4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section describes the existing cultural resources of the Cypress College campus, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the proposed project. The discussion in this section is based on the Cultural Resources Study for the Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared by Dudek in September 2016 and the Paleontological Resources Survey Report prepared by Dudek in June 2016. Both reports are included in Appendix C.

4.3.1 Existing Conditions

Cultural resources include prehistoric resources and historical-period resources. Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that predate written records and are generally identified as isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources can include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, rock features, and burials. Historical resources consist of physical properties, structures, or built items resulting from human activities after the time of written records. In North America, the historical period is generally considered to be equivalent to the time period since European contact, beginning in AD 1492. Historical resources can include archaeological remains and architectural structures. Historical archaeological site types include town sites, homesteads, agricultural or ranching features, mining-related features, refuse concentrations, and features or artifacts associated with early military use of the land. Historical architectural resources can include houses, cabins, barns, lighthouses, early military structures, and local structures, such as missions, post offices, and meeting halls.

4.3.1.1 Historical Setting

In assessing the historic significance of properties located within the study area, various criteria for designation under federal, state, and local landmark programs were considered and applied. The California Office of Historic Preservation survey methodology and instructions were used to evaluate the relative significance of properties.

History of Cypress College

In 1961, the California State Legislature mandated that all high school and unified districts in the State of California be included as part of districts that maintain a junior college. In response, the Fullerton Junior College (FJC) District was required to expand in order to incorporate areas covered by the Anaheim Union High School District, the Brea-Olinda Union High School District, and the Placentia Unified District. However, FJC could not support all of these new entities on its own (Ganer 2006).

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 7624 September 2016 4.3-1 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

In February 1964, voters approved the formation of an interim junior college district and a $9 million bond measure to acquire land for the site of a new college and construction of new buildings (Ganer 2006). The transition from Fullerton Junior College District to the North Orange County Community College District (referred to hereafter as the District) began in 1964 when the residents of three school districts (Anaheim Union High School District, Brea-Olinda Unified School District, and Placentia Unified School District) elected to form an interim junior college district to be merged with the existing Fullerton Junior College District. This merger increased the District boundaries to 157 square miles and brought the first election of a District Board of Trustees (District 2011). After investigating a number of potential site locations, including one in Anaheim, the newly formed North Orange County Junior College District (NOCJCD) announced in November 1964 that it had chosen a 112-acre site, formerly utilized as dairy farming land, in the City of Cypress to build its future campus.

In the 1960s, the District was using the architectural design services of William H. Taylor and George S. Connor, and a number of new buildings were constructed by the architects on the FJC campus. In late 1965, Taylor and Connor, who had been contracted with the District since the 1950s, were replaced by William E. Blurock & Associates (Fullerton College Library 2012).

In August 1965, the District held five executive sessions to select an architect for the new college. Twenty-two firms had bid on the job (LAT 1965a). In September, the District announced that it had selected two firms to collaborate on the design of Cypress College, William E. Blurock & Associates (of Del Mar, California) and Caudill, Rowlett, and Scott and Associates (of Houston, Texas), which were unanimously approved by the District trustees. The board also selected Odell MacConnell Associates of Palo Alto, California, to serve as the educational consulting firm that would work closely with the architects in planning the campus. The permanent Cypress College campus was originally promised to be completed by fall of 1968 (LAT 1965b).

With the team of architects selected, the board requested that they start thinking through the problems associated with the commonly seen “megalocampus,” and requested they come up with creative solutions and recommendations for a campus that was more than just “an enormous airplane hangar with parking lots and classrooms” (Walker 1968, p.5). In early 1966, “squatter sessions” were held with the architects, newly employed campus administrators, and District staff members to brainstorm ideas for the new campus design (Walker 1968). These meetings resulted in the idea of incorporating the “house plan” or “house concept” at Cypress Junior College. This “house concept” master plan projected construction of an eventual eight houses that would accommodate 12,500 students. President Dan Walker strongly pushed for implementation of the house plan on campus (as it was something he commonly saw in England). The goal of the house plan was to decentralize auxiliary services by spreading them out to various locations on campus based on discipline. Instead of the typical college campus

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-2 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES consisting of one student center, one counseling office, one cafeteria, etc., the house plan offered these services within each major building on campus (Ganer 2006).

