volume of applications and the size and complexity of the projects.

The general steps for Cypress’ development process are outlined below:

1. Discuss the potential project with planning staff to determine allowable density and development standards.

2. Submit application for Preliminary Project Review.

City of Cypress 51 Housing Constraints

3. Submit formal application for Design Review Committee, Conditional Use Permit and/or Tentative Map, as applicable. May also include other submittals, such as General Plan or Zoning Ordinance Amendment.

4. Concurrent grading/drainage plan check by Engineering Division and building plan check by Building Division.

5. Final map approval and issuance of grading permit and building permit.

Table 3- 11 outlines the development review processing times and approval procedures for residential developments.

Residential projects in Cypress generally receive concurrent processing and discretionary permits are governed by one level of decision making: the City Council. This single reviewing body generally results in shorter review times for projects requiring discretionary approvals, in contrast to most communities which have two or more reviewing bodies.

In addition, the City maintains a policy for priority review of affordable housing applications.

Table 3- 11: Typical Permit Processing Timelines
Action/Request Processing Time Comments
Environmental Impact Report 7-9 months Processing and review time limits controlled through CEQA.

Adopted by decision making body.

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration 4-6 months Processing time can be extended if the project has a longer review and approval period. Adopted by decision-making body.

General Plan Amendment 10-12 months
Gov. Code Section 65358 limits the number of times any element of the General Plan can be amended each calendar year. Requires a public hearing for the City Council.

Zone Change 8-12 months Certain procedures and time limits established by Gov. Code Sections 65854-65857. Approved by the City Council.

Tentative Parcel Map 45-60 days Approved by the City Council.

Tentative Tract Map 6-8 months Approved by the City Council.

Minor Zoning Adjustment
(Director’s Review) 2-3 weeks Approved by the Community Development Director.

Design Review (Major/Minor) 3 weeks Approved by the Design Review Committee Variance 45-60 days Approved by the City Council.

Conditional Use Permits 45-60 days Approved by the City Council.

Sources: City of Cypress, Zoning Code, 2021; City of Cypress Planning Division, 2021.

3.1.7.1. PROCESSING PROCEDURES BY HOUSING TYPE
Single family residences are permitted by right in the RS-15000, RS-6000, RM-15, and RM-20 zones. Applications for single family residences in these zones are subject to review by the Design Review Committee (DRC) as described in the following section. However, even with DRC review, applications for single family residences are typically receive planning approval in one to two weeks. The typical turnaround time between submittal of plans to Building and Safety and permit issuance is six weeks.

Multi-family developments are permitted by right in the R30 and Residential Mixed Use Districts of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and all of the CTCC Districts except the Single Family Residential District. Additionally, developments of three units or less in the RM-15 and RM-20 are permitted by right. For multi-family developments that are permitted by right, project review typically takes approximately two weeks, including review by the DRC.

Multi-family developments of four or more units in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones require a conditional use permit (CUP).

A CUP is also required for multi-family development in the Commercial Mixed Use and Campus Village Districts of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. These projects would typically undergo review by the DRC and then are subject to discretionary approval by the City Council. The required findings for approval of a CUP are included below in Section

3.1.7.3. The typical processing time for a conditional use permit application is 45 to 60 days, including DRC review.

Once the CUP is approved and full plans are prepared, review of the plans by Building and Safety typically takes approximately eight weeks.

City of Cypress 52 Housing Constraints
It should be noted that the above timeframes are accurate for projects that are exempt from CEQA; however, projects which are subject to CEQA may take longer to process due to mandated analyses and public review times. Factors which increase the complexity of the project, such as tentative map review and/or proposed variances may also increase the processing time.

3.1.7.2. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Design Review Committee (DRC) is comprised of City staff representatives from each of the following divisions:

Planning, Building, Code Enforcement, Engineering, and Police. DRC review is generally required for all new construction of residential dwellings, regardless of number of units. As stated in the Zoning Ordinance, the Design Review Committee is responsible for reviewing relevant applications for conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, and, in particular, for conformance with the design standards and principles. However, in practice, the primary function of the Design Review Committee is to allow for a preliminary project review by all relevant departments early on in the review process. The process allows the project applicant to receive key feedback, particularly from Planning, Building, and Public Works that can then be incorporated into the initial design process rather than coming up as a correction or major issue later on. In an effort to streamline this process, the City has made efforts to reduce the DRC review processing time, which now typically takes just one week. Additionally, the feedback received during DRC review has the potential to save significant time and cost later on in the review process by addressing issues up front and improving project approval certainty.

3.1.7.3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Conditional use permits are required for some multi-family development, senior housing projects, mixed use projects, and large residential care facilities, dependent upon the underlying zone (see Table 3- 7). The processing time for a Conditional use permit (CUP) is typically 45 to 60 days, which includes DRC review and City Council review and approval.

The Zoning Ordinance establishes the same criteria for review and approval of all CUP applications, regardless of proposed use:

1. The proposed location of the conditional use is consistent with the requirements of the general plan and the zoning district in which the site is located;

2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare, nor would be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and

3. The proposed conditional use would comply with all applicable provisions of this zoning ordinance.

3.1.7.4. CONCLUSION
The City works closely with developers to approve residential projects in a timely manner to minimize any potential time constraints on development. For a typical project, the developer would meet with Planning Division staff to discuss the project and then would submit plans for a preliminary review. After completion of the preliminary review, revised plans would be submitted for review by the Design Review Committee. After DRC approval, plans are submitted to the Building Division for plan check and building permit issuance. Projects requiring a CUP are evaluated based on the criteria listed above and reviewed by the City Council prior to plans being submitted for plan check. Throughout construction, the Building Division performs inspections to monitor the progress of the project. This process is comparable to that of many cities in the region, and processing times are generally shorter than what is typical for the region because all discretionary permits are reviewed and approved by the same decision-making body (City Council).

However, to further streamline project review in Cypress, the City has included an Efficient Project Processing Program in the Housing Element, which includes the following objectives to streamline project processing:
• Establishment of a streamlined review process for qualifying projects pursuant to SB 35; City of Cypress 53 Housing Constraints
• Review of the City’s design standards for objectivity and Zoning Ordinance amendments to establish objective design standards; and,
• Removal of the CUP requirement for multifamily projects with four or more units in the RM-15 and RM-20 zones and establishment of a new site plan review process to evaluate projects for compliance with new objective design standards.

3.1.8. BUILDING CODE
As required of all jurisdictions in California, Cypress has adopted the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The CBC establishes construction standards necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare and all new constructions and renovations must conform to the standards of the CBC.

The City has adopted some local amendments to the CBC, primarily to protect against the inherent risks of the climatic and geologic conditions of the City (increased fire risk due to Santa Ana winds and potential for seismic activity). These amendments include stricter standards related to automatic fire-sprinkler systems and roofing materials.

Compliance with the CBC should not significantly add to the cost of construction since the Code is mandated to be enforced statewide and costs should be relatively uniform across the State of California. Any costs associated with Building Code standards are necessary to protect the health safety and welfare of the citizens. Compliance ensures that all new or renovated buildings are structurally sound, have proper exiting and are equipped with necessary fire protection features. In addition, the CBC mandates energy efficiency as well as provisions for access for persons with disabilities.

3.1.9. TRANSPARENCY ON DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
The City of Cypress strives to be transparent in its development review process by providing extensive information on its website. Application forms, regulatory documents, and fee schedules are all available to the public on the website, as shown in Additionally, the City’s preliminary review process has been instrumental in increasing transparency, by allowing staff to provide project-specific information on the required entitlements, fees, and potential issues up front.

Table 3- 12: Location of Development Information on Cypress City Website Development
Information Link
General Plan https://www.cypressca.org/government/departments/community-development/planningdivision/city-plans Zoning Ordinance http://qcode.us/codes/cypress/
Zoning Map https://www.cypressca.org/government/departments/community-development/zoning-map Specific Plans https://www.cypressca.org/government/departments/community-development/planningdivision/city-plans/specific-plans Forms and Applications https://www.cypressca.org/government/forms-documents-copy Planning Fee Schedule https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/10483/637606702555070000 Master Fee Schedule https://www.cypressca.org/home/showpublisheddocument/10462/637599632686270000

3.1.10. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
State and federal requirements may act as a barrier to the development or rehabilitation of housing, and affordable housing in particular. These include State prevailing wage requirements and environmental review requirements.

City of Cypress 54 Housing Constraints

3.1.10.1. STATE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS
Labor Code Section 1720, which applies prevailing wage rates to public works of over $1,000, defines public works to mean construction, alteration, installation, demolition, or repair work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. For example, public transfer of an asset for less than fair market value, such as a land writedown, would be construed to be paid for in part out of public funds and trigger prevailing wage requirements.

While the cost differential in prevailing and standard wages varies based on the skill level of the occupation, prevailing wages tend to add to the overall cost of development. In the case of affordable housing projects, prevailing wage requirements could effectively reduce the number of affordable units that can be achieved with public subsidies.

However, state law does allow a number of exceptions for single-family homes and for projects intended to support affordable housing, such as the construction or expansion of emergency shelters or construction of some types of affordable housing units.

3.1.10.2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
State and federal regulations require environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, conditional use permits, etc.). Costs resulting from the environmental review process, such as costs related to the preparation of environmental analyses, are also added to the cost of housing and are passed on to the consumer.

Environmental review can also impact the processing time for project review due to mandated public review periods.

However, the presence of these regulations helps preserve the environment and ensure environmental safety to Cypress residents. Furthermore, recent State laws have established exemptions from CEQA for infill and affordable housing projects. Due to the City’s built-out nature, the majority of proposed projects are exempt from environmental review as urban infill projects.

3.2. MARKET CONSTRAINTS

3.2.1. TIMING AND DENSITY
In some cases, market factors, such as the ability to secure construction financing, may impact project timing by delaying the request for building permits. In Cypress, the average time lapse between project approval and the request for building permit is six months.

Market factors, such as cost of land, and demand for a certain size or type of unit have the potential impact the density of a project. Due to high land costs and limited land availability in Cypress, projects are typically built at or near maximum density. Table 4- 6 in the Housing Resources section provides the density achieved on recent projects within the City. As shown, density bonuses for affordable housing have been a frequent tool utilized in recent years to maximize density, with several projects achieving densities over the maximum allowed base density. The average density achieved for all projects was 95% of maximum allowable density.

3.2.2. AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
The availability of financing in a community depends on a number of factors, including the type of lending institutions active in the community, lending practices, rates and fees charged, laws and regulations governing financial institutions, and equal access to those institutions.

Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HDMA), lending institutions are required to disclose information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. A total of 2,536 households applied for mortgage loans for homes in Cypress in 2017 (Table 3- 13). Overall, 67 percent of these applications were approved, 13 percent were denied, and 20 percent were either withdrawn or closed for incompleteness. Conventional financing involves market-rate loans provided by private lending institutions such as banks, mortgage companies, savings and loans, and thrift institutions. Of the 742 applications for conventional purchase loans, 77 percent were approved. The approval rate for government backed loans was slightly lower at 72 percent. Refinance applications had the lowest City of Cypress 55 Housing Constraints
approval rating, with 62 percent of applications being approved and 15 percent being denied. The denial rate was highest for home improvement loan applications at 17 percent.

Table 3- 13: Disposition of Home Purchase and Improvement Loan Applications (2017) Loan Type Total Applications Approved Denied Other
Government-Backed Purchase 109 72% 10% 18%
Conventional Purchase 742 77% 7% 15%
Refinance 1,455 62% 15% 23%
Home Improvement 230 64% 17% 19%
Total 2,536 67% 13% 20%
Note: “Other” includes files closed for incompleteness and applications withdrawn.

Source: www.lendingpatterns.com, 2017

3.2.3. FORECLOSURES
Foreclosure occurs when households fall behind on one or more scheduled mortgage payments. The foreclosure process can be halted if the homeowner is able to bring their mortgage payments current. If payments cannot be resumed or the debt cannot be resolved, the lender can legally use the foreclosure process to repossess (take over) the home. When this happens, the homeowners must move out of the property. If the home is worth less than the total amount owed on the mortgage loan, a deficiency judgment could be pursued. If that happens, the homeowner would lose their home and also would owe the home lender an additional amount.

Between 2000 and 2005, with low interest rates, “creative” financing (e.g., zero down, interest only, adjustable loans), and predatory lending practices (e.g., aggressive marketing, hidden fees, negative amortization), many households purchased homes that were beyond their financial means. Under the false assumptions that refinancing to lower interest rates would always be an option and home prices would continue to rise at double-digit rates, many households were unprepared for the hikes in interest rates, expiration of short-term fixed rates, and decline in sales prices that set off in 2006. Suddenly faced with significantly inflated mortgage payments, and “upside-down” mortgage loans (that are larger than the worth of the homes), many had to resort to foreclosing their homes.

However, since the Great Recession, foreclosure rates have come down significantly. As of December 2020, there were eight homes in Cypress at some stage of foreclosure. This included four homes in pre-foreclosure, three homes set to go to auction, and one bank owned home. The foreclosure rate was less than 0.01% for the City of Cypress as well as for Orange County as a whole.4

3.2.4. DEVELOPMENT COSTS

3.2.4.1. LAND AVAILABILITY AND COST
The availability and price of land represents a significant market constraint to housing production throughout most of Southern California. This constraint is particularly acute in communities, such as Cypress, where there is little to no residentially designated vacant land. In December 2020, based on a survey of online real estate listings, there was only one vacant property listed for sale within the City. The property, located on Ball Road, is not zoned for residential development. Another listed property was not vacant but marketed as an underutilized site with a small existing office building. It is located within the Downtown District of the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and could be suitable for mixed use development. The 23,500 square foot lot is listed for sale at $2.2 million, or approximately $4.1 million per acre.

Additionally, the City sold a 13-acre property in 2020 for approximately $14 million (or just under $1.1 million per acre),

4 Source: Realtytrac.com, accessed December 2020.

City of Cypress 56 Housing Constraints
that will be developed as a mixed use project. Due to limited land availability, most new residential development in Cypress will involve recycling properties with existing uses, which tends to add to the cost of land.

A density bonus is available to developers who provide affordable housing as part of their projects. Developers of affordable housing may also be granted regulatory concessions or development incentives. Density bonuses, together with the incentives and/or concessions, result in a lower average cost of land per dwelling unit thereby making the provision of affordable housing more feasible.

3.2.4.2. COST OF CONSTRUCTION (LABOR AND MATERIALS)
The cost of labor and building materials has a significant impact on the overall cost of new housing and can, therefore, be a constraint to affordable housing development. According to the National Association of Home Builders Construction Cost Survey, construction costs (including labor and materials) account for over 55 percent of the sales price of a new single family home. The Construction Cost Survey found that the average construction cost for a single family home was $237,760. It should be noted that the Construction Cost Survey is a national survey and may not be completely representative of Cypress or Orange County; however, it does illustrate that construction costs comprise a significant proportion of the ultimate sales price of residential development. While significant, construction costs are consistent throughout the region and therefore would not specifically constrain housing development in Cypress when compared to other cities in the region.

A reduction in amenities and the quality of building materials (above a minimum acceptability for health, safety, and adequate performance) can result in lower development costs. As part of the City’s density bonus and inclusionary housing programs, the City allows affordable units to be smaller in size (maintaining the same number of bedrooms), and could also consider allowing less costly features and interior finishes, provided all project units were comparable in construction quality and exterior design. Another factor related to construction costs is the number of units built at one time. As that number increases, overall costs generally decrease as builders are able to take advantage of the benefits of economies of scale.

3.3. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
The availability of public infrastructure and services for residential development is another potential constraint to the development of housing. The majority of Cypress is highly urbanized with most of the necessary infrastructure, streets, electrical lines, and water distribution already in place. This section provides an overview of potential utility service constraints in Cypress.

3.3.1. WATER
The City of Cypress is served by the West Orange County System of the Golden State Water Company (GSWC), a private water service provider. Water provided in the West Orange County System is a blend of groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin and imported water. Imported water is transported via the Colorado River Aqueduct and State Water Project and distributed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. GSWC purchases this imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County and also purchases a small amount of water from the City of Seal Beach. GSWC owns 17 wells in the Orange County Groundwater Basin which supply water to the System. Groundwater accounts for approximately 90 percent of the System’s water supply.

According to GSWC’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the West Orange County System, the company delivered 13,441 acre feet of water to the service area in 2015. The total service demand was expected to increase to 16,442 acre feet by 2020 and projected to increase to 17,010 acre feet by 2035. According to the UWMP, the System is expected to have the ability to supply 17,510 acre feet of water in 2035, exceeding the projected demands. Therefore, adequate water supply is available to accommodate the RHNA during the Housing Element planning period.

City of Cypress 57 Housing Constraints
Senate Bill 1087 (enacted in 2006) requires that water providers develop written policies that grant priority to proposed development that includes housing affordable to lower-income households. The legislation also prohibits water providers from denying or conditioning the approval of development that includes housing affordable to lower income households, unless specific written findings are made. The City will provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to the Golden State Water Company within 30 days of adoption. The City will continue to coordinate with the GSWC to ensure priority service provision to affordable housing developments.

3.3.2. WASTERWATER
Wastewater in the City of Cypress is collected, treated, and disposed of by the Orange County Sanitation District. The District serves a 479 square mile area in central and northwest Orange County, including Cypress, and operates two treatment plants. According to the District’s 2020 Sewer System Management Plan, “OC San’s CIP assures that older facilities are upgraded as needed to ensure adequate capacity through the system…OC San works under annual and long-range plans that have proven effective, and OC San is not currently experiencing capacity related problems.