The Interim Campus

Desperate to get the new campus up and running and relieve enrollment capacity pressures at FJC, the board decided to move forward with establishing the new campus despite the fact that permanent buildings were years away. In October 1965, District trustees were tasked with creating a temporary or interim campus for students at the Cypress College site. The interim campus plan called for a faculty of approximately 65, with classes limited to basic freshman courses during the first year. No technical or vocational classes, intercollegiate sports programs, or on-campus physical education courses would be offered at the temporary campus. Courses not covered by the limited scope of the temporary campus would be held at FJC or other nearby schools. Approximately 35 classrooms and six science laboratories would be needed for the temporary school to function (LAT 1965c). In November, the trustees approved establishment of a temporary campus consisting of portable units (LAT 1965d). The following month, the District trustees approved working drawings for the $1 million interim campus that was scheduled to open for approximately 2,000 students by fall of 1966 (LAT 1965e). Much to the surprise of the board, an extant lease on the site’s prime parcel resulted in a delay of acquisition until July 1, 1966, creating a scramble to assemble the interim campus just 2 months before classes were scheduled to begin (Ganer 2006).

Plans from July 1966 show that William E. Blurock & Associates and Caudill Rowlett Scott (CRS) were involved in designing the interim campus layout. The campus originally consisted of 18 simple rectangular-plan modular buildings leased by a company called Modulux. Facilities identified on the original 1966 plans include an administration building, faculty mailroom, an art lecture room and lab, life sciences, physics lab, chemistry lab, library, and various classroom buildings. The original administration offices and bookstore were located in small single-family residences located on the northeast corner of the campus plot, barely large enough to hold a couple of staff members and the books. In the first year, 54 faculty members taught 149 courses in 34 different fields (Ganer 2006).

Phase I Campus Development

An important factor in shaping the college master plan was the issue of parking, and the problematic relationship between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Accepting the fact that Cypress Junior College was undoubtedly a commuter school with a strong automobile culture, the architects opted to surround the campus buildings with parking lots on all sides rather than try to hide them or force parking to one side of the campus. In fact, the final design resulted in a street (Lakeshore Drive) passing through the center of the campus to ease the flow of vehicular

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-3 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES traffic. To solve the problem of pedestrian traffic co-existing with vehicular traffic, the architects created a bi-level campus design, which functioned to keep vehicular traffic at the ground level, with students navigating the campus via a raised piazza structure that connected to all buildings on campus at the second-story level (Turner 1984).

The temporary campus remained in place, south of the permanent campus, during construction and for many years after its completion. The new permanent buildings, in combination with the existing temporary buildings, would allow the college to handle an enrollment capacity of 4,500– 5,000 students (LAT 1967b).

The newly completed Phase I campus also included the finished 17,000-square-foot pond. The pool, which was originally planned for completion in time for the dedication ceremony, was delayed indefinitely as a result of a plumbers’ strike, but was open by 1970 (LAT 1969a).

The dedication ceremony also included an explanation of the school’s “unusual house plan,” as the Los Angeles Times referred to it. When students registered, they were assigned a specific house based on their major or field of interest. Vocational-technical students were assigned to the Edison House, business students to the Carnegie House, fine arts students to the Bernstein House, and all other students were randomly assigned to one of the three houses until the other major campus buildings were completed (LAT 1969a). House names were selected by a vote of the student body. As new buildings were added in future phases of construction, the house plan continued to grow. Future house names would include Muir (Social Science), Twain (Language Arts), Schweitzer (Health Science), Einstein (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics [SEM]), and Thorpe (Gymnasium II) (Ganer 2006).

Phase II Campus Development

In April 1970, President Walker announced that he would resign as president of Cypress College, effective June 30th, and would function as the superintendent-president at Yuba College. Walker was the college’s first president, hired in January 1966 (LAT 1970a). In July, it was announced that a new president had been named, Dr. Omar H. Scheidt (LAT 1970b), who would serve as president until 1977 and oversee much of the remaining 1970s campus construction (Ganer 2006).

April 1970 also marked the start of the second phase of campus development, with District trustees approving working drawings for science and business education buildings. Trustees also approved schematic drawings for a humanities building and a drama-community services building that would be completed during the third phase of campus construction in the late 1970s. These buildings were also designed by William E. Blurock & Associates and CRS.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-4 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Science and Business Education buildings appear on the same set of plans from February 1970. These plans also included additional portions of the piazza to connect the new buildings to the existing campus design. Aerial photographs of the campus from 1972 (NETR 2011) show these two buildings in place. The men’s shower and locker building (Technical Education II) was also underway at this time and appears largely completed, though it was not yet open. The temporary campus was also still in place at the southeast corner of the campus.

In 1971, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) honored Cypress College for its achievements in master planning and architectural design. An award was presented to college President Dr. Scheidt during a ceremony held at the 51st convention of the American Association of Junior Colleges in Washington D.C. on March 2, 1971 (LAT 1971). The following architecture/honor awards were identified for the Cypress College campus:

 1970, “North Orange County Junior College, Cypress Campus,” First Honor Award, AIA Houston Chapter, Cypress, California  1970, “North Orange County Junior College, Cypress Campus,” Remodeling Award, American Association of Junior Colleges/AIA/USOE, Cypress, California  1971, “North Orange County Junior College, Cypress Campus,” Honor Award, American Association of Junior Colleges/AIA/USOE, Cypress, California

Phase III Campus Development

In 1969, Cypress College began design of its third phase of campus development. District trustees approved plans to construct a $1,899,000 vocational facility to house the men’s shower and locker room. Plans from August 1971 include schematics for the new men’s shower and locker building (Technical Education II) and associated concrete paving, and a new storage building (Building 31) located adjacent to the existing tennis courts. These plans also have faint outlines for future buildings that came to fruition as part of a later construction phase. While the new shower and locker building was scheduled to open in the fall of 1972, it does not appear to have opened until 1973.

Phase IV Campus Development

The final phase of 1970s campus development involved completion of the remaining major buildings by 1976. In July and November of 1973, plans were approved for construction of the Drama (Theater Arts) building and Humanities building, respectively. This included the associated humanities lecture hall and piazza sections, which also opened in 1976. The Humanities building housed both the Language Arts and Social Sciences Divisions, offered state-of-the-art video equipment and workrooms for the Speech classes, and laboratory facilities for the Anthropology Department (Ganer 2006).

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-5 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Approved plans dated August 1974 for construction of the men’s gymnasium building (Gymnasium II) and new connecting piazza were next in line. The building opened in the fall of 1976 and included a basketball court, wrestling room, men’s weight room, dance studio, faculty offices, student health services, a food service section, and counseling facilities. Keeping with the house plan concept, the building was given the name Thorpe House in honor of the great athlete Jim Thorpe. A ribbon-cutting ceremony featured Jim’s daughter, Grace Thorpe, who made a speech about her father (Ganer 2006).

By the 1980s, the original house plan concept for the college had come to an end, opening the door for interior renovations to take place as auxiliary services were gradually phased out of individual buildings and made more centralized.