Indications of possible capacity problems seen by the Collections Facilities O&M Division are brought to the attention of the Engineering Department for further evaluation.” Therefore, there are no constraints on the availability of wastewater disposal or treatment.

Senate Bill 1087 also mandates priority sewage collection and treatment service to housing developments providing units affordable to lower-income households. The City will provide a copy of the adopted Housing Element to the Orange County Sanitation District within 30 days of adoption. The City will continue to coordinate with the District to ensure priority service provision to affordable housing developments.

3.3.3. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
In 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M, the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance, which provides funding to Orange County for needed transportation improvements over a 20-year period through the imposition of a one-half cent retail transaction and use tax. In 2006, voters extended the tax through 2041.

Cities such as Cypress can qualify for Measure M funds if they comply with the Countywide Growth Management Program component requirements and have an established policy framework for that Program. As part of the Program, Cypress implemented a development mitigation program establishing the following fees: 1) Citywide Traffic Fee related to needs in the General Plan circulation system, 2) Regional Traffic Fee providing proportionate share funding of impacts to the regional roadway system, and 3) the Los Alamitos Settlement Agreement Traffic Fee to offset impacts of development around the race track. The City has established a Capital Improvement Program for the transportation systems improvements to effectively manage the system based on the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) timetables. This is an on-going, consistently updated program in Cypress. While the fees may present a constraint to housing development, they are necessary to facilitate the ongoing maintenance of the City’s and County’s transportation infrastructure.

3.4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
A wide range of environmental factors may constrain the development of new housing in Cypress. Areas of special environmental significance, potential safety hazards, and development constraints will influence land use policy. The General Plan Safety Element identifies areas of Cypress subject to a number of environmental constraints, including flooding, seismic hazards, hazardous and toxic materials, urban fires, aircraft overflights from the Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center, and noise. The Cypress General Plan recognizes these hazards and identifies programs to minimize them.

3.4.1. FLOODING
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes maps that identify areas of the City subject to flooding in the event of a major storm. These Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) indicate areas that may be inundated in the City of Cypress 58 Housing Constraints
event of a 100-year or a 500-year storm. In addition, the maps indicate the base flood elevations at selected intervals of the floodway. The flood map contained in the Cypress Safety Element indicates the 100-year flood event would be contained within the Carbon Creek and Bolsa Chica storm drain channels. However, like most of Orange County, the projected 500-year flood may result in widespread flooding throughout the entire City.

Additional flood hazards include the potential for inundation from failure of the Prado, Carbon Canyon, and Whittier Narrows dams, all of which are located a significant distance from the City. The Prado Dam is located in Riverside County, the Carbon Canyon dam is located in Brea, and the Whittier Narrows Dam is located in Pico Rivera. The Prado Dam currently works in tandem with the Seven Oaks Dam, located approximately 40 miles upstream of the City on the Santa Ana River, to provide increased flood protection to Orange County. In addition, work is proceeding on the Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, involving improvement to the Prado Dam, Seven Oaks Dam, Mill Creek Levee, San Timoteo Creek, Oak Street Drain, Santiago Creek, and the lower Santa Ana River. This project is projected for completion in 2013, subject to continued funding. This project is supported by the City of Cypress and provides additional flood protection to the area.

Flood hazards in Cypress are less than significant. Areas designated for future residential development do not fall within the 100-year floodplain and are not subject to specialized flood construction requirements.

3.4.2. SEISMIC HAZARDS
As stated in the Safety Element, the entire planning area – as well as all of Southern California – is located within a seismically active region that has been subject to major earthquakes in the past. There are no known faults in Cypress.

However, the Whittier-Elsinore, Newport-Inglewood, Norwalk, El Modena, and Elysian Park faults are located within close proximity to Cypress. The closest faults — El Modena and Norwalk — traverses approximately five to 10 miles north of Cypress. The San Andreas and San Jacinto faults are located much more distant. San Jacinto crosses the region approximately 40 miles south of Cypress. Although farther away, these faults have the potential to deliver larger magnitude earthquakes than the other five faults mentioned above. Other major faults may be buried under alluvium, or fault traces may have been obliterated due to natural weathering. Two of the most destructive earthquakes that occurred in California in recent years, the Coalinga and Whittier earthquakes, originated from previously unknown faults. The City of Cypress suffered no significant structural damage from these earthquakes.

Liquefaction is a subsidiary hazard associated with intense ground shaking, in which the soil can destabilize and if sufficient water is present in the soil, the soil and water can mix. The Safety Element states: “Cypress, like most of Orange County, has granular sandy soil with high water content. Areas with these conditions may experience liquefaction during extreme ground shaking.”

3.4.3. URBAN FIRES
Materials and wind speeds can contribute to the spread of urban fires. According to the Cypress Disaster Plan, the community does not contain any large housing tracts with wood or shake roofs. However, a few apartment complexes in Cypress do have wood roofs and are at a greater fire risk. The City is subject to periodic high winds, including the hot, dry Santa Ana winds which can quicken the spread of fire. The separation and setback requirements in effect when most houses in Cypress were built help minimize the risk of spreading fire. In addition, the building code local amendments require fire sprinklers for new residential construction and fire retardant wood shingle and wood shake roofs.

3.4.4. AIRCRAFT OVERFLIGHTS
The Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) is located southwest of Cypress in the City of Los Alamitos.

The AFRC is primarily used for helicopter training missions. A portion of Cypress lies in the prevailing approach path of the Army airfield located at AFRC. This portion of Cypress is primarily composed of business parks, but some City of Cypress 59 Housing Constraints
residential areas south of Cerritos Avenue are within the High or Moderate Noise Impact Zone and the Approach Clearance Zone. Specific land use regulations consistent with the Federal Aviation Administration rules are in effect.

3.4.5. NOISE
Noise generated from mobile sources such as traffic and aircraft will continue to have the greatest potential impact on land use. The Noise Element describes the existing noise environment using maps that indicate high levels of noise in the planning area. The Noise Element also identifies noise sources and contains goals and policies that will be useful in reducing the effects of noise, if not the actual intensity of noise. Land use policy discourages the placement of noise-sensitive land uses in areas that are subject to high noise levels. The City requires new housing developments to provide an acoustic analysis and provide necessary mitigation, such as barriers or additional sound insulation, for projects located within the 65 CNEL noise contour zones, as identified in the Safety Element.

City of Cypress 60 Housing Constraints
This page intentionally left blank.

City of Cypress 61 Housing Resources

4. HOUSING RESOURCES
This section describes and analyzes resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in the City of Cypress. This includes an evaluation of the adequacy of the City’s land resources to accommodate the City’s RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period, financial resources available to support the provision of affordable housing, administrative resources available to assist in implementing the City’s housing programs, and resources for energy conservation.

4.1. LAND RESOURCES
Based on the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) determination of the SCAG region’s “fair share” of the statewide forecasted growth through October 15, 2029, SCAG has allocated the projected housing need to each jurisdiction by income category. The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units each community is required to plan for by providing “adequate sites” through the general plan and zoning. An important component of the Housing Element is the identification of adequate sites for future housing development, and evaluation of the adequacy of these sites in fulfilling the City’s share of regional housing needs (RHNA). For the 2021- 2029 planning period, the City of Cypress was allocated a total of 3,936 units. Further, the City must plan for units affordable to all income levels as shown in Table 4- 1.

Table 4- 1: Cypress Regional Housing Needs Allocation (2021-2029) Income Level Percent of AMI1 Units Percent of Total RHNA Very Low2 0-50% 1,150 29%
Low 51-80% 657 17%
Moderate 81-120% 623 16%
Above Moderate 120%+ 1,506 38%
TOTAL 3,936 100%
Source: SCAG, 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, March 2021.

Notes:

1. AMI = Area Median Income

2. An estimated half of Cypress’ very low income housing needs (575 units) are for extremely low income households earning less than 30% AMI, pursuant to AB 2634.

4.1.1. CREDITS TOWARDS THE RHNA
The RHNA utilizes June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections; therefore, jurisdictions may count the number of new units issued building permits or certificates of occupancy since June 30, 2021 toward their RHNA. This section describes credits towards the RHNA related to new construction as well as potential ADU development.

Table 4- 2 provides a summary of the City’s RHNA credits and the remaining housing need through the end of the 6th Cycle planning period. With the City’s entitled projects and projected ADU development, Cypress must accommodate a total remaining need of 3,432 units.

City of Cypress 62 Housing Resources
Table 4- 2: RHNA Credits and Remaining Need
Income Category RHNA Entitled ADU Potential Remaining Need Extremely Low/Very Low 1,150 - 5 1,145
Low 657 - 8 649
Moderate 623 50 6 567
Above Moderate 1,506 434 1 1,071
TOTAL 3,936 484 20 3,432

4.1.1.1. ADU POTENTIAL
State laws passed in recent years have greatly incentivized the development of ADUs by mandating that jurisdictions relax development standards and permitting procedures. For the period of 2013 through 2017, just one ADU was developed in Cypress. However, ADU development has increased in light of new state requirements, with a total of five ADUs constructed in 2018, one in 2019, and two in 2020. Based on ADU development since 2018, the City conservatively anticipates an average of 2.5 ADUs developed per year, for a total of 20 ADUs developed over the 2021-2029 planning period.

In order to assist local jurisdictions with the ADU projections, SCAG conducted a regional accessory dwelling unit affordability analysis to develop affordability assumptions that can be used to assign ADUs to income categories at the local level. The analysis examines current market rents for reasonably comparable rental properties using online platforms (i.e. Zillow) and key words to identify units that appear to be ADUs. The analysis utilizes data collected from a survey of rents for 150 ADUs between April and June 2020. Based on the results of SCAG’s analysis, the affordability assumptions for Orange County, along with the corresponding unit count for Cypress are included in Table 4- 3.

Table 4- 3: ADU Affordability Assumptions
Income Category Affordability Assumptions
for Orange County
Cypress Projected ADU
Developments
Extremely Low 15% 3 units
Very Low 10% 2 units
Low 43% 8 units
Moderate 30% 6 units
Above Moderate 2% 1 unit
Total 20 units
Source: SCAG, Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2021.

4.1.1.2. ACTIVE ENTITLEMENTS
Three projects totaling 484 units have been entitled that qualify to be counted towards Cypress’ RHNA. The Cypress City Center project is a mixed-use development which includes 251 market rate apartments. The Cypress Town Center Project located within the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 contains 135 condominium units.

Lastly, the Citrus Square Senior Community was approved in October 2021 with a total of 98 senior condominium units, including 50 units affordable to moderate income senior households.

City of Cypress 63 Housing Resources

4.1.2. RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY
Pursuant to State Housing Element Law, a jurisdiction must demonstrate that there are suitable vacant and/or nonvacant sites within the community to accommodate the remaining RHNA identified in Table 4- 2. Additionally, the jurisdiction must show that the identified sites are suitable for residential development, including appropriate zoning and development standards. In order to accommodate the remaining RHNA for each income category, the City of Cypress has identified some sites for rezoning to higher density. The rezoning program is included in the Housing Program strategy in the Housing Element. Appendix A provides detailed data on each parcel included in the sites inventory.

4.1.2.1. ALTERNATIVE 1: LINCOLN AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AND CYPRESS TOWN CENTER AND COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN 2.0
The primary alternative divides the RHNA between the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan area and the yet-to-be redeveloped Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (CTCC) area. A brief description of Alternative 1 is provided below and summarized in Table 4- 4. Detailed parcel data is provided in Table A- 1 in Appendix A.

Table 4- 4: Alternative 1 Sites Summary
Affordability Level
and Zoning
Density
(du/ac) Site Count Area (acres)
Average
Parcel Size
(acres)
Unit
Capacity
Lower Income
LASP1 30 41 55.3 1.4 1,226
CTCC2 45-50 2 14.6 N/A 553
PBP3 60 1 7.2 7.2 321
Lower Income Subtotal 44 77.1 - 2,100
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
LASP1 30 72 19.8 0.3 417
CTCC2 8-15 6 109.9 N/A 1,238
Moderate/Above Moderate Income Subtotal 78 129.7 - 1,655 Total 122 206.8 - 3,755
Notes:

1. LASP = Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan

2. CTCC = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0

3. PBP = Planned Business Park
Located on the Los Alamitos Race Course site, the CTCC currently allows the development of residential units throughout seven districts which range in density from 8 du/ac to approximately 17 du/ac. As currently approved, the CTCC utilizes maximum density requirements in various districts as well as a maximum unit cap of 1,250 units in the specific plan area.5 Under Alternative 1, approximately 7.6 acres within the Single Family Detached District would be

5 While the unit cap within the CTCC is 1,250 units, the City has approved the 135-unit Cypress Town Center project which has been included as an entitled project. Therefore, there are 1,115 remaining units that may be permitted within the CTCC as currently adopted.

City of Cypress 64 Housing Resources
rezoned to create a new High Density Residential District, allowing a density of 45 du/ac to accommodate an estimated 273 units. Additionally, the allowable density within the Town Center District would be increased to 50 du/ac to accommodate an estimated 280 new units. Due to the allowable density, these areas would be suitable for the development of housing affordable to lower income households. The allowable densities within the remaining Districts of the CTCC would remain unchanged, except that the unit cap would be removed to allow development within these Districts up to the existing maximum allowable density regardless of the number of units already developed within the CTCC area. With these proposed changes, an estimated 1,926 units could be accommodated within the CTCC area.

Under Alternative 1, the remaining RHNA sites would be accommodated within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. The Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan currently allows for residential development at 30 du/ac within the RM-30 and Residential Mixed Use districts. Alternative 1 proposes to expand the maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac to the majority of the Specific Plan area. With these amendments, the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan can accommodate approximately 1,643 units (1,226 lower income units and 417 moderate/above moderate income units).

Changes to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan as well as opportunity site #115 would be implemented through the City’s typical public hearing process. However, as noted above, the City would be required to hold an election to implement changes to the CTCC. This process would involve the City Council taking a vote in Fall 2022 to place the proposed amendments on the ballot, conducting an impartial voter education plan in Winter 2022 through Spring 2023, and holding an election in Spring 2023. Therefore, the following Alternative 2 is presented as a potential back-up option to Alternative 1 should voter approval of the CTCC amendments fail.

4.1.2.2. ALTERNATIVE 2: LINCOLN AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN MIXED DENSITY Under Alternative 2, the CTCC would remain unchanged and would be able to accommodate a total of 1,115 units affordable to moderate and above moderate income households.

City of Cypress 65 Housing Resources

Table 4- 5: Alternative 2 Sites Summary
Affordability Level
and Zoning
Density
(du/ac) Site Count Area
(acres)
Average
Parcel Size
(acres)
Unit Capacity
Lower Income
LASP 30 14 24.5 1.8 546
LASP 50 18 21.6 1.2 802
LASP 60 12 10.8 0.9 490
PBP 60 1 7.2 7.2 321
Lower Income Subtotal 45 64.0 1.5 2,159
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
LASP 30 38 9.1 0.2 190
LASP 50 24 6.5 0.3 234
LASP 60 7 2.7 0.4 117
RM-20 20 1 2.1 2.1 30
CTCC 8-17.2 7 124.5 N/A 1,115
Moderate/Above Moderate Income Subtotal 77 144.8 - 1,686 Total 122 208.8 - 3,845
Notes:

1. LASP = Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan

2. CTCC = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0

3. PBP = Planned Business Park
Opportunity site #115 located on Katella Ave. in the PBP zone would also be included in Alternative 2 as described under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 also includes an opportunity site located on the southeast corner of Orange Ave. and Grindlay St. (Opportunity site #139, RM-20 zone). This 2.06-acre site currently includes an older office building and would be rezoned to RM-20 to accommodate 30 moderate/above moderate income units. Table 4- 5 provides a summary of Alternative 2.

If the City proceeds with Alternative 2, amendments to the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance would be undertaken through the normal public hearing process. Detailed parcel data for each opportunity site identified for Alternative 2 is provided in Table A- 2 in Appendix A.

City of Cypress 66 Housing Resources
Figure 4- 1: Alternative 1 Opportunity Sites
City of Cypress 67 Housing Resources
Figure 4- 2: Alternative 2 Opportunity Sites
City of Cypress 68 Housing Resources

4.1.2.3. REALISTIC CAPACITY ASSUMPTIONS
In order to establish a realistic assumption for the capacity of the identified opportunity sites, past projects were utilized to provide context. Table 4- 6 provides the percent capacity achieved based on the maximum density allowed by the zoning code and the approved density for multi-family projects approved over the 2014-2021 planning period. As shown in the Table, projects in Cypress are typically approved at or near the maximum density allowed by the Zoning Ordinance (or Specific Plan), with an average capacity of 95 percent.

Table 4- 6: Density and Capacity Achieved on Past Projects Project/Address
Zoning
Designation/Specific
Plan
Number
of Units
Max. Allowable
Density (du/ac)
Approved
Density
(du/ac)
Percent
Capacity
Achieved
Residential Projects in Zones/Districts where 100% Nonresidential Uses are Allowed Cypress Town Center (W of
Vessels Cir.) PC/CTCC – TC2 135 17.2 19.33 100%3
4620 Lincoln Avenue4 PC/LASP - RM 67 30 36.8 123%
9191 Bloomfield St.4 PC/LASP - CM 19 20 21.0 105%
9071-9091 Walker St.4 PC/LASP - CM 19 20 23.4 117%
Other Projects
Cypress City Center (5155
Katella) PBP/CBPC1 251 19 18.9 100%6
4552 Lincoln Avenue4 PC/LASP5 - R30 67 30 37.9 126%
4604 Lincoln Avenue PC/LASP - R30 57 30 21.3 71%
City Ventures townhomes
(5300-5400 Orange Ave.) OP/CC 52 20 14.17 71%
Flora Park/Ovation (Katella
Ave. & Enterprise Dr.) PBP/CBPC 244 20 8.75 44%
Average Capacity Achieved 95%
Source: City of Cypress, Planning Division.

Notes:

1. CBPC = Cypress Business and Professional Center Specific Plan

2. CTCC – TC = Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 (Town Center District)

3. The maximum allowable density for the CTCC – TC District is calculated by taking the unit cap (250 units) divided by the District area. There is no explicit maximum density regulation other than the unit cap; therefore, this project is listed as built at 100% of allowable density, the calculation of approved density divided by max. allowable density is actually greater than 100%.

4. Density bonus approved.

5. LASP = Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan. Districts are: R30 = Residential; RM = Residential Mixed Use; CM = Commercial Mixed Use

6. The CBPC has a density cap that applies over the entire specific plan area (19 du/ac) but not a max. allowable density that applies on an individual project basis. The density of new projects in the CBPC would be considered in relation to other existing/approved projects within the specific plan area and the density cap.

It should also be noted that development trends in Cypress have strongly favored residential development over commercial development in recent years. While there has been no major commercial redevelopment on the Lincoln Avenue corridor, three exclusively residential projects (4620 Lincoln Ave., 9191 Bloomfield St., and 9071-9091 Walker St.) were all approved in districts of the LASP where 100 percent nonresidential uses would have been permitted.

Similarly, the Cypress Town Center project was proposed and approved with 100 percent residential uses even though the District allows for exclusively commercial or mixed use development. Based on these recent projects and current discussions with developers about the City’s sites inventory, the City expects this trend to continue.

In order to provide conservative estimates within the sites inventory, a realistic capacity assumption of 75% has been utilized for all sites other than those within the CTCC Specific Plan area. For example, for sites within the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan designated at 30 du/ac, the unit capacity has been calculated at 22.5 du/ac.

Due to the significantly larger site area with fewer existing improvements of the CTCC Specific Plan area, realistic capacity has been calculated at 85% for the areas with proposed increases in density in Alternative 1 (Opportunity Sites 142 and 144). As these Districts are both over 7 acres in area, and given that the sole project within the CTCC City of Cypress 69 Housing Resources
area was approved at 100 percent capacity, this is a conservative assumption. Areas of the CTCC where no change in density is proposed were calculated at 100 percent capacity. Again, due to the large site areas and existing use of the site, development of the site at 100 percent capacity in these Districts is highly realistic.

4.1.2.4. AFFORDABILITY, SUITABILITY, AND AVAILABILITY ASSUMPTIONS Certain assumptions were utilized to determine the suitability and availability of opportunity sites for development within the 2021-2029 planning period as well as the affordability level of potential development.

Pursuant to CA Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), jurisdictions may utilize a “default” numerical density to establish adequate zoning to accommodate lower income housing. For jurisdictions within metropolitan counties, including the City of Cypress, the default density for lower income housing is 30 du/ac. Therefore, all sites identified for lower income housing within both alternatives of the sites inventory have a minimum of 30 du/ac. Additionally, all sites identified for lower income housing are a minimum of one half acre in size.

Based on the analysis included in the Housing Needs Assessment of this Report, moderate income households can afford a range of rental housing within Cypress and as well as purchase of smaller sized condominiums. Sites with densities of 15 du/ac and above were considered feasible for moderate income development. For the sites inventory, moderate and above moderate sites were lumped together because the majority of these sites would be appropriate for either income level. In Alternative 1, over 60 percent of the moderate and above moderate income units are on sites with a density of 15 du/ac or greater. In Alternative 2, over 70 percent of the units designated for moderate and above moderate income households are on sites with a density of 15 du/ac or greater.

4.1.2.5. SUITABILITY OF NONVACANT SITES
Due to the built out nature of Cypress, vacant sites cannot accommodate the City’s RHNA and the sites inventory relies on underutilized properties to demonstrate sufficient capacity.

Feasibility for Development
After high level analysis and consideration of public input, the City focused on two opportunity areas for the sites inventory: the Lincoln Avenue corridor and the Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 area.

The Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan 2.0 was identified for a number of reasons. The CTCC area encompasses the existing Los Alamitos Race Course site and the entire CTCC area is owned by a single entity. The approval of the CTCC was initiated by the property owner; therefore indicating a desire to see the site redeveloped primarily with residential uses in the near term. The City has had several conversations with the property owner regarding potential changes to the CTCC to accommodate higher densities and received overall positive feedback.

While changes to the CTCC require voter approval, due to the large size of the area, the City feels that it represents the greatest likelihood for meaningful production of housing. Even without voter approval of increased densities (Alternative 2), the CTCC area will accommodate 1,115 new units.

The Lincoln Avenue corridor, regulated by the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan, has been a primary focus of the City’s redevelopment efforts and several residential projects were constructed along the corridor during the last planning period. The sites inventory builds upon this momentum by expanding residential uses and increasing densities throughout the Specific Plan area. Lincoln Avenue is also the City’s busiest transit corridor and future residential development would benefit from convenient access to transit. Additionally, the western half of the corridor is a high resource area according to the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps, and would, therefore, be competitive for affordable housing funding.

Several factors were used to determine whether a site is currently underutilized and feasible for redevelopment, including the existing use, the age of the structure, floor area ratio, and improvement ratio (improvement value to land value). Thresholds were established based on characteristics of recently redeveloped sites and the difference between existing conditions and development potential.

City of Cypress 70 Housing Resources
Table 4- 7 provides site characteristics for projects developed during the 2014-2021 planning period. Project area ranges from 0.81 acres to 2.66 acres for recently constructed residential projects, as shown in the Table. The average site area for opportunity sites within the LASP is in line with this range (1.4 acres in Alternative 1 and 1.3 acres in Alternative 2). Additionally, the average age of the existing structures on site prior to redevelopment was 38 years for recent projects. Overall, the opportunity sites identified in the sites inventory have structures that are even older, further increasing their likelihood for redevelopment. Approximately 55 percent of sites identified have structures that are currently at least 50 years old and nearly 70 percent of the sites contains structures that will be at least 50 years old by the end of the planning period. No sites contain structures that are younger than 30 years.

Properties redeveloped over the past planning period had FARs ranging from 0.03 to 0.4 prior to redevelopment. The average floor area ratio for identified opportunity sites is low at 0.2. Although the current FAR requirement within the LASP is 0.5, this standard will be increased to accommodate higher densities as part of the rezone program, further encouraging redevelopment of sites with low FARs.

Table 4- 7: Characteristics of Past Projects in the Lincoln Avenue Specific Plan Project/Address Zoning/
Specific Plan
Designation
Project
Size
(acres)
Property Characteristics Prior to Redevelopment
Use Age of
Structures
FAR1 ILV2
4620 Lincoln Avenue
67 units PC/LASP - RM 1.87 Auto Repair & Towing
34 yrs.
(1983-2017)

0.03 0.02
9191 Bloomfield St.
19 units PC/LASP - CM 0.90 Medical & Professional Office 50 yrs.
(1965-2015)

0.2 N/A3
9071-9091 Walker St.
19 units PC/LASP - CM 0.81 Retail commercial & warehouse storage 28 yrs.
(1988-2016)

0.2 0.8
4552 Lincoln Avenue
67 units PC/LASP - R30 1.80 Office & warehouse/church
36 yrs.
(1979-2015)

0.4 2.9
4604 Lincoln Avenue
57 units PC/LASP - R30 2.66 Auto repair, truck rental, & RV storage 41 yrs.
(1973-2014)

0.3 0.07
Average 1.61 38 yrs. 0.2 0.95
Source: City of Cypress, Community Development Department Notes:

1. FAR = floor area ratio

2. ILV = improvement value to land value ratio

3. N/A = Data not available
An improvement ratio of less than 1.0 means that the land is worth more than the structures on the site, indicating a greater likelihood that the site will be redeveloped. The average improvement ratio of sites redeveloped over the last planning period was 0.95. About 70 percent of the identified sites have an improvement ratio of less than 1.0. However, some sites with large structures such as older shopping centers, office buildings, motels, and warehouses may have a higher improvement ratio. In these cases, the high improvement values may serve as financial liability to property owners if the uses are not generating adequate revenues but are still subject to high property taxes. These sites are also included due to other factors. One example is 4552 Lincoln Avenue (see Table 4- 7). Although there were high value structures on the site, it was redeveloped based on other factors.

The existing uses of identified opportunity sites are also similar to the sites that have been redeveloped. The majority of the identified opportunity sites fall into one of the following categories:

1. Vacant sites, parking lots, lots used for nurseries or auto/RV storage and have minimal improvements. The presence of no or minimal structures on these sites make them prime candidates for redevelopment.

2. Auto related uses: auto/truck repair; gas stations; and towing. With the increase in electric vehicle usage and the state mandated phase-out of new gas-powered vehicles in the coming years, these uses are becoming less viable. Additionally, Cypress has seen a trend of these types of uses being redeveloped.

City of Cypress 71 Housing Resources

3. Contractor’s yards and warehouses/equipment storage. These types of uses have been recycled in the past in Cypress. Additionally, they are nonconforming uses in the majority of the LASP. Generally, they do not represent the highest and best use due to few/low value site improvements; particularly when compared to the development potential after the rezoning occurs.

4. Strip malls and other small scale commercial buildings. Small, older commercial buildings were redeveloped within the LASP over the last planning period. Due to building age and other factors, these structures tend to need significant structural and aesthetic updates to ensure their long term economic viability.

In summary, the following factors were utilized to select feasible sites for the sites inventory:

1. Vacant sites, parking lots, or lots that are utilized for auto storage or nurseries that have minimum improvements.

2. Nonvacant sites with at least three of the following factors:
a. Property owner or developer interest.
b. Vacant buildings.
c. Property is located near and similar to properties that have been recently developed. This shows synergy of redevelopment activities, developer interest, and market demand in the neighborhood. d. Existing uses are similar to types of uses being recycled in Cypress. e. Building age is at least 30 years old, indicating a high likelihood the building requires significant improvements to update the systems and difficult to meet ADA requirements without substantial rehabilitation. f. Existing floor area ratio (FAR) less than 0.40, similar to previously redeveloped sites. g. Improvement value to land value ratio of less than 1.0, indicating the land is worth more than the structures on the site.

Details for each parcel identified are included in Appendix A, along with which factors were utilized to determine their feasibility. Figure 4- 3 depicts typical existing conditions of sites identified as underutilized in the sites inventory.

4.1.3. AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC

SERVICES
Incorporated in 1956, Cypress is a generally younger suburban community with the necessary infrastructure in place to support future development. The City annexed one area in 1971 and two additional areas in the 1980s. In the older areas, generally along Lincoln Avenue and in the annexed areas, the infrastructure may need to be updated to accommodate higher intensity uses. These improvements will be included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department and the City Council.

Government Code Section 65589.7 requires local governments to provide a copy of the adopted housing element to water and sewer providers. In addition water and sewer providers are required to grant priority for service allocations to proposed developments that include units affordable to lower-income households. Pursuant to these statutes, upon adoption of its Housing Element, Cypress will immediately deliver the Element to local water and sewer providers, along with a summary of its regional housing needs allocation.

4.1.4. RISK OF DISPLACEMENT
Nearly all of the sites identified in the sites inventory are nonvacant, underutilized properties. However, with the focus on commercial corridors, there are just five identified sites that contain existing housing units. None of the identified sites contain existing multi-family residential uses. The five sites listed in Table 4- 8 each contain one single-family residence. All of these residences are older than 50 years, with all but one older than 70 years. Therefore, the overall risk of displacement due to the City’s sites inventory is low.

However, AB 1397 imposes unit replacement requirements when new housing developments propose the demolition of “protected units” on a site identified in the sites inventory. Protected units include units subject to affordability City of Cypress 72 Housing Resources
restrictions or other price control, but also include units that have been occupied by low or very low income households within the last five years. While none of the units listed in Table 4- 8 have any known affordability restrictions, it is possible that the units have been occupied by low or very low income households. Therefore, a program has been included in the Housing Element to comply with the anti-displacement requirements of AB 1397.

Table 4- 8: Opportunity Sites with Existing Housing Units Opportunity Site Address
41 5332 Lincoln Avenue
112 5661 Lincoln Avenue
124 9032 Denni Street
125 9052 Denni Street
137 9119 Bloomfield
City of Cypress 73 Housing Resources
Figure 4- 3: Typical Existing Conditions of Underutilized Sites City of Cypress 74 Housing Resources

4.1.5. ADEQUACY OF SITES TO ACCOMMODATE RHNA
A summary of the sites inventory showing the City’s ability to accommodate the total RHNA of 3,936 is provided in Table 4- 9.

Table 4- 9: Adequacy of Sites to Accommodate RHNA
Income Level RHNA Credits Remaining
RHNA
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Sites Inventory
Capacity Surplus Sites Inventory Capacity Surplus
Very Low 1,150 5 1,145 2,100 306 2,159 365 Low 657 8 649 Moderate 623 56 567 1,655 17 1,686 48 Above Moderate 1,506 435 1,071 Total 3,936 504 3,432 3,755 323 3,845 413

4.2. FINANCIAL RESOURCES
A variety of potential funding sources are available to finance housing activities in Cypress. Due to both the high cost of developing and preserving housing, and limitations on both the amount and uses of funds, layering of funding sources may be required for affordable housing programs and projects. Table 4- 10 lists the potential funding sources that are available for housing activities. They are divided into five categories: federal, State, county, local, and private resources.

Table 4- 10: Financial Resources Available for Housing Activities Program Name Description Eligible Activities

1. Federal Programs and Funding Sources
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG)
The City applies to Orange County annually for
CDBG grant funds. Historically, Cypress has
received approximately $100,000 each year.

However, the County anticipates a decrease in
CDBG funds and Cypress anticipates a reduction
to $75,000. The City uses CDBG funds for the ongoing HELP II single-family rehabilitation program.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer Assistance
Economic Development
Homeless Assistance
Public Services
Home Investment Partnership
(HOME)
Cypress does not receive HOME funds directly
from the Federal government. However, Cypress
can apply for HOME funds through the State of
California’s annual NOFA. Affordable rental
housing projects in Cypress can apply for HOME
funds through the County of Orange annual notice
of funding availability (NOFA). HOME funds are
used to assist low income (80% AMI) households.

New Construction
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homebuyer Assistance
Rental Assistance
Housing Choice Vouchers
(formerly Section 8)
Rental assistance payments to owners of private
market rate units on behalf of low-income (50%
MFI) tenants. Administered by the Orange County
Housing Authority.

Rental Assistance
City of Cypress 75 Housing Resources
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Choice Neighborhoods Grants
Funds to address distressed neighborhoods and
public and assisted projects to transform them into
viable and sustainable mixed-income
neighborhoods by linking housing improvements
with appropriate services, schools, public assets,
transportation, and access to jobs. Planning grants
and implementation grants are available.

New Construction
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Economic Development
Public Services
Section 202 Housing for Seniors
HUD provides capital advances to finance the
construction, rehabilitation or acquisition with or
without rehabilitation of structures that will serve as supportive housing for very low-income elderly
persons, including the frail elderly, and provides
rent subsidies for the projects to help make them
affordable.

Acquisition
Rehabilitation
New Construction
Supportive Housing Program
Provides funding to develop supportive housing
and services that will allow homeless persons to
live as independently as possible. Grants under
the Supportive Housing Program are awarded
through a national competition held annually.

Homeless Assistance
Public Services
Shelter Plus Care
Provides rental assistance for hard-to-serve
homeless persons with disabilities in connection
with supportive services funded from sources
outside the program.

2. State Programs
SB 2 Planning Grants
Formula-based grant funds to assist cities with
policies/procedures that will accelerate housing
production and streamline housing project
approval.

General Plan/Zoning Code updates;
Environmental analyses that eliminate
need for project specific review;
Local process improvements that
streamline planning/permitting
Low-income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC)
Tax credits are available to persons and
corporations that invest in low-income rental
housing. Proceeds from the sale are typically used
to create housing. Tax credits are available
between 4% and 9%.

New Construction
Building Equity and Growth in
Neighborhoods (BEGIN)
Grants to cities to provide down payment
assistance (up to $30,000) to low and moderate
income first-time homebuyers of new homes in
projects with affordability enhanced by local
regulatory incentives or barrier reductions. One
funding round annually.

Homebuyer Assistance
CalHome
Grants to cities and non-profit developers to offer
homebuyer assistance, including down payment
assistance, rehabilitation, acquisition/rehabilitation, and homebuyer counseling. Loans to developers
for property acquisition, site development,
predevelopment and construction period expenses
for homeownership projects. One funding round
annually.

Predevelopment
Site development
Site acquisition
Rehabilitation
Acquisition/Rehab
Down payment assistance
Mortgage financing
Homebuyer counseling
City of Cypress 76 Housing Resources
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Transit-Oriented Development
Housing Program
Under the program, low-interest loans are available
as gap financing for rental housing developments
that include affordable units, and as mortgage
assistance for homeownership developments. In
addition, grants are available to cities, counties,
and transit agencies for infrastructure
improvements necessary for the development of
specified housing developments, or to facilitate
connections between these developments and the
transit station.

Homebuyer Assistance
Predevelopment
Site development
Infrastructure
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
Funding of public infrastructure (water, sewer,
traffic, parks, site clean-up, etc) to facilitate infill housing development. One funding round annually.

Construction/rehabilitation/preservatio
n, etc. of infrastructure necessary or
integral to the development of a
qualifying infill project.

CalHFA FHA Loan Program
Low-interest, short-term loans to local
governments for affordable infill, owner-occupied
housing developments. Links with CalHFA’s Down
Payment Assistance Program to provide
subordinate loans to first-time buyers. Two funding
rounds per year.