Recent Campus Development

In 2002, voters approved a facilities bond known as Measure X, which appropriated $62 million for new construction and renovation projects at Cypress College. Bond-funded projects included new construction of several buildings on campus. Two of the new buildings were designed by Blurock’s latest firm iteration, tBP/Architecture Inc., including the Library and Learning Resource Center (2006) and the School of Continuing Education Building (2008). Other new buildings include the Physical Plant/Maintenance and Operations Building (LPA Inc. in 2006), and the Student Center and Bookstore (Flewelling & Moody in 2008). Additionally, a $15.8 million Remodel for Efficiency project was also undertaken, affecting most major buildings on campus. Identified remodels include the Theater Arts; Fine Arts; Humanities; SEM; College Complex; Gymnasium II; Business Education; Technical Education I, II, and II buildings; and a remodel of the theater lobby. Other efficiency projects included energy conservation throughout various buildings and an elevator installment package, and creation of swing space.

Closing out the Measure X-related projects was an 18-month remodel/modernization of the Humanities Building, which entailed gutting the entire interior and replacing the smooth, concrete tile-clad stairwells with a helical lattice steel-and-glass structure (remodel conducted by Washington Iron Works Inc.). The building was re-dedicated in February 2010.

Brutalist Architecture

The architectural style name “Brutalism” is derived from the French term for raw concrete, béton brut. Brutalism favors the exposure of building materials, in particular rough concrete and structural supports. The Brutalist architectural style is characterized by its use of raw building materials in a very direct and imposing way, emphasizing bulky forms and sharp angles with limited visible glass surfaces (McAlester 2013). Developed and practiced between the 1950s and 1970s, Brutalism favored heavy, solid shapes cast with highly detailed and textured reinforced concrete (Lowder 2013). Often associated with “High Modernism,” the bold and unapologetic

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-6 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES design and monumentality of Brutalism makes it an easy target for criticism, and it is thought to be one of the most divisive styles of architecture to emerge since the beginning of the twentieth century (Mindel 2016).

The best known early Brutalist architecture was that of Swiss architect Le Corbusier in the early 1950s. Brutalism gained popularity in the United Kingdom in the mid-century as war-torn communities actively sought out inexpensive construction and design techniques in order to create affordable government buildings, housing, and shopping centers.

Brutalism became a popular style of architecture for educational buildings, particularly university buildings, but was relatively rare for corporate and single-family residential projects. It was also favored for civic projects, high-rise apartments, and shopping centers, as the style emulated strength, functionality, and an appreciation for material simplicity (Brutalism Online 2016).

In the late 1960s, campus expansions at universities across North America led to a considerable number of Brutalist examples on campuses throughout the United States and Canada. As the first line of one article about Brutalism opens: “there is hardly a college campus without one” (Conti 2013). Another states: “Chances are good that if you went to college in the United States after, say, 1975, your campus featured at least one imposing, bunker-like concrete building in the architectural style known as Brutalism” (Lowder 2013). Brutalism was particularly popular with universities wanting to demonstrate an ultra-modern aesthetic. During the 1960s and 1970s, universities across the country constructed massive Brutalist buildings to house performing arts centers, libraries, and educational departments. Brutalism on campuses began to wane when students and faculty began to complain about both aesthetic and functionality issues.

Paul Rudolph, the architect credited for leading the Brutalist movement in the United States and chair of the Yale University School of Architecture, designed the Yale Art and Architecture building (1963), which is noted to be one of the earliest and best known examples of Brutalist architecture in the United States (Lowder 2013). Rudolph also designed the entire University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, campus in Brutalist style. Architect Walter Netsch designed the complete University of Illinois-Chicago Campus (currently known as the East Campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago) in a single, unified Brutalist design. The original “inner-ring” campus at the University of California, Irvine, was designed by a team of architects (including Cypress College architect William E. Blurock as part of his firm Blurock Ellerbroek and Associates), headed by William Pereira, in a style that he termed “California Brutalist” style. Architect Quincy Jones created a master plan for California State University, Dominguez Hills, consisting of both Brutalist and New Formalist-style buildings (1968–1979). This master plan was revisited by Blurock in 1977 as part of the Revised Master Plan and Student Health Center project.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-7 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Rumors circulated that Brutalist buildings were intentionally placed on campuses in an effort to prevent student riots and occupations during the Vietnam War. The notion that the complex floor plans and oddly placed entrances were intentionally designed to discourage campus upsets has been debunked and shown to be little more than a myth, as the philosophy behind Brutalism began well before student war protests and was, itself, fundamentally opposed to the concepts of repression and control. Many Brutalist campus projects were planned (if not completed) before student movements. In addition, Brutalism offered campus administrators a win-win since it was both architecturally “in-style” and relatively affordable to build. Regardless of the fact that the riot-prevention theory has proven false, Brutalist buildings on college campuses would witness scenes of political protest where there was a distinct disconnect between the generations that went far beyond architectural taste (Lowder 2013).