Site acquisition
Pre-development costs
CalHFA Homebuyer’s Down
payment Assistance Program
CalHFA makes below market loans to first-time
homebuyers of up to 3% of sales price. Program
operates through participating lenders who
originate loans for CalHFA. Funds available upon
request to qualified borrowers.

Homebuyer Assistance
CalHFA Mental Health Services
Act Funds
Jointly administered by the California Department
of Mental Health and the California Housing
Finance Agency on behalf of counties, the
Program offers permanent financing and
capitalized operating subsidies for the
development of permanent supportive housing,
including both rental and shared housing, to serve
persons with serious mental illness and their
families who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness. MHSA Housing Program funds will
be allocated for the development, acquisition,
construction, and/or rehabilitation of permanent
supportive housing.

New Construction
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Homeless Assistance
Public Services
Rental Assistance New
CalHFA New Issue Bond
Program (NIBP)
Provides affordable housing bond funding to
CalHFA and other housing finance agencies. This
funding allows developers to secure a source of
affordable financing in the marketplace which
otherwise could not be obtained.

New Construction
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Golden State Acquisition Fund
(GSAF)
Affordable Housing Innovation Program (AHIP):
provides loans for developers through a nonprofit
fund manager to provide quick acquisition
financing for the development or preservation of
affordable housing.

New Construction
Acquisition
Rehabilitation
Preservation
Emergency Housing and
Assistance Program Operating
Facility Grants (EHAP)
Provides operating facility grants for emergency
shelters, transitional housing projects, and
supportive services for homeless individuals and
families.

Homeless Assistance
Public Services
City of Cypress 77 Housing Resources
Program Name Description Eligible Activities
Emergency Housing and
Assistance Program Capital
Development (EHAPCD)
Funds capital development activities for
emergency shelters, transitional housing, and safe
havens that provide shelter and supportive
services for homeless individuals and families.

Homeless Assistance
Public Services
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program
(IIG)
Provides grants for infrastructure construction and
rehabilitation to support higher-density affordable
and mixed-income housing in infill locations.

Predevelopment
Site development
Infrastructure
Multifamily Housing Program
Provides funding for new construction,
rehabilitation, or acquisition and rehabilitation of
permanent or transitional rental housing, and the
conversion of nonresidential structures to rental
housing. Projects are not eligible if construction
has commenced as of the application date, or if
they are receiving 9% federal low income housing
tax credits. Eligible costs include the cost of child
care, after-school care and social service facilities
integrally linked to the assisted housing units; real
property acquisition; refinancing to retain
affordable rents; necessary onsite and offsite
improvements; reasonable fees and consulting
costs; and capitalized reserves.

Acquisition
Rental Assistance
Public Services
Site development
Infrastructure
Development Fees
Predevelopment Loan Program
(PDLP)
Provides predevelopment capital to finance the
start of low income housing projects. Predevelopment

3. County Programs
Mortgage Assistance Program
(MAP)
The County of Orange provides mortgage loans to
first time homebuyers. The Affordable Housing
Clearinghouse provides the homebuyer services
for the County.

Homebuyer Assistance
Mortgage Credit Certificate
(MCC)
The County of Orange offers the MCC program in
partnership with Affordable Housing Applications.

The MCC is a Federal Income Tax Credit program,
effectively reducing the applicant’s taxes and
increasing their net earnings. Program currently
on hold.

Homebuyer Assistance
Income Tax Credit

4. Local Programs
Tax Exempt Housing Revenue
Bond
The City can support low-income housing by
holding the required TEFRA hearing prior to
enabling the issuance of housing mortgage
revenue bonds. The bonds require the developer
to lease a fixed percentage of the units to lowincome families at specified rental rates.

New Construction
Rehabilitation
Acquisition

4.3. ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES
Described below are non-profit agencies that are currently active and have completed projects in Orange County.

These agencies serve as resources in meeting the housing needs of the City, and are integral in implementing activities for acquisition/rehabilitation, preservation of assisted housing, and development of affordable housing.

City of Cypress 78 Housing Resources

4.3.1. ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY (OCHA)
OCHA administers federally funded housing programs on behalf of Orange County. The largest program administered by the OCHA is the Housing Choice Voucher Program. However, the OCHA also administers homeownership programs, Emergency Housing Vouchers, Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing, and Family Self Sufficiency programs, among others. Qualifying Cypress residents may participate in these various programs administered through the OCHA.

4.3.2. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
Habitat is a non-profit, Christian organization that builds and repairs homes for sale to very low-income families with the help of volunteers and homeowner/partner families. Habitat homes are sold to partner families at no profit with affordable, no interest loans. The local affiliate, Habitat for Humanity Orange County, has been active in Cypress, having built a total of 22 homes within the last two planning periods.

4.3.3. JAMBOREE HOUSING CORPORATION (JHC)
JHC is a non-profit developer that has developed and implemented numerous affordable housing projects throughout Southern California and the State. Jamboree has also established an in-house social services division to assist residents in maintaining self-sufficiency. “Housing with a HEART” (Helping Educate, Activate and Respond Together) now operates at most Jamboree-owned properties. Jamboree worked with the City of Cypress to develop a Neighborhood Improvement Plan for the Lemon-Lime neighborhood.

4.3.4. MERCY HOUSING CALIFORNIA
Mercy Housing has offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento. Mercy Housing serves more than 10,000 people at about 100 properties. Residents range from families to people with special needs to seniors.

4.3.5. NATIONAL CORE
National CORE is a large affordable housing development and management company with properties in California, Texas, and Florida for a total of over 10,000 affordable units for families and seniors. National CORE has communities throughout Southern California, including six communities within Orange County. In addition to acquisition, project development, and property management, National CORE provides social services such as wellness programs, childcare programs, and family financial training.

4.4. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION
As cities construct more housing to meet growing population demands, the consumption rate of energy becomes a significant issue. The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation, lighting, water, heating and space heating and cooling. The high cost of energy demands that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban consumption. Interest in addressing these impacts at all levels of government has been growing. In 2004, the State of California adopted legislation requiring LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification for new and renovated public buildings and in 2010 the State released an updated Green Building Code focusing on green building techniques. The City of Cypress has adopted the 2019 California Building Code which has built on the energy efficiency standards of the initial Green Building Code.

In addition to the sustainable practices required by the California Building Code, there are many opportunities for conserving energy in new and existing residential units. Typically, construction of energy efficient buildings does not lower the price of housing however, housing with energy conservation features should result in reduced monthly occupancy costs as consumption of fuel and energy is decreased. Similarly, retrofitting existing structures with energy conserving features can result in a reduction in utility costs. Examples of energy conservation opportunities include weatherization programs and home energy audits; installation of insulation; installation or retrofitting of more efficient City of Cypress 79 Housing Resources
appliances, and mechanical or solar energy systems; and building design and orientation which incorporates energy conservation considerations. The City enforces all provisions of Title 24 of the California Building Code, which provides for energy conservation features in new residential construction.

Both the public and private sectors currently offer grants, refunds, and other funding for green building. In addition, developments built to green standards assist both the owners and tenants with energy and maintenance costs over time. The following presents a variety of ways in which Cypress can promote energy conservation:
 Advertise utility rebate programs and energy audits available through Edison and Southern California Gas, particularly connected to housing rehabilitation programs. Lower-income households are also eligible for State sponsored energy and weatherization programs.
 Provide incentives, such as expedited plan check, for private developments that are building green.  Support the elimination of contamination in older buildings (lead-based paint, asbestos, etc.) during rehabilitation and code inspections.
 Allow higher densities and mixed-use development within walking distance of commercial, thereby reducing vehicular trips and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
 Promote funding opportunities for private green buildings, including available rebates and funding available through the California Energy Commission for installation of solar panels.  Provide resource materials and training opportunities regarding green building and energy conservation.  Apply green building criteria to rehabilitation of single and multi-family buildings.

4.4.1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON PROGRAMS
Southern California Edison (SCE) offers a variety of programs to assist households with energy conservation. These include:
• Rebate programs for energy efficient devices (i.e. appliances, thermostats, electric cars) • Participation in the Residential Energy Efficiency Loan (REEL) Program: Provides financing options for energy efficiency upgrades to single-family homes and multi-family properties up to four units. • Outreach materials and guides to assist households with increasing efficiency and lowering their bill. • Participation in California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and the Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs, which offer lower income customers a discount of 18% or more off their monthly electric bill. • Energy Assistance Fund: Assists income qualified customers with their electric bill once in a 12 month period. • Energy Savings Assistance Program: Provides funds to cover costs of new efficient appliances for eligible households.
• Participation in Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a federal program that assists lower income households that pay a high portion of their income to meet their energy needs. • Affordable Multifamily Financing Program: Offers financing options to upgrade affordable housing properties to be more energy efficient.
• Solar on Multifamily Affordable Housing Program: Provides incentives for installation of solar on affordable housing properties.

4.4.2. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY PROGRAMS
The Southern California Gas Company offers several energy efficiency programs and programs to assist lower income households with energy bills. These include:
• Rebate programs for efficient appliances.
• Residential Direct Install Program: Installation of energy saving improvements and devices for qualified households living in single or multi-family dwellings.

City of Cypress 80 Housing Resources
• Participation in the Residential Energy Efficiency Loan (REEL) Program: Provides financing options for energy efficiency upgrades to single-family homes and multi-family properties up to four units. • Participation in California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE), which offers lower income customers a discount of 20 percent off their monthly electric bill.
• Manufactured Home Program: Provides energy conservation evaluations and installations of energy and water saving devices and improvements for qualifying manufactured home customers. • Energy Savings Assistance Program: Provides energy saving home improvements to qualified lower income households.
• Participation in Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a federal program that assists lower income households that pay a high portion of their income to meet their energy needs. • One-Time Bill Assistance: Provides grants of up to $100 in one-time assistance to pay a gas bill • Medical Baseline Allowance: Households with a seriously disabled member, or person with life-threatening illness, may qualify for additional gas at a reduced rate schedule.

City of Cypress 1 Housing Resources
City of Cypress A- 1 Appendix A
APPENDIX A – SITES INVENTORY
The following factors were utilized to select feasible sites for the sites inventory:

1. Vacant sites, parking lots, or lots that are utilized for auto storage or nurseries that have minimum improvements.

2. Nonvacant sites with at least three of the following factors:
a. Property owner or developer interest.
b. Vacant buildings.
c. Property is located near and similar to properties that have been recently developed. This shows synergy of redevelopment activities, developer interest, and market demand in the neighborhood.
d. Existing uses are similar to types of uses being recycled in Cypress. e. Building age is at least 30 years old, indicating a high likelihood the building requires significant improvements to update the systems and difficult to meet ADA requirements without substantial rehabilitation.
f. Existing floor area ratio (FAR) less than 0.40, similar to previously redeveloped sites. g. Improvement value to land value ratio of less than 1.0, indicating the land is worth more than the structures on the site.

Table A- 1: Alternative 1 Sites Inventory
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
Lower Income Sites
6 13402105
6262 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.12 25 Nonvacant 2.c,e,f Underutilized site with existing motel built in 1947; FAR is 0.3; Close to Cypress College. 7 13402117
6326 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.1 24 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing strip mall built in 1979; FAR is 0.3; Close to Cypress College; Potential to consolidate Sites 7-8 for a total site area of 1.7 acres.
8 13402121
6300 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.59 13 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site with existing strip mall; FAR is 0.4; Close to Cypress College. Potential to consolidate Sites 7-8 for a total site area of 1.7 acres.
17 24407109
5200 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 2.36 53 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with existing church and school facility built in 1936; FAR is 0.2; one of the larger parcels on the Lincoln Ave. corridor; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD opportunity map)
61 24447206
5682 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.58 13 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1963; FAR is

0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
62 24447207
5692 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.63 14 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by light manufacturing/RV storage; FAR is 0.3; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for City of Cypress - 2 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
63 24447208
5702 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.7 15 Nonvacant 1; 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by RV storage business;
structure built in 1946; FAR is less than 0.1; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres.

Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
64 24447209
5732 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.09 24 Nonvacant 1 City-owned site occupied by a small nursery/farm; no
structures on site; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership
65 24447212
5640 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.55 12 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto repair business; FAR is

0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
68 26235713
5031 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.88 19 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto repair business;
structure built in 1951; FAR is 0.2; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
69 26235714
5051 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.8 18 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by auto repair business;
structure built in 1948; FAR is 0.3; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
70 26235715
5081 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.58 35 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a self-storage facility built in 1973; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 70-72 for a total site area of 3.12 acres
71 26236143
5131 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.77 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair business; structure built in 1959; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 70-72 for a total site area of 3.12 acres
72 26236144
5171 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.77 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall built in 1962; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 70-72 for a total site area of 3.12 acres
74 26241201
8851 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.67 15 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by light manufacturing uses; FAR is 0.4; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 74-75 for a total site area of 1.12 acres
City of Cypress - 3 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
83 26241214
5271 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.92 20 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a church built in 1941; FAR is

0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19 acres
84 26241218
5311 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.56 12 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1940; FAR is

0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19 acres
85 26241219
5312 Cypress St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.56 12 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an office building built in 1956; FAR is 0.2; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19 acres
86 26241220
5241 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.98 44 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by commercial/light industrial building; FAR is 0.4; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19 acres
87 26241223
5305 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.68 15 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a medical office building; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19 acres
92 26242307
8940 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.5 11 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by light industrial uses; structure built in 1979; FAR is 0.4; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 90-95 for a total site area of 1.59 acres
96 26242401
8882 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.82 18 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a self-storage facility built; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map)
101 26242407
8941 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.71 15 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; structure built in 1965; FAR is 0.3; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
107 26247232
5601 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.4 31 Nonvacant 2.a,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1978; FAR is

0.3; owner has expressed interested in selling/redeveloping the property; potential to consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5 acres
City of Cypress - 4 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
111 26247236
5651 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.83 18 Nonvacant 2.a,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1929; FAR is

0.2; owner has expressed interested in selling/redeveloping the property
114 26247241
5721 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.66 37 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site improved with a strip mall; FAR is 0.4 115 24109138
4955 Katella Ave. PBP PBP PBP / 60 7.15 321 Nonvacant 2.b,c,f,g Underutilized site improved with a commercial center; FAR is 0.3; one half of the large big box building on the site is currently vacant (formerly an office supply store); adjacent to new residential projects currently under development. 117/118
24405105,
24405106
4942 Lincoln Ave.

PC LASP LASP / 30 0.79 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f
Sites 117-118 being considered together because they are occupied by the same building/use and have the same
owner; Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair
business; structure built in 1929; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 117-121 for total site area of 2.36 acres.

Sites 117-118 are under the same ownership and Sites 119- 120 are under the same ownership.
121 24405109
4872 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.79 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; structure built in 1929; FAR is 0.2; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate
Sites 117-121 for total site area of 2.36 acres. Sites 117-118 are under the same ownership and Sites 119-120 are under the same ownership.
122 24405129
4750 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 2.34 52 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall built in 1978; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map)
123 24435107
4502 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.52 11 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall built in 1976; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 123-125 for a total site area of 1.03 acres.
127 24436104
4656 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 9.53 214 Nonvacant 1; 2.f,g Underutilized site identified in the 5th cycle sites inventory; one of largest sites within the Lincoln Ave. corridor and adjacent to other residential uses; existing use is light manufacturing; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Due to the shape, size, and configuration of the site, only the back portion of the site (9.53 ac.) has been identified for redevelopment. This
portion of the site is on a separate lease from the
manufacturing use and is currently utilized for RV storage.

City of Cypress - 5 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
128 24436124
4674 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 2.39 53 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall; FAR is 0.4; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map)
129/130
24456103,
24456104
4470-4480 Lincoln
Ave.

PC LASP LASP / 30 3.86 86 Nonvacant 2.a,d,e,f,g
Sites 129-130 being considered together because they are occupied by the commercial center and have the same
owner; owner has shown an interest in selling/redeveloping the properties; structure built in 1978; FAR is 0.3;
improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 129-131 for total site area of 4.98 acres.
131 24456303
4346 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.12 25 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with a strip mall built in 1973; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 129-131 for total site area of 4.98 acres.
132 26234163
4943 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 2.18 49 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site with a strip mall; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 132-134 for total site area of 3.67 acres. 133 26234164
4991 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.96 21 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a restaurant building built in 1978; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 132-134 for total site area of 3.67 acres.
134 26234165
4901 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.53 11 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a drive thru restaurant built in 1978; improvement value to land value ratio is approximately 0.5; FAR is 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 132-134 for total site area of 3.67 acres.
135 26247302
8972 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.7 15 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site with a strip mall built in 1928; improvement value to land value is less than 0.25 137/138
24434102,
24434109
9119 Bloomfield
PC LASP LASP / 30 4.84 108 Nonvacant 1; 2.e,f,g
Sites 137-138 being considered together because they are occupied by the same uses and have the same owner; the
property contains one single family house and is also used as a nursery; the house was built in 1963; FAR is 0.2;
located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); Total site area of the two parcels is 4.84 acres. 142 CTCC High
Density CTCC
CTCC – SF
Detached Area
B/ 8
CTCC – HDR /
45 7.6 273 Nonvacant 1; 2.a,c,f
Proposed new High Density Residential District in the CTCC on the Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC) property. In
addition to the Race Course area, a large portion of the City of Cypress - 6 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
Residential
District
LARC property contains ancillary uses such as stables and parking lots. The CTCC was initiated by the LARC owners to envision redevelopment leading up to and upon closure of the LARC. Creation of the HDR District would require voter approval.
144 CTCC Town
Center District CTCC CTCC – Town
Center / 17.2
CTCC – Town
Center / 50 7 280 Nonvacant 1; 2.a,c,f
Proposed upzoning of the Town Center District in the CTCC on the Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC) property. In
addition to the Race Course area, a large portion of the LARC property contains ancillary uses such as stables and parking lots. The CTCC was initiated by the LARC owners to envision redevelopment leading up to and upon closure of the LARC. Upzoning of the TC District would require voter approval.

Lower Income Sites Subtotal 77.1 2,100
Moderate/Above Moderate Income Sites
3 13401154
6056 Lincoln Ave. PC
PC – Lincoln
Ave. Specific
Plan (LASP)
LASP / 30 0.52 11 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f
Underutilized site with existing strip mall built in 1984; FAR is 0.2; Close to Cypress College. Potential to consolidate Sites 3-4 for a total site area of 0.79 acres.
4 13401155
6046 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.27 6 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site with small retail building built in 1961; FAR is 0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is less than

0.5; Close to Cypress College. Potential to consolidate Sites 3-4 for a total site area of 0.79 acres.
14 24405135
4992 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.48 10 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site with existing gas station; FAR is 0.3; located in high resource area (TCAC/HCD opportunity map). 15 24407101
5012 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.4 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,g Underutilized site with existing gas station built in 1962; Improvement value to land value ratio lower than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 15-16 & 18 for total site area of 2.07 acres.
16 24407105
5032 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.38 31 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing auto repair center; FAR is

0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 15-16 & 18 for total site area of 2.07 acres.
18 24407111
5022 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.29 6 Nonvacant 2.a,f,g Underutilized site with existing car wash; Improvement value to land value ratio of less than 0.2; FAR is 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Owner
has expressed interested in selling property; Potential to consolidate Sites 15-16 & 18 for total site area of 2.07 acres.

City of Cypress - 7 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
33 24446101
5242 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing office building built in 1941; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership. 34 24446102
5252 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing office building; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership.
35 24446103
5262 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing retail building built in 1942; FAR is 0.4; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership. 36/37/38
24446104,
24446105,
24446106
5272-5302 Lincoln
Ave.

PC LASP LASP / 30 0.56 12 Nonvacant 2.a,b,d,e,
f,g
Sites 36-38 being considered together because they are
under the same ownership; Underutilized site formerly
occupied by an equipment rental business; currently vacant and owner has expressed interest in selling the property; improvement value to land value is less than 0.25; structure on property built in 1924; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate
Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the
same ownership.
39 24446107
5312 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building built in 1926; Improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership. 40 24446108
5322 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building built in 1914; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate
Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the
same ownership.
41 24446109
5332 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a single family residence built in 1923; Improvement value to land value ratio is 0.1; FAR is

0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
City of Cypress - 8 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership. 42 24446110
5342 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small retail building
(currently window tinting business) built in 1952;
Improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership. 43 24446111
5352 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.13 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an office building (currently dental office) built in 1923; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67 acres.

Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership.
44 24446201
5361 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.18 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a retail building (currently liquor store) built in 1968; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the
same ownership.
45 24446202
5376 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair shop; structure built in 1964; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; FAR is 0.4; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate
Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the
same ownership.
46 24446203
5388 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair shop; structure built in 1984; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate
Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the
same ownership.
47 24446204
5396 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building built in 1962; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 44-50 for City of Cypress - 9 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the same ownership. 48 24446205
5406 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building built in 1923; improvement value to land value ratio less than 0.25; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the same ownership. 49/50
24446206,
24446207
5422 Lincoln Ave.

PC LASP LASP / 30 0.17 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f
Sites 49-50 being considered together because they are
occupied by the same building/use and have the same
owner; Underutilized site occupied by an animal hospital built in 1968; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate
Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the
same ownership.
51 24446211
9051 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.18 4 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a preschool; structure built in 1938; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate
Sites 51-52 for total site area of 0.73 acres.
52 24446212
5417 Bishop St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.55 12 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a preschool; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 51-52 for total site area of 0.73 acres.
53 24446220
5490 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.5 11 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map)
54 24447102
5552 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a retail store built in 1964; FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
55 24447103 PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Vacant 1 Vacant site; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
56 24447106
5500 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.19 4 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a drive thru restaurant built in 1968; FAR is 0.1; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
57 24447119
5530 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.22 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a retail store; structure built in 1968; FAR is 0.4; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
58 24447125
9052 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.36 8 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair business; structure built in 1973; FAR is 0.3.

City of Cypress - 10 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
59 24447126
5592 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.42 9 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair business; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
60 24447205
5662 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.46 10 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1961; FAR is

0.4; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
66 26235711
89880 Moody St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.22 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair business; structure built in 1973; FAR is 0.2; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 66-67 for total site area of 0.5 acres. 67 26235712
5011 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.28 6 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by drive thru restaurant built in 1964; FAR is 0.2; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 66-67 for total site area of 0.5 acres.
75 26241202
8865 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.45 10 Nonvacant 1; 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by truck/trailer storage; structure built in 1959; FAR is 0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 74-75 for a total site area of 1.12 acres
76 26241205
8891 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.45 10 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with an office building built in 1920; FAR is

0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
77 26241206
8811 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.24 5 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; structure built in 1946; FAR is 0.3; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
78 26241207
8921 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.24 5 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; structure built in 1941; FAR is 0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
City of Cypress - 11 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
79 26241208
8931 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.41 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with an office building built in 1947; FAR is

0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
80 26241209
5351 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.25 5 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto tire shop; structure built in 1945; FAR is 0.4; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
81 26241210
5331 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.32 7 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site with an office building built in 1955; FAR is

0.2; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
82 26241212
5300 Cypress PC LASP LASP / 30 0.49 11 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with light manufacturing building;
improvement value to land value ratio is approximately 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19 acres
88 26242201 PC LASP LASP / 30 0.15 3 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g
Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structures on the site; owned by the Orange County Local Transportation Authority; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 88-89 for a total site area of 0.29 acres
89 26242202
5421 Philo Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structures on the site; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 88-89 for a total site area of 0.29 acres
91 26242306
5431 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.19 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair business; structures built in 1966; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 90-95 for a total site area of 1.59 acres 93 26242308
5471 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.4 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto-related retail; FAR is

0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 90-95 for a total site area of 1.59 acres
94 26242309
8951 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.31 6 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto repair shop; FAR is 0.2;located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity City of Cypress - 12 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 90-95 for a total site area of 1.59 acres
90/95 26242310
8931 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.19 4 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard in
conjunction with Site 90; improvement value to land value ratio less than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 90-95 for a total site area of 1.59 acres
97 26242402
8891 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.17 3 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; FAR is

0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
98 26242403
8892 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.17 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,g Underutilized site improved with an office building built in 1950; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
99 26242404
8902 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.17 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; structure built in 1934; FAR is 0.3; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
100 26242406
8912 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.33 7 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structure on site; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
102 26242408
8932 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.33 7 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structure on site; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
103 26242409
5371 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.44 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site improved with a strip mall built in 1963; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 103-105 for a total site area of 0.9 acres
104 26242410
5381 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.26 5 Nonvacant 2.b,d,e,f,g Underutilized site with a vacant retail building built in 1970; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD City of Cypress - 13 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 103-105 for a total site area of 0.9 acres
105 26242411
5391 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.2 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,g Underutilized site with a commercial building utilized for an animal hospital and built in 1965; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate
Sites 103-105 for a total site area of 0.9 acres
106 26242413
8921 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.17 3 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; FAR is

0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
108 26247233
5591 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.47 10 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small restaurant building built in 1968; FAR is 0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; potential to consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5 acres
109 26247234
5631 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.41 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a dental office; structure built in 1941; FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5 acres
110 26247235
5641 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.23 5 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a dental office; structure built in 1971; FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5 acres
112 26247237
5661 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.36 8 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a single family residence built in 1948; FAR is 0.2; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; potential to consolidate Sites 112-113 for a total site area of 0.82 acres.
113 26247238
5671 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.46 10 Nonvacant 2.a,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1949; FAR is

0.3; potential to consolidate Sites 112-113 for a total site area of 0.82 acres.
119/120
24405107,
24405108
4902 Lincoln Ave.

PC LASP LASP / 30 0.78 16 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g
Sites 119-120 being considered together because they are occupied by the same building/use and have the same
owner; Underutilized site occupied by a used car dealership; structure built in 1931; FAR is 0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 117-121 for total site area of 2.36 acres. Sites 117-118 are under the same ownership and Sites 119-120 are under the same ownership.

City of Cypress - 14 Appendix A
Map ID
# APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot
Size
(Acres)
Capacity Status Feasibility
Factors Description
124 24435108
9032 Denni St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.28 6 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a single family residence built in 1947; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 123-125 for a total site area of 1.03 acres.
125 24435109
9052 Denni St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.23 5 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a single family residence built in 1947; improvement value to land value ratio is less than

0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 123-125 for a total site area of 1.03 acres.
126 24435127 PC LASP LASP / 30 0.38 8 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair business; FAR is 0.2; adjacent to new residential development to the east and west; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map)
136 24405138
9041 Moody St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.3 6 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a dental office; structure built in 1949; improvement value to land value is approximately

0.5; FAR is 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
145
CTCC Single
Family Detached
Area A
CTCC CTCC – SF
Detached / 8
CTCC – SF
Detached / 8 20.2 161 Nonvacant

2.a,c,e,f
Existing Districts of the CTCC on the Los Alamitos Race Course (LARC) property. In addition to the Race Course
area, a large portion of the LARC property contains ancillary uses such as stables and parking lots. The CTCC was
initiated by the LARC owners to envision redevelopment
leading up to and upon closure of the LARC. The only
proposed changes to these districts is removal of the total unit cap of 1,250 to allow for development up to the
maximum density already allowed in each district. Removal of the cap would require voter approval.
146
CTCC Single
Family Detached
Area B
CTCC CTCC – SF
Detached / 8
CTCC – SF
Detached / 8 18 144 Nonvacant
147 CTCC Single
Family Attached CTCC CTCC – SF Attached / 10
CTCC – SF
Attached / 10 28.3 283 Nonvacant
148
CTCC
Senior/Medium
Density
Residential
CTCC
CTCC –
Senior/MDR /
15 CTCC –
Senior/MDR /
15 24.1 361 Nonvacant
149 CTCC Mixed Use
(TC/MDR) CTCC
CTCC – Mixed
Use (TC/MDR)
/ 15
CTCC – Mixed
Use (TC/MDR)
/ 15

15.1 226 Nonvacant
150 CTCC Mixed Use
(TC/SFR/MDR) CTCC
CTCC – Mixed
Use
(TC/SFR/MDR)
/ 15
CTCC – Mixed
Use
(TC/SFR/MDR)
/ 15

4.2 63 Nonvacant
Moderate/Above Moderate Income Sites Subtotal 129.7 1,655 Alternative 1 Sites Total 206.8 3,755
City of Cypress - 15 Appendix A
City of Cypress - 16 Appendix A
Table A- 2: Alternative 2 Sites Inventory
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description Lower Income Sites
3 13401154
6056 Lincoln Ave. PC
PC – Lincoln
Ave. Specific
Plan (LASP)
LASP / 60 0.52 23 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f
Underutilized site with existing strip mall built in 1984; FAR is 0.2; Close to Cypress College. Potential to
consolidate Sites 3-4 for a total site area of 0.79
acres.
6 13402105
6262 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 1.12 60 Nonvacant 2.c,e,f Underutilized site with existing motel built in 1947; FAR is 0.3; Close to Cypress College. 7 13402117
6326 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 1.1 49 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing strip mall built in 1979; FAR is 0.3; Close to Cypress College; Potential to
consolidate Sites 7-8 for a total site area of 1.7 acres. 8 13402121
6300 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.59 26 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site with existing strip mall; FAR is 0.4; Close to Cypress College. Potential to consolidate
Sites 7-8 for a total site area of 1.7 acres.
17 24407109
5200 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 2.36 53 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with existing church and school
facility built in 1936; FAR is 0.2; one of the larger
parcels on the Lincoln Ave. corridor; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD opportunity map)
52 24446212
5417 Bishop St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.55 12 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a preschool; FAR is

0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 51-52
for total site area of 0.73 acres.
53 24446220
5490 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.5 11 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map)
61 24447206
5682 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.58 26 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1963;
FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a
total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
62 24447207
5692 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.63 28 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by light manufacturing/RV
storage; FAR is 0.3; potential to consolidate Sites 60- 65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
63 24447208
5702 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.7 31 Nonvacant 1; 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by RV storage business;
structure built in 1946; FAR is less than 0.1; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and
Site 64 is City-owned.

City of Cypress - 17 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description 64 24447209
5732 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 1.09 49 Nonvacant 1 City-owned site occupied by a small nursery/farm; no
structures on site; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are
under the same ownership
65 24447212
5640 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.55 24 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto repair business;
FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a
total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
68 26235713
5031 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.88 19 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto repair business;
structure built in 1951; FAR is 0.2; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
69 26235714
5051 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.8 18 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by auto repair business;
structure built in 1948; FAR is 0.3; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
70 26235715
5081 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.58 35 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a self-storage facility
built in 1973; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 70-72 for a total site area of 3.12
acres
71 26236143
5131 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.77 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair
business; structure built in 1959; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.1; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 70-72 for a total
site area of 3.12 acres
72 26236144
5171 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.77 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall built in
1962; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 70-72 for a total site area of 3.12
acres
74 26241201
8851 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.67 25 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by light manufacturing
uses; FAR is 0.4; improvement value to land value
ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 74-75 for a total site area of 1.12
acres
83 26241214
5271 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.92 34 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a church built in 1941;
FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19
acres
City of Cypress - 18 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description 84 26241218
5311 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.56 21 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1940;
FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19
acres
85 26241219
5312 Cypress St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.56 21 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an office building built in 1956; FAR is 0.2; improvement value to land value
ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19
acres
86 26241220
5241 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 1.98 74 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by commercial/light
industrial building; FAR is 0.4; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19 acres
87 26241223
5305 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.68 25 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a medical office
building; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 82-87 for a total site area of 5.19
acres
92 26242307
8940 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.5 18 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by light industrial uses;
structure built in 1979; FAR is 0.4; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 90-95 for a total site area of 1.59 acres
96 26242401
8882 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.82 30 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a self-storage facility
built; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map)
101 26242407
8941 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.71 26 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard;
structure built in 1965; FAR is 0.3; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a
total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under
one ownership
107 26247232
5601 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 1.4 63 Nonvacant 2.a,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1978;
FAR is 0.3; owner has expressed interested in
selling/redeveloping the property; potential to
City of Cypress - 19 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5
acres
111 26247236
5651 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.83 37 Nonvacant 2.a,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1929;
FAR is 0.2; owner has expressed interested in
selling/redeveloping the property
114 26247241
5721 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 1.66 74 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site improved with a strip mall; FAR is 0.4 115 24109138
4955 Katella Ave. PBP PBP PBP / 60 7.15 321 Nonvacant 2.b,c,f,g Underutilized site improved with a commercial center;
FAR is 0.3; one half of the large big box building on
the site is currently vacant (formerly an office supply store); adjacent to new residential projects currently
under development.
118 24405106
4942 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.76 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Sites 117-118 being considered together because
they are occupied by the same building/use and have
the same owner; Underutilized site occupied by an
auto repair business; structure built in 1929; FAR is

0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 117-
121 for total site area of 2.36 acres. Sites 117-118 are under the same ownership and Sites 119-120 are
under the same ownership.
121 24405109
4872 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.79 17 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard;
structure built in 1929; FAR is 0.2; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
Potential to consolidate Sites 117-121 for total site
area of 2.36 acres. Sites 117-118 are under the same
ownership and Sites 119-120 are under the same
ownership.
122 24405129
4750 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 2.34 52 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall built in
1978; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
123 24435107
4502 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.52 11 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall built in
1976; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 123-125 for a total site area of 1.03 acres.
127 24436104
4656 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 11.63 261 Nonvacant 1; 2.f,g Underutilized site identified in the 5th cycle sites
inventory; one of largest sites within the Lincoln Ave. corridor and adjacent to other residential uses;
existing use is light manufacturing; FAR is 0.2; located City of Cypress - 20 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map). Due to the shape, size, and configuration of the
site, only the back portion of the site (9.53 ac.) has
been identified for redevelopment. This portion of the
site is on a separate lease from the manufacturing use
and is currently utilized for RV storage.
128 24436124
4674 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 2.39 53 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a strip mall; FAR is 0.4; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map)
129/1
30 24456103,
24456104
4470-4480 Lincoln
Ave.

0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 129-
131 for total site area of 4.98 acres.
132 26234163
4943 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 2.18 81 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site with a strip mall; improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 132-134 for total
site area of 3.67 acres.
133 26234164
4991 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.96 36 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a restaurant building built in
1978; improvement value to land value ratio is less
than 0.5; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 132-134 for total site area of 3.67
acres.
134 26234165
4901 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.53 19 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a drive thru restaurant built in 1978; improvement value to land value ratio is
approximately 0.5; FAR is 0.1; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
Potential to consolidate Sites 132-134 for total site
area of 3.67 acres.
135 26247302
8972 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.7 26 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site with a strip mall built in 1928; improvement value to land value is less than 0.25 City of Cypress - 21 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description 137/1
38 24434102,
24434109
9119 Bloomfield
PC LASP LASP / 30 4.84 108 Nonvacant 1; 2.e,f,g
Sites 137-138 being considered together because
they are occupied by the same uses and have the
same owner; the property contains one single family
house and is also used as a nursery; the house was
built in 1963; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource
area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Total site area of
the two parcels is 4.84 acres.

Lower Income Sites Subtotal 64.0 2,159
Moderate/Above Moderate Income Sites
4 13401155
6046 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.27 12 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site with small retail building built in
1961; FAR is 0.1; improvement value to land value
ratio is less than 0.5; Close to Cypress College.

Potential to consolidate Sites 3-4 for a total site area of 0.79 acres.
14 24405135
4992 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.48 10 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site with existing gas station; FAR is 0.3; located in high resource area (TCAC/HCD opportunity
map).
15 24407101
5012 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.4 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site with existing gas station built in
1962; Improvement value to land value ratio lower
than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 15-16 & 18 for total site area of 2.07 acres.
16 24407105
5032 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 1.38 31 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing auto repair center; FAR is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 15-16 & 18 for total site area of 2.07 acres.
18 24407111
5022 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.29 6 Nonvacant 2.a,f,g Underutilized site with existing car wash; Improvement
value to land value ratio of less than 0.2; FAR is 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Owner has expressed interested in
selling property; Potential to consolidate Sites 15-16 & 18 for total site area of 2.07 acres.
33 24446101
5242 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing office building built in 1941; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67
acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and
Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership.

City of Cypress - 22 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description 34 24446102
5252 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing office building; FAR is

0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43
for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the
same ownership.
35 24446103
5262 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with existing retail building built in 1942; FAR is 0.4; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67
acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and
Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership.
36/37
/38
24446104,
24446105,
24446106
5272-5302 Lincoln
Ave.

PC LASP LASP / 30 0.56 12 Nonvacant 2.a,b,d,e,
f,g
Sites 36-38 being considered together because they
are under the same ownership; Underutilized site
formerly occupied by an equipment rental business;
currently vacant and owner has expressed interest in
selling the property; improvement value to land value
is less than 0.25; structure on property built in 1924; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43
for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the
same ownership.
39 24446107
5312 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building
built in 1926; Improvement value to land value ratio is less than 0.1; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource
area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67
acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and
Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership.
40 24446108
5322 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building
built in 1914; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource
area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67
acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and
Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership.
41 24446109
5332 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a single family
residence built in 1923; Improvement value to land
value ratio is 0.1; FAR is 0.2; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area City of Cypress - 23 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same
ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the same
ownership.
42 24446110
5342 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.14 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small retail building
(currently window tinting business) built in 1952;
Improvement value to land value ratio is less than

0.25; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 33-43 for total site area of 1.67
acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and
Sites 42-43 are under the same ownership.
43 24446111
5352 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.13 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an office building
(currently dental office) built in 1923; FAR is 0.3;
located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 33-43
for total site area of 1.67 acres. Sites 36-38 are under the same ownership and Sites 42-43 are under the
same ownership.
44 24446201
5361 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.18 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a retail building
(currently liquor store) built in 1968; improvement
value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 44-50
for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the
same ownership.
45 24446202
5376 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair shop;
structure built in 1964; improvement value to land
value ratio is less than 0.25; FAR is 0.4; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
Potential to consolidate Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same
ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the same
ownership.
46 24446203
5388 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair shop;
structure built in 1984; improvement value to land
value ratio is less than 0.25; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
Potential to consolidate Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same
City of Cypress - 24 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the same
ownership.
47 24446204
5396 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building
built in 1962; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79
acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and
Sites 49-50 are under the same ownership.
48 24446205
5406 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small office building
built in 1923; improvement value to land value ratio
less than 0.25; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource
area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79
acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same ownership and
Sites 49-50 are under the same ownership.
49 24446206,
24446207
5422 Lincoln Ave.

PC LASP LASP / 30 0.17 3 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f
Sites 49-50 being considered together because they
are occupied by the same building/use and have the
same owner; Underutilized site occupied by an animal
hospital built in 1968; FAR is 0.3; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
Potential to consolidate Sites 44-50 for total site area of 0.79 acres. Sites 45-46 are under the same
ownership and Sites 49-50 are under the same
ownership.
51 24446211
9051 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.18 4 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a preschool; structure
built in 1938; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource
area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 51-52 for total site area of 0.73
acres.
54 24447102
5552 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a retail store built in
1964; FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57
and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
55 24447103 PC LASP LASP / 30 0.11 2 Vacant 1 Vacant site; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
56 24447106
5500 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.19 4 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a drive thru restaurant
built in 1968; FAR is 0.1; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.
57 24447119
5530 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.22 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a retail store; structure built in 1968; FAR is 0.4; potential to consolidate Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres.

City of Cypress - 25 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description 58 24447125
9052 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.36 8 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair business; structure built in 1973; FAR is 0.3. 59 24447126
5592 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.42 9 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair
business; improvement value to land value ratio is
less than 0.5; FAR is 0.2; potential to consolidate
Sites 54-57 and 59 for a total site area of 1.05 acres. 60 24447205
5662 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.46 20 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1961;
FAR is 0.4; potential to consolidate Sites 60-65 for a
total site area of 4.01 acres. Sites 62-63 are under the same ownership and Site 64 is City-owned.
66 26235711
89880 Moody St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.22 4 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair
business; structure built in 1973; FAR is 0.2; located
in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 66-67 for total site area of 0.5 acres.
67 26235712
5011 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.28 6 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by drive thru restaurant
built in 1964; FAR is 0.2; improvement value to land
value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); Potential to
consolidate Sites 66-67 for total site area of 0.5 acres. 75 26241202
8865 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.45 16 Nonvacant 1; 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by truck/trailer storage;
structure built in 1959; FAR is 0.1; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 74-75 for a total site area of 1.12 acres
76 26241205
8891 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.45 16 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with an office building built in 1920; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6
acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
77 26241206
8811 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.24 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard;
structure built in 1946; FAR is 0.3; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
78 26241207
8921 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.24 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard;
structure built in 1941; FAR is 0.1; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
City of Cypress - 26 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description potential to consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
79 26241208
8931 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.41 15 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site with an office building built in 1947; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6
acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
80 26241209
5351 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.25 9 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto tire shop;
structure built in 1945; FAR is 0.4; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6 acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
81 26241210
5331 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.32 12 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site with an office building built in 1955; FAR is 0.2; improvement value to land value ratio is
less than 0.25; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 76-81 for a total site area of 1.6
acres, sites 80-81 are under one ownership
82 26241212
5300 Cypress PC LASP LASP / 50 0.49 18 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with light manufacturing building;
improvement value to land value ratio is approximately

0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 82-87
for a total site area of 5.19 acres
88 26242201 PC LASP LASP / 50 0.15 5 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g
Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structures on the site; owned by the Orange County
Local Transportation Authority; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 88-89 for a total site area of 0.29 acres
89 26242202
5421 Philo Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.14 5 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structures on the site; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 88-89 for a total site area of 0.29
acres
91 26242306
5431 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.19 7 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair
business; structures built in 1966; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity
Map); potential to consolidate Sites 90-95 for a total
site area of 1.59 acres
City of Cypress - 27 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description 93 26242308
5471 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.4 15 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto-related retail; FAR is 0.2;located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 90-95
for a total site area of 1.59 acres
94 26242309
8951 Walker St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.31 11 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by auto repair shop; FAR
is 0.2; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 90-95
for a total site area of 1.59 acres
90/95
26242301,
26242310
8931 Walker St.

PC LASP LASP / 30 0.19 4 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g
Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard in
conjunction with Site 90; improvement value to land
value ratio less than 0.5; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 90-95 for a total site area of 1.59 acres
97 26242402
8891 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.17 6 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard;
FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area
of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
98 26242403
8892 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.17 6 Nonvacant 2.d,e,g Underutilized site improved with an office building built in 1950; improvement value to land value ratio is less
than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 97-
102 and 106 for a total site area of 2.05 acres, sites
99-101 are under one ownership
99 26242404
8902 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.17 6 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard;
structure built in 1934; FAR is 0.3; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.1; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a
total site area of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under
one ownership
100 26242406
8912 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.33 12 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structure on site; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area
of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
102 26242408
8932 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.33 12 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard; no
structure on site; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
City of Cypress - 28 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area
of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
103 26242409
5371 Watson St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.44 16 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site improved with a strip mall built in
1963; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 103-105 for a total site area of 0.9
acres
104 26242410
5381 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.26 9 Nonvacant 2.b,d,e,f,g Underutilized site with a vacant retail building built in 1970; FAR is 0.3; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 103-105 for a total site area of 0.9
acres
105 26242411
5391 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.2 7 Nonvacant 2.d,e,g Underutilized site with a commercial building utilized
for an animal hospital and built in 1965; improvement
value to land value ratio is less than 0.25; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map);
potential to consolidate Sites 103-105 for a total site area of 0.9 acres
106 26242413
8921 Electric St. PC LASP LASP / 50 0.17 6 Nonvacant 2.d,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a contractor's yard;
FAR is 0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is
less than 0.1; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 97-102 and 106 for a total site area
of 2.05 acres, sites 99-101 are under one ownership
108 26247233
5591 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.47 21 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a small restaurant
building built in 1968; FAR is 0.1; improvement value
to land value ratio is less than 0.25; potential to
consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5
acres
109 26247234
5631 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.41 18 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a dental office;
structure built in 1941; FAR is 0.2; potential to
consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5
acres
110 26247235
5641 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.23 10 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a dental office;
structure built in 1971; FAR is 0.2; potential to
consolidate Sites 107-110 for a total site area of 2.5
acres
112 26247237
5661 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.36 16 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a single family
residence built in 1948; FAR is 0.2; improvement
value to land value ratio is less than 0.5; potential to City of Cypress - 29 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description consolidate Sites 112-113 for a total site area of 0.82 acres.
113 26247238
5671 Lincoln Ave. PC LASP LASP / 60 0.46 20 Nonvacant 2.a,e,f Underutilized site occupied by a motel built in 1949;
FAR is 0.3; potential to consolidate Sites 112-113 for
a total site area of 0.82 acres.
119/1
20 24405107,
24405108
4902 Lincoln Ave.

0.1; improvement value to land value ratio is less than

0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); Potential to consolidate Sites 117-
121 for total site area of 2.36 acres. Sites 117-118 are under the same ownership and Sites 119-120 are
under the same ownership.
124 24435108
9032 Denni St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.28 6 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a single family residence built in 1947; improvement value to land value ratio is less
than 0.5; located in a high resource area (TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map); potential to consolidate Sites 123-
125 for a total site area of 1.03 acres.
125 24435109
9052 Denni St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.23 5 Nonvacant 2.e,f,g Underutilized site with a single family residence built in 1947; improvement value to land value ratio is less
than 0.25; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map); potential to
consolidate Sites 123-125 for a total site area of 1.03 acres.
126 24435127 PC LASP LASP / 30 0.38 8 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an auto repair
business; FAR is 0.2; adjacent to new residential
development to the east and west; located in a high
resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
136 24405138
9041 Moody St. PC LASP LASP / 30 0.3 6 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by a dental office;
structure built in 1949; improvement value to land
value is approximately 0.5; FAR is 0.1; located in a
high resource area (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
139 24430120
5252 Orange Ave. GNC OP-CC RM-20 / 20 2.06 30 Nonvacant 2.d,e,f,g Underutilized site occupied by an office building built in 1982; FAR is 0.2; located in a high resource area
(TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map)
CTC
C –
All
CTCC CTCC – All
districts
CTCC – All
districts
CTCC – All
districts / 8-17 132 1,115 Nonvacant 2.a,c,e,f
Existing Districts of the CTCC on the Los Alamitos
Race Course (LARC) property. In addition to the Race
Course area, a large portion of the LARC property
contains ancillary uses such as stables and parking
City of Cypress - 30 Appendix A
Map
ID # APN/Address
GP Land
Use
Designation
Existing
Zoning
Designation
Proposed Zoning
Designation/
Density (du/ac)
Lot Size
(Acres) Capacity Status Feasibility Factors Description distric
ts
lots. The CTCC was initiated by the LARC owners to
envision redevelopment leading up to and upon
closure of the LARC. Alternative 2 proposes no
changes to the CTCC.

Moderate/Above Moderate Income Sites Subtotal 144.8 1,686 Alternative 2 Sites Total 208.8 3,845
City of Cypress B- 1 Appendix B

APPENDIX B - AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING

FAIR HOUSING
B.1. INTRODUCTION
Effective January 2019, AB 686 requires jurisdictions to include an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing. AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The assessment of fair housing required by AB 686 must include the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

B.2. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
B.3.1. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH
Orange County is served by several regional organizations providing fair housing services: the Orange County Fair Housing Council, the Fair Housing Foundation, and Community Legal Aid SoCal. Services provided by the Orange County Fair Housing Council include community outreach and education, homebuyer education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost advocacy. The Council provides services in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The Fair Housing Foundation provides landlord-tenant mediation, rental housing counseling, and community outreach and education. The Foundation provides services to a portion of Los Angeles County as well as a portion of Orange County; however, it does not provide services within the City of Cypress. Community Legal Aid SoCal provides direct legal representation and policy advocacy.

As a non-entitlement jurisdiction (population less than 50,000), Cypress participates in CDBG as part of the Orange County program. Through the County, the City is served by Orange County Fair Housing Council (OCFHC) for fair housing services within the City. Unfortunately, no City specific data on fair housing complaints within Cypress is available from OCFHC and all available data is aggregate for the County. This lack of data to assess fair housing conditions has been identified as a contributing factor as it limits the City’s knowledge of local fair housing issues.

Therefore, as a meaningful action, the City will petition both the County and OCFHC for better City-level data in the future.

Cypress advertises the fair housing program through placement of fair housing services brochures at public facilities including City Hall, the Cypress Community Center, and the library; contact information on the City’s website; and through the City’s quarterly newsletter.

According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, the HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity received a total of 10 inquiries from Cypress residents between 2103 and March 2021, equating to 0.20 fair housing inquiries per 1,000 residents. However, half of the inquiries were found to have no valid basis or issues and the other half where either non timely filed or the client did not respond after the initial inquiry. As previously discussed, there is no additional discrimination complaint or case data available for the City of Cypress.

City of Cypress B- 2 Appendix B
B.3.2. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION

RACE/ETHNICITY
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences and mobility.

REGIONAL TRENDS
Table B- 1 provides the racial and ethnic composition of Cypress, surrounding communities, and the County as a whole.

In 2018, 34 percent of County residents identified as Hispanic or Latino. For residents that did not identify as Hispanic/Latino, White residents comprised the largest racial group in the County at 41 percent, followed by Asian residents at 20 percent. Cypress and its surrounding communities, with the exception of Los Alamitos, have a notably larger proportion of Asian residentis when compared to the County as a whole.

As shown in Table B- 2, the County has seen very modest increases in the proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents since 2010 (from 33.7 percent in 2010 to 34.1 percent in 2018). The proportion of non-Hispanic White residents has decreased from 44.1 percent to 41.0 percent, while the proportion of non-Hispanic Asian residents has increased from

17.7 percent to 19.9 percent over the same time period. The proportion of non-Hispanic Black/African American residents in the County changed very little from 2010 to 2018 (less than 0.1 percent).

Table B- 1: Racial and Ethnic Composition (2018)
Jurisdiction
Hispanic/
Latino
(of any race)
Not Hispanic or Latino
White Black
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Asian
Hawaiian
/
Pacific
Islands
Other Two or
More
Buena Park 38.4% 24.4% 3.0% 0.2% 31.0% 0.8% 0.1% 2.1%
Cypress 19.5% 37.9% 3.8% 0.2% 34.1% 0.4% 0.4% 3.9%
Los Alamitos 26.0% 46.6% 5.7% 0.0% 14.6% 0.2% 0.2% 6.7% Garden Grove 37.0% 19.8% 0.9% 0.3% 40.4% 0.2% 0.1% 1.4% Stanton 49.2% 19.2% 1.4% 0.6% 26.6% 0.9% 0.3% 1.8%
Orange County 34.1% 41.0% 1.6% 0.2% 19.9% 0.3% 0.2% 2.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

Table B- 2: Trends in Racial/Ethnic Composition, Cypress & Orange County (2010-2018) Race/Ethnicity Cypress Orange County
2010 2018 2010 2018
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 18.4% 19.5% 33.7% 34.1%
Not Hispanic/Latino
White 43.6% 37.9% 44.1% 41.0%
Black/African American 2.9% 3.8% 1.5% 1.6%
American Indian/Alaskan 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%
Asian 31.1% 34.1% 17.7% 19.9%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%
Other 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2%
Two or More Races 3.1% 3.9% 2.4% 2.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Decennial Census; American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 (5-year estimates).

City of Cypress B- 3 Appendix B

LOCAL TRENDS AND THE SITES INVENTORY
As illustrated in Table B- 1, Cypress is not dominated by a single racial group. While the largest proportion of Cypress residents are non-Hispanic White at 38 percent, this is less that 4 percent more than the City’s non-Hispanic Asian population (34 percent). Cypress has a lower proportion of White residents when compared to the County, and as discussed previously, a significantly larger proportion of Asian residents. When compared to Orange County as a whole and neighboring communities, Cypress has a significantly lower proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents. Cypress’ proportion of Black residents is higher than that of the County.

Table B- 2 compares the racial/ethnic make up of Cypress in 2018 versus 2010. The proportion of non-Hispanic White residents in the City has decreased by approximately 6 percent. Over the same time period, the proportions of Asian and Black residents have increased (increases of 3 percent and 1 percent, respectively).

The AFFH Mapping and Data Resources developed by HCD provides a spatial analysis of non-white population (i.e. minority and mixed-race population) across the City. In the majority of the City, minority concentration (or the percent of the population that is non-White) ranges between 40 to 80 percent in Cypress. As shown in Figure B- 1, the areas of highest minority concentration are north of Lincoln Ave. between Walker St. and Moody St. (block group 060591101.043) and south of Lincoln Ave., west of Denni St. (block group 060591101.173). In both these areas, the proportion of the population that is non-White is over 80 percent. Table B- 3 provides a breakdown of RHNA units by percent minority concentration for both sites inventory alternatives. As illustrated in the table, for Alternative 1 about 71 percent of RHNA units are located in tracts with a minority concentration of 61 to 80 percent, including all of the above moderate income RHNA units and 82 percent of moderate income units. For Alterative 2, about 62 percent of RHNA units are located in tracts with a minority concentration of 61 to 80 percent, including the majority of moderate and above moderate units.

While some lower income units are located in areas with a minority concentration over 80 percent (18 percent of units in Alternative 1 and 26 percent of units in Alternative 2), the siting of new affordable housing in these areas could be beneficial because they are identified as High Resource areas (see Figure B- 17). These areas have access to the primary public transportation route through the City, as well as convenient access to other services located on Lincoln Avenue. Additionally, lower income units have been more evenly distributed in areas of varying minority concentrations, as shown in the table.

Table B- 3: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Minority Concentration Percent
Minority
Concentration
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alternative 1
< 20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
21-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
41-60% 472 22.5% 51 4.8% 0 0.0% 523 13.9%
61-80% 1,249 59.5% 871 81.6% 588 100.0% 2,708 72.1%
> 81% 379 18.0% 145 13.6% 0 0.0% 524 14.0%
Total Units 2,100 1,067 588 3,755
Alternative 2
< 20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
21-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
41-60% 544 25.2% 51 4.3% 30 6.1% 625 16.3%
61-80% 1,049 48.6% 896 75.2% 465 93.9% 2,410 62.7%
> 81% 566 26.2% 244 20.5% 0 0.0% 810 21.1%
Total Units 2,159 1,191 495 3,845
The AFFH Tool also provides maps of predominant races by tract, showing tracts where a race dominates and the percent by which is dominates over other races. Figure B-2 illustrates the predominance of the White population within City of Cypress B-4 Appendix B
the City. As shown, White is the predominant race by a gap of 10 to 50 percent in the majority of the City. However, in a large in the northeast part of the City, the gap is less than 10 percent.

City of Cypress B- 5 Appendix B
Figure B- 1: Minority Concentration and Distribution of RHNA Units City of Cypress B- 6 Appendix B
Figure B- 2: White Majority Tracts (Cypress) Figure B- 3: Percent of Population with a Disability (Region) City of Cypress B- 7 Appendix B

PERSONS WITH DISABILITES

REGIONAL TRENDS
Persons with disabilities make up 9 percent of Orange County residents, according to the 2014-2018 ACS. Cypress and its neighboring communities have similar proportions of persons with disabilities: Cypress (10 percent); Buena Park (9 percent); Garden Grove (10 percent); Los Alamitos (9 percent); and, Stanton (10 percent). Figure B- 3 shows the concentration of persons with disabilities throughout the region. Consistent with data presented above, the concentrations in Cypress and neighboring communities are similar. Southern and eastern parts of the County tend to have lower concentrations of persons with disabilities. There are only two areas within the County that have concentrations where persons with disabilities make up more than 20 percent of the total population. These areas are a coastal area of Seal Beach and an portion of Anaheim west of the I-5 freeway.

LOCAL TRENDS AND THE SITES INVENTORY
The proportion of the population with a disability has increased slightly in Cypress, from 9.3 percent of the population in 2012 to 9.8 percent of the population in 2018. Figure B- 4 provides information on types of disabilities for 2012 and 2018. While there was little change in the number of people with hearing and vision difficulties, there was an increase in the number of people with cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living difficulties. The overall increase in the number of people with disabilities in the City is likely due to the overall aging of the population, with persons over 65 years being the fastest growing age group in the City.

Figure B- 4: Persons with a Disability by Type (2012 & 2018) Figure B- 5 and Table B- 4 present the distribution of RHNA units compared to the proportion of the population with a disability for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. As shown, there are no areas in the City where the concentration of persons with disabilities exceeds 20 percent. The majority of RHNA units for both alternatives are located in tracts where 10 to 20 percent of the population has a disability. Although the maps visualize the data in 10 percent ranges, for all of the tracts visualized as having 10-20 percent population with a disability, a closer review of the data indicates that no tract has more than 12 percent of the population with a disability. This is consistent with the City’s overall demographics. In Alternative 1, 23 percent of lower income units and five percent of moderate income units are located in tracts where less than 10 percent of the population has a disability. In Alternative 2, 25 percent of lower income units and four percent of moderate income units are located in tracts where less than 10 percent of the population has a disability.

As discussed, due to the AFFH Tool map visualizing data in 10 percent ranges, the map shows greater variation than actually exists. All tracts within the City have a proportion of persons with disabilities ranging between 7 and 12 percent.

Therefore, the RHNA units are not disproportionately concentrated in areas with a higher concentration of persons with disabilities.

City of Cypress B- 8 Appendix B
Table B- 4: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Population with a Disability Percent
Persons with
a Disability
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alternative 1
< 10% 445 21.2% 51 4.8% 0 0.0% 496 13.2%
10-20% 1,655 78.8% 1,016 95.2% 588 100.0% 3,259 86.8%
20-30% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
30-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
> 40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total Units 2,100 1,067 588 3,755
Alternative 2
< 10% 500 23.2% 51 4.3% 0 0.0% 551 14.3%
10-20% 1,659 76.8% 1,140 95.7% 495 100.0% 3,294 85.7%
20-30% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
30-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
> 40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total Units 2,159 1,191 495 3,845
City of Cypress B- 9 Appendix B
Figure B- 5: Population with a Disability and Distribution of RHNA Units City of Cypress B- 10 Appendix B

FAMILIAL STATUS

REGIONAL TRENDS
Familial status refers to the marital status of the head of household, whether there are children in the household, and whether they are biologically related to the head of household.

With few exeptions, less than 20 percent of the adult population lives alone in areas throughout Orange County. The percent of the adult population living with a spouse varies greatly throughout the County from less than 20 percent to more than 80 percent, according to the AFFH Tool.

Families with children may face discrimination in housing based on a number of factors. Some apartment complexes may limit the number of persons or children allowed to live in a unit based on the units size. In some cases, a landlord may be culturally biased against the number of children, particularly those of the opposite sex, sharing a bedroom, or fear that children tend to cause more extensive property damage. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, 35 percent of Orange County households include children under 18. The City of Cypress and its neighboring jurisdictions tend to have similar or slightly higher proportions of households with children (Cypress, 39 percent; Garden Grove, 40 percent; Buena Park, 41 percent; Los Alamitos, 35 percent). In the majority of tracts within Orange County, at least 60 percent of children are living in married-couple households. Areas of lower percentages of children living in married-couple households are scattered throughout the County, particularly in the central and northern portions of the County.

Female-headed households with children, tend to have a greater need for affordable housing and access to supportive services such as daycare and healthcare and therefore, require special consideration. According to the 2014-2018 ACS, female-headed households with children make up 5 percent of County households. The City’s proportion of female-headed households with children is higher at 6.2 percent; however, the neighboring cities all had similar or higher proportions (Buena Park, 7 percent; Garden Grove, 6 percent; Los Alamitos, 9 percent; Stanton, 9 percent).

LOCAL TRENDS AND THE SITES INVENTORY
According to the AFFH Tool (Figure B- 6), there is no concentration of households consisting of adults living alone within the City of Cypress. The highest concentration of adults living with their spouse is in the Tract bounded by Orange Ave., Ball Road, Moody St., and Denni St. in the center of the City, where 65 percent of the population lives with a spouse. Throughout the majority of the City, the percent of the population that lives with a spouse ranges from 40 to 60 percent.

According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey, 39 percent of Cypress households have at least one person under age 18 and 27 percent of Cypress households are married couple families with children. According to the AFFH Tool, (Figure B- 7) children living in married couple households are most concentrated in central Cypress, where the population of children living in married couple households is greater than 80 percent. Throughout the majority of the rest of the City, the percent of children living in married couple households ranges between 60 to 80 percent. Table B5 summarizes the distribution of RHNA units for both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in relation to the percent of children living in married-couple households. Consistent with the rates described above, for Alternative 1, about 84 percent of the RHNA units are in tracts where 60 to 80 percent of children live in married-couple households and about 16 percent of units are in tracts where over 80 percent of children live in married-couple households. For Alternative 2, approximately 78 percent of RHNA units are in tracts where 60 to 80 percent of children live in married-couple households, and 22 percent of units are in tracts with more than 80 percent.

As shown in Figure B- 8, the northwest and southeast corners of the City have the greatest proportion of children living in single female-headed households. In these areas, the proportion is 20 to 40 percent. In other areas of the City, less than 20 percent of children live in single female-headed households. Table B- 6 summarizes the affordability of RHNA units in relation to the concentration of children living in single female-headed households. For Alternative 1, 81 percent of RHNA units were located in tracts where less than 20 percent of children live in female-headed households. For Alternative 2, 76 percent of RHNA units were located in tracts with less than 20 percent of children residing in female- City of Cypress B- 11 Appendix B
headed households. Upon closer inspection of the data, the two tracts with 20-40 percent of children living in femaleheaded households that contain opportunity sites both have relatively low percentages of children in single-female headed households at 22.7 percent. Therefore, the sites inventory will not have the effect of concentrating new development in areas of high concentrations of single female-headed households.

Table B- 5: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Children Living in Married-Couple Households Percent
Children in
MarriedHouseholds
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alternative 1
< 20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
40-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
60-80% 1,779 84.7% 799 74.9% 588 100.0% 3,166 84.3%
> 80% 321 15.3% 268 25.1% 0 0.0% 589 15.7%
Total Units 2,100 1,067 588 3,755
Alternative 2
< 20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-40% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
40-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
60-80% 1,703 78.9% 847 71.1% 465 93.9% 3,015 78.4%
> 80% 456 21.1% 344 28.9% 30 6.1% 830 21.6%
Total Units 2,159 1,191 495 3,845
Table B- 6: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent Children Living in Female-Headed Households Percent
Children in
FemaleHeaded
Households
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alternative 1
< 20% 1,436 68.4% 1,016 95.2% 588 100.0% 3,040 81.0%
20-40% 664 31.6% 51 4.8% - 0.0% 715 19.0%
40-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
> 80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total Units 2,100 1,067 588 3,755
Alternative 2
< 20% 1,293 59.9% 1,140 95.7% 495 100.0% 2,928 76.2%
20-40% 866 40.1% 51 4.3% 0 0.0% 917 23.8%
40-60% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
60-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
> 80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total Units 2,159 1,191 495 3,845
City of Cypress B- 12 Appendix B
Figure B- 6: Proportion of Adult Population Living Alone and Living with a Spouse City of Cypress B- 13 Appendix B
Figure B- 7: Children living in Married Couple Households and Distribution of RHNA Units City of Cypress B- 14 Appendix B
Figure B- 8: Children in Female-Headed Households and Distribution of RHNA Units City of Cypress B- 15 Appendix B

INCOME LEVEL

REGIONAL TRENDS
Identifying geographic concentrations of low or moderate income households is important in overcoming patterns of segregation. In Orange County, approximately 59 percent of households are categorized as lower or moderate income.

HUD defines a Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI.1 Figure B- 9 shows LMI areas in the region by Census block group. LMI areas are generally concentrated to the east of Cypress, within the cities of Stanton, Anaheim, Garden Grove, and Westminster, as well as directly west in the City of Hawaiian Gardens (located within Los Angeles County).

Figure B- 10 and Figure B- 11 provides the percent of households living at or below the federally defined poverty limit for 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. Overall, rates of poverty have decreased in most areas throughout the County, with fewer areas with poverty rates exceeding 30 percent. One potential reason for this improvement may be generally improving economic conditions as the region recovered from the Great Recession.

LOCAL TRENDS AND THE SITES INVENTORY
City-wide, approximately 54 percent of Cypress households are categorized as lower or moderate income, compared to 59 percent County-wide. As shown in
1 HUD defines LMI as up to 80 percent of the AMI.

City of Cypress B- 16 Appendix B
Figure B- 10: Poverty Status (2010-2014) Figure B- 11: Poverty Status (2015-2019) Figure B- 12
, the majority of the City of Cypress has a concentration of LMI households ranging from 25 to 50 percent. One tract in central Cypress has an LMI household concentration of less than 25 percent. The northeast portion of the City has the highest concentration of LMI households, ranging from 50 to 75 percent.

As shown in Table B- 7, 91 percent of RHNA units under Alternative 1 are located in tracts with an LMI household concentration of 25 to 50 percent while 9 percent are located in tracts with 50 to 75 percent LMI households. For Alternative 2, 83 percent of RHNA units have been identified in tracts with an LMI concentration ranging from 25 to 50 percent and 17 percent of units are located in tracts with an LMI concentration of 50 to 75 percent. It is important to note that the location of Cypress College in the northeast portion of the City was an important consideration in deciding where to locate RHNA units as the City would like to provide more affordable housing for local students. Therefore, units were located in this area intentionally, to meet the needs of students, who often have lower incomes.

Table B- 7: RHNA Unit Distribution by Percent LMI Households City of Cypress B- 17 Appendix B
Percent LMI
Households
Lower Income Units Moderate Income Units Above Moderate Income Units Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alternative 1
< 25% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
25-50% 1,859 88.5% 969 90.8% 588 100.0% 3,416 91.0%
50-75% 241 11.5% 98 9.2% 0.0% 339 9.0%
75-100% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total Units 2,100 1,067 588 3,755
Alternative 2
< 25% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
25-50% 1,643 76.1% 1,045 87.7% 495 100.0% 3,183 82.8%
50-75% 516 23.9% 146 12.3% 0 0.0% 662 17.2%
75-100% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total Units 2,159 1,191 495 3,845
City of Cypress B-18 Appendix B
Figure B- 9: Concentration of Low and Moderate Income Households in the Region City of Cypress B- 19 Appendix B
Figure B- 10: Poverty Status (2010-2014) Figure B- 11: Poverty Status (2015-2019) City of Cypress B-20 Appendix B
Figure B- 12: Low and Moderate Income Household Concentration and RHNA Unit Distribution City of Cypress B- 21 Appendix B

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
Trends related to housing choice vouchers (HCV) can also indicate patterns of concentration and segregation. Within Cypress, Census tract 1101.04 has the highest concentration of HCV use, with about 9 percent of renter occupied units utilizing a housing choice voucher (see Figure B- 13). This tract is also an area of the City with a higher concentration of racial and ethnic minorities, as shown in Figure B- 1.

Overall, HCV use in the City is low. Within the three tracts identified with HCVs in use in the AFFH Data Viewer, there are a total of 111 HCVs. However, the number of HCVs in use within Cypress is likely actually lower since one of the tracts includes a portion of a neighboring jurisdiction.

Figure B- 13: Housing Choice Voucher Concentration
City of Cypress B- 22 Appendix B
B.3.3. RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS

RACIALLY AND ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF POVERTY
Racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) are identified as census tracts with a majority nonWhite population (greater than 50 percent) and a poverty rate that exceeds 40 percent or is three times the average tract poverty rate for the metro/micro area, whichever threshold is lower. As shown inFigure B- 14, there are no R/ECAPs within the City of Cypress. The closest R/ECAPs in the region are located within the cities of Long Beach and Santa Ana. Therefore, Cypress has identified no RHNA units within R/ECAPs. As discussed in the next section, while Cypress has a significant racial and ethnic minority population (see Table B- 1), it is made up of primarily high resource areas (Table B- 11).

RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE
While R/ECAPs are often the focus of fair housing policies, it is also important to analyze racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) to ensure that housing is integrated in high opportunity areas, a key fair housing choice. According to a policy paper published by HUD, Whites are the most racially segregated group in the Country and in the same way that neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentration of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, predominantly White communities. Therefore, according to HUD, a RCAA is defined as an affluent, White community.

HCD has developed its own metric for RCAAs; however, it was not available on the AFFH Tool at the time of writing this analysis. Therefore, the definition of RCAAs used is that which was developed by scholars at the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs (cited in HCD’s memo): “RCAAs are defined as census tracts where, 1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and 2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016)”. Using this definition, there are no RCAAs within the City of Cypress. As shown in Table B- 8, there are no Census tracts within Cypress where 80 percent or more of the population is non-Hispanic White. Figure B- 15 illustrates the median household income by Census block group in Cypress. There are four block groups in Cypress where median income is greater than $125,000. These block groups are within Census tracts 1101.04 and 1101.18, where non-Hispanic Whites make up 40 percent and 34 percent of the population, respectively. Therefore, there does not appear to be a correlation between higher median income and higher concentration of White population in the City of Cypress.

Table B- 8: Percent White Population by Census Tract
Census Tract Percent White Population
1101.11 41.8
1101.10 33.9
1101.04 40.3
1101.17 43.3
1101.06 53.1
1101.18 34.1
1101.14 55.9
1101.13 44.0
1100.11 58.1
1100.01 63.6
1100.15 72.3
1101.09 39.5
1101.02 34.8
1100.10 54.9
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer
City of Cypress B- 23 Appendix B
Figure B- 14: Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty Figure B- 15: Median Income (2015-2019) City of Cypress B- 24 Appendix B
B.3.4. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES
Significant disparities in access to opportunity are defined as “substantial and measurable differences in access to educational, transportation, economic, and other opportunities in a community based on protected class related to housing”, according to the HCD AFFH Guidelines. To assist in the analysis of access to opportunities, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened in the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task force has created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table B- 9 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identity areas with poverty and racial segregation. The criteria for these filters are:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of the population under the federal poverty line. • Racial Segregation: Tracts with a location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County.

Table B- 9: Domains and Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic
Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2021

REGIONAL TRENDS
Figure B- 16 maps Opportunity Areas for the region. Within the region, the areas closest to Cypress that have been identified as areas of high segregation and poverty are located in Long Beach, Anaheim, and Garden Grove. In Orange County, the coastal areas and southern region tend to be High Resource areas. Low resource areas are concentrated in the center of the County, in cities with higher concentrations of minority populations and lower incomes as discussed in previous sections.

LOCAL TRENDS
According to the 2021 TCAC/HCD opportunity maps, there are no areas of high racial segregation and poverty in Cypress (see Figure B- 17). Cypress is made up primarily of High Resource tracts. The City includes one tract that is designated Moderate Resource (tract 1101.13). This tract is generally bounded by Cerritos Ave. to the north, Katella Ave. to the south, and the city limits to the east and west. It is important to note that this tract currently contains primarily commercial uses, including the Los Alamitos Race Course property and the Cypress Business Park. The majority of housing units located in this tract are located outside of City limits in Los Alamitos. However, redevelopment is occurring in this area, with two pipeline projects entitled with a total of 386 units. Current redevelopment efforts, along with future development on the Race Course, will likely have a positive impact on access to opportunity in this tract. Additionally, the City contains one tract designated Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) (tract 1101.10). Tracts that have been identified as “moderate resource (rapidly changing)” are areas that are Moderate Resource but may soon become High City of Cypress B- 25 Appendix B
Resource, based on recent trends.2 This tract is located in the northeast portion of the City and includes the Cypress College campus. This area has been intentionally targeted in the sites inventory as a way to encourage affordable housing near the College.

Table B- 10 shows the TCAC/HCD Resource Category and minority concentration for Census tracts within Cypress.

There does not appear to be a correlation between minority concentration and resource categories.

Table B- 10: Minority Concentration and 2021 TCAC/HCD Resource Category Census Tract Minority Concentration (%) TCAC/HCD Resource Category 1101.11 58.2 High Resource
1101.10 66.1 Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing)
1101.04 59.7 High Resource
1101.17 56.7 High Resource
1101.06 46.9 High Resource
1101.18 65.9 Highest Resource
1101.14 44.1 Highest Resource
1101.13 56.0 Moderate Resource
1100.11 41.9 High Resource
1100.01 36.4 High Resource
1100.15 27.7 High Resource
1101.09 60.5 High Resource
1101.02 65.2 High Resource
1100.10 45.1 High Resource
Source: HCD AFFH Data Viewer; 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps Statewide Summary Table Table B- 11 provides the distribution of RHNA units for Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 by TCAC/HCD Resource Category. For Alternative 1, about 65 percent of units would be located in Moderate Resource or Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) tracts, with the remaining units located in High Resource tracts (35 percent). However, 47 percent of lower income units would be located in High Resource areas. For Alternative 2, 55 percent of units would be located in Moderate Resource or Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) tracts, with the remaining 45 percent located in High Resource tracts. About 61 percent of lower income units are identified in High Resource tracts.

Table B- 11: RHNA Unit Distribution by TCAC Opportunity Areas Opportunity Area
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alternative 1
Moderate Resource
(rapidly changing) 241 11.5% 98 9.2% 0 0.0% 339 9.0%
Moderate Resource 874 41.6% 650 60.9% 588 100.0% 2,112 56.2% High Resource 985 46.9% 319 29.9% 0 0.0% 1,304 34.7%
Total Units 2,100 1,067 588 3,755
Alternative 2
Moderate Resource
(rapidly changing) 516 23.9% 146 12.3% 0 0.0% 662 17.2% Moderate Resource 321 14.9% 650 54.6% 465 93.9% 1,436 37.3% High Resource 1,322 61.2% 395 33.2% 30 6.1% 1,747 45.4% Total Units 2,159 1,191 495 3,845

2 California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2021 City of Cypress B-26 Appendix B
Figure B- 16: TCAC Opportunity Areas (Region)
City of Cypress B- 27 Appendix B
Figure B- 17: TCAC Opportunity Areas and RHNA Unit Distribution City of Cypress B- 28 Appendix B
Table B- 12 provides the composite score and scores for each domain from the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps.

The following section provides further information on each domain and related indicators.

Table B- 12: Opportunity Map Scores and Categorization (2021) Census Tract Economic
Domain Score
Environmental
Domain Score
Education
Domain Score
Composite
Index Score Final Category
06059110111 0.692 0.603 0.794 0.41 High Resource
06059110110 0.555 0.879 0.456 0.163 Moderate Resource
(Rapidly Changing)
06059110104 0.497 0.86 0.66 0.336 High Resource
06059110117 0.445 0.581 0.733 0.282 High Resource
06059110106 0.445 0.581 0.733 0.282 High Resource
06059110118 0.931 0.818 0.894 0.682 Highest Resource
06059110114 0.641 0.858 0.91 0.549 Highest Resource
06059110113 0.79 0.324 0.435 0.06 Moderate Resource
06059110011 0.825 0.544 0.626 0.336 High Resource
06059110001 0.582 0.568 0.783 0.358 High Resource
06059110015 0.735 0.097 0.988 0.381 High Resource
06059110109 0.773 0.908 0.56 0.381 High Resource
06059110102 0.764 0.704 0.709 0.401 High Resource
06059110010 0.731 0.416 0.828 0.4 High Resource
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, 2021 Statewide Summary Table

EDUCATION
School proficiency scores are indicators of school system quality. As one of the domains assessed as part of the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, education scores are a composite of several indicators, including math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates.

REGIONAL TRENDS
Figure B- 18 provides TCAC Education Scores for the region. Coastal and southern Orange County have overall higher scores than the central portion of the County. Lower scores in the central area of the County appear to correlate with higher concentrations of lower and moderate income households as visualized in Figure B- 9. These areas also tend to have lower access to opportunity in general, as shown in Figure B- 16.

LOCAL TRENDS
Figure B- 20 illustrates the TCAC Education Score for the Census tracts within Cypress, where a score of 1 is the most positive education outcome. For the majority of the City, tracts scored greater than 0.5, with several scoring greater than 0.75. However, the areas previously described as designated Moderate Resource and Moderate Resource (Rapidly Changing) have Education Scores just below 0.50 (see Table B- 12).

Greatschools.org is a nonprofit organization that rates schools throughout the Country. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on the following four ratings: 1) Student Progress or Academic Progress Rating; 2) College Readiness Rating; 3) Equity Rating; and 4) Test Score Rating. A rating of 4 or lower indicates that a school is “below average”, 5 to 6 indicates “average”, and schools rated 7 to 10 are considered “above average”. Figure B- 19 shows the Great Schools Summary Rating for schools within Cypress. All schools within the City are rated “above average”, with scores ranging from 7 to 10.

City of Cypress B-29 Appendix B
Figure B- 18: TCAC Education Scores (Region)
City of Cypress B- 30 Appendix B
Figure B- 19: GreatSchools Ratings for Cypress Schools
Source: Greatschools.org, accessed August 2021.

Figure B- 20: TCAC Education Scores (Cypress)
City of Cypress B- 31 Appendix B

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The Economic Domain utilized as part of the HCD/TCAC Opportunity Map scoring utilizes a variety of indicators, including poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value.

REGIONAL TRENDS
TCAC Economic Scores for the region are visualized in Figure B- 21. The southern and coastal areas of the County tended to have higher TCAC Economic Scores. The central portion of the County, particularly tracts located in the Cities of Santa Ana, Anaheim, Westminster, Garden Grove, and Buena Park, had lower scores, indicating less positive economic outcomes.

The Jobs Proximity Index is a measure of the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in a region. A higher jobs proximity score would indicate better access to jobs for residents of that area. Figure B- 22 illustrates jobs proximity scores for the region. As shown on the map, central Orange County tends to have higher access to jobs, based on the Jobs Proximity Index. Coastal and more mountainous communities in the County have lower scores, likely due to limited access to public transportation and freeways.

LOCAL TRENDS
As shown in Figure B- 24, the Jobs Proximity Index varies widely within the City of Cypress. The northern portion of the City received a score of less than 20, indicating less proximity to jobs, while the southern portion of the City has scores ranging from 60 to 80. The reason for this variation is unclear. The northern portion of the City has similar freeway access to the southern portion of the City and is also served by an OCTA bus line. Given the size of the City, it seems unlikely that access to jobs would vary to this extent within City limits.

The TCAC Economic Score is likely a better indicator of economic opportunity within the City. TCAC Economic Scores for the Census tracts within Cypress are shown in Figure B- 21. The majority of Cypress scored greater than

0.5, with several areas of the City scoring greater than 0.75. Census tract 1101.17 on the west side of the City and tract 1101.04 in central Cypress had the lowest scores, 0.45 and 0.50, respectively. One potential reason for the lower score in tract 1101.17 is the location of the Lincoln Center Mobile Home Park within this tract. Units within the tract would have lower home values compared to other areas of the City and many residents would have lower income levels. Both Sites Inventory Alternatives propose new low and moderate income units in these tracts as they both include portions of Lincoln Avenue. However, the units are not disproportionatly located in these two tracts, but spread across the Lincoln Avenue corridor.

City of Cypress B- 32 Appendix B
Figure B- 21: TCAC Economic Score (Region) Figure B- 22: Jobs Proximity Index (Region) City of Cypress B- 33 Appendix B
Figure B- 23: TCAC Economic Score (Cypress) Figure B- 24: Jobs Proximity Index (Cypress) City of Cypress B- 34 Appendix B

ENVIRONMENT
The 2021 TCAC Environmental Score is based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 score. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed CalEnvrioScreen and compiles scores to help identify communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. CalEnvrioScreen takes into account environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure), sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), and socioeconomic factors (educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment).

CalEnvironScreen 4.0 was released in February 2021 and therefore provides more recent data than the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 score that were utilized for the 2021 TCAC Environmental Scores and Opportunity maps.

CalEnvironScreen 4.0 scores are generally consistent with the TCAC Environmental Scores and both are discussed in the following sections.

REGIONAL TRENDS
Figure B- 25 illustrates the range of TCAC Environmental Scores for the region. The majority of the southern and coastal areas of the County generally have low scores, equating to more positive environmental outcomes. The central and northern areas of the County tend to have higher scores, likely due to higher levels of pollution and higher proportions of lower income residents in these areas.

LOCAL TRENDS
As shown in Figure B- 25, the Cypress tends to have higher scores TCAC Environmental Scores than many surrounding Orange County cities, but similar scores to nearby Los Angeles County cities of Lakewood and Cerritos.

The northern half of the City has particularly high positive outcomes with scores ranging from 0.50 to 1.0 and the majority scoring over 0.75. Some areas in the southern portion of the City have lower scores, particularly tract 1101.13 (score of 0.32), tract 1100.15 (score of 0.10), and tract 1100.10 (score of 0.42). There are no RHNA units located within tracts 1100.15 or 1100.10.

Figure B- 26 and Table B- 13 show CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores in relation to RHNA unit distribution for both of the City’s sites inventory alternatives. As shown in Table B- 13, the majority of units in Alternative 1 are located in tracts with a CalEnviroScreen score of 50 to 60 percent. However, the majority of lower income units are found in tracts with more positive environmental outcomes. For Alternative 2, units are spread more evenly across tracts with scores ranging between 30 to 60 percent.

Table B- 13: RHNA Unit Distribution by CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score CalEnviroScreen Score
Lower Income
Units
Moderate Income
Units
Above Moderate
Income Units Total Units
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alternative 1
< 10% (More Positive
Outcomes) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
10-20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-30% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
30-40% 321 15.3% 268 25.1% 0 0.0% 589 15.7%
40-50% 905 43.1% 149 14.0% 0 0.0% 1,054 28.1%
50-60% 874 41.6% 650 60.9% 588 100.0% 2,112 56.2%
60-70% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
70-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
80-90% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
90-100% (Less Positive
Outcomes) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
City of Cypress B- 35 Appendix B
Total Units 2,100 1,067 588 3,755
Alternative 2
< 10% (More Positive
Outcomes) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
10-20% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
20-30% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
30-40% 456 21.1% 344 28.9% 30 6.1% 830 21.6%
40-50% 1,382 64.0% 197 16.5% 0 0.0% 1,579 41.1%
50-60% 321 14.9% 650 54.6% 465 93.9% 1,436 37.3%
60-70% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
70-80% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
80-90% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
90-100% (Less Positive
Outcomes) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Total Units 2,159 1,191 495 3,845
City of Cypress B-36 Appendix B
Figure B- 25: TCAC Environment Score (Region)
City of Cypress B- 37 Appendix B
Figure B- 26: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores and RHNA Unit Distribution City of Cypress B- 38 Appendix B

TRANSPORTATION
Regional and Local Conditions
Although transportation is not a component of the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map score, transportation factors can be an important indicator of access to opportunity. Accessibility to an efficient and extensive public transportation network allows for greater access to jobs. Additionally, transportation costs can be high for households with limited access to public transportation and the need to commute a great distance by car. AllTransit is an online data resource which compiles data related to the social and economic impacts of transit. Specifically, the AllTransit Performance Score includes metrics for connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service to generate a score between 1 and 10 (with 10 being the best). Both Orange County and Cypress received an AllTransit Performance Score of 4.2. Both Cypress and Orange County have great access to jobs within a 30-minute trip; however, transit usage is low with just 1.65% of Cypress commuters and 2.28% of Orange County commuters using transit. The steep topography and limited road access in some areas of the County limits public transit accessibility in these areas. However, by comparison, Cypress is located in a well connected area of the County, indicating a future potential for increase and expansion of transportation services would be beneficial. Currently, the highest frequency bus route through Cypress is located along the Lincoln Avenue corridor, a primary consideration in the placement of opportunity sites along this corridor.

Figure B- 27: Cypress AllTransit Performance Score
Source: AllTransit, alltransit.cnt.org, accessed August 2021.

City of Cypress B-39 Appendix B
Figure B- 28: Orange County AllTransit Performace Score B.3.5. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
The AFFH Rule Guidebook defines disproportionate housing needs as a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of member of a protected class experiencing a category of housing needs when compared to the proportion of a member of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing the category of housing need in the applicable geographic area (24 C.F.R. § 5.152). The following analysis of disproportionate housing needs assesses cost burden, severe cost burden, overcrowding, and substandard housing.

COST BURDEN
The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset developed by the Census Bureau for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different household types. Housing problems considered in the CHAS dataset include:
• Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; • Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; • Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and • Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom)

REGIONAL TRENDS
Table B- 14 provides information on housing problems and cost burden by race/ethnicity for Cypress and Orange County. In Orange County, 45 percent of households have one or more housing problem and 41 percent of households have a housing cost burden. Renter householdes are more likely to have a housing problem and/or be cost burdened.

When cost burden is considered by race and Hispanic origin, minority households that own their home do not appear to have higher rates of overpayment than White households. White and Black renter households have the lowest rates of cost burden; however, rates are still high at 49 percent and 48 percent, respectively. Hispanic/Latino households have the highest rates of housing problems and cost burden for both owner and renter households.

Elderly and large households may also be subject to disproportionate housing problems. As shown in Table B- 15, elderly and large renter households have higher rates of overpayment than renter households as a whole. Owner occupied elderly and large households in the County have similar rates of overpayment as other owner households.

LOCAL TRENDS AND THE SITES INVENTORY
City of Cypress B- 40 Appendix B
Overall, Cypress residents experience overpayment and other housing problems at a lower rate than the County.

However, the rates of overpayment for renter households are higher in Cypress compared to the county (59 percent versus 53 percent). Independent of race, renter households in Cypress experiencing housing problems and cost burden at significantly higher rates than owner households. When considering housing problems and cost burden by race/ethnicity, the data does not show any strong trends suggesting that one group is disproportionately burdened compared to others. For example, 100 percent of Pacific Islander renter householders are cost burdened; however, just 17 percent of Pacific Islander owner households are cost burdened, the lowest of all groups.

Table B- 14: Housing Problems by Race/Ethnicity (Cypress and Orange County) White Black Asian American
Indian
Pacific
Islander Hispanic Other All
Cypress
With One or More Housing Problem
Owner 27% 40% 34% 20% 17% 36% 23% 30%
Renter 43% 39% 59% 75% 100% 53% 33% 50%
All Households 31% 40% 43% 57% 29% 43% 26% 37%
With Cost Burden (>30%)
Owner 26% 24% 30% 20% 17% 34% 23% 28%
Renter 79% 38% 52% 75% 100% 44% 38% 59%
All Households 39% 33% 38% 57% 29% 38% 28% 38%
Orange County
With One or More Housing Problem
Owner 30% 36% 37% 29% 27% 46% 34% 34%
Renter 51% 53% 58% 61% 60% 73% 56% 60%
All Households 38% 48% 45% 45% 47% 62% 45% 45%
With Cost Burden (>30%)
Owner 30% 34% 33% 23% 28% 36% 32% 31%
Renter 49% 48% 51% 54% 52% 60% 51% 53%
All Households 36% 44% 40% 39% 42% 51% 41% 41%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 ACS, 2020.

Note: Data presented in this table are based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates slightly from the 100% total due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of these data should focus on the proportion of household in need of assistance rather than on precise numbers.

Table B- 15 shows that large renter households are significantly more likely to be cost burdened compared to all renter households (79 percent versus 59 percent). The rate of overpayment for large renter households was also significantly higher in the City when compared to the County. This suggests a greater need for more affordable rental units big enough to accommodate large households. Elderly owner households appear to be disproportionately impacted by overpayment with 41 percent of elderly households cost burdened, compared to 28 percent of all owner households.

Cypress City CouncilJune 27, 2022

Cypress City Council
June 27, 2022