Despite the popularity of adding Brutalist buildings to campuses during the 1960s and 1970s, extant examples of entire planned campuses in the style appear to be less common in California. Some notable extant examples of Brutalist style educational buildings in California include:

 The University of California, San Diego, which contains the most significant concentration of Brutalist buildings in San Diego, with 11 concrete-and-glass buildings built between 1958 and 1970. The most notable building is arguably the Geisel Library designed by William Pereira in 1970 (City of San Diego 2007).  The Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in La Jolla, designed by Louis Kahn in 1963.  The Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive at the University of California, Berkeley, designed by Mario Ciampi in 1970.  Wurster Hall, College of Environmental Design at the University of California, Berkeley, designed by Vernon DeMars, Donald Olsen, and Joseph Esherick in 1964.  Yosemite Hall at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, designed by Falk & Booth in 1969.  Briggs Hall at the University of California, Davis, designed by an unknown architect in 1971.  Cal Poly, Pomona, College of Environmental Design building, designed by Carl Maston in 1971.  California State University, Dominguez Hills (containing a combination of Brutalist and New Formalist style buildings), designed by Quincy Jones between 1968 and 1979.  Braille Institute of America in Los Angeles, designed by William Pereira & Associates in 1975.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-8 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

William E. Blurock

William E. Blurock (1922–2012) was born and raised in Los Angeles, California. He graduated from the University of Southern California School of Architecture in 1947, despite his studies being interrupted at the onset of World War II. While stationed in Foggia, Italy, Blurock flew 62 missions as a P-38 Mustang Fighter Pilot for the U.S. Army Air Corps as part of the 82nd Operations Group, flying over parts of Europe and North Africa. At the end of the war, he stayed abroad for 1 year to complete coursework at the University of Florence, School of Architecture, before returning to California and completing his degree in architecture (Bissell 2012; Michelson 2015).

His professional career includes:

 Blurock, Pleger, Hogan and Ellerbroek, Architects, Orange County, California (1952–1959);  William E. Blurock and Associates, Architects; Principal, William Blurock Associates, Newport Beach, California (1960–1974);  William Blurock & Partners, Newport Beach, California (1975–1982);  The Blurock Partnership (TBP), Newport Beach, California (1983–1994);  tBP/Architecture, Incorporated, Newport Beach, California (1995–2012);

In 1968, Blurock was named a Fellow by the AIA College of Fellows for his outstanding contributions to the design and science of construction. In the late 1970s, he served as a national director of the AIA and was named to the California State Board of Architectural Examiners by President Ronald Reagan, where he served a 13-year term.

Blurock is considered to be a visionary architect for his work ranging from the 1950s through the 1970s, particularly in the field of modern educational design. Over the course of his career, Blurock designed and planned buildings on 32 California college campuses and a number of other educational facilities throughout the state. He is known for pioneering the one-building model for schools, which consisted of an open-plan of classrooms, without doors, clustered around an interior common area. Thomas Blurock, the eldest of Blurock’s three children and a fellow architect, said the following of the collaborative nature of his father’s practice: “If I were to summarize his career, I would say his talent was in assembling really good teams. His office was one of the happening firms in educational design in the 60s and 70s largely because he was such a gifted team builder. Working there in that era was working with the best thinking in educational design” (Bissell 2012).

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-9 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Examples of his work on other educational buildings in Orange County between the 1950s and 1970s include:

 Orange Coast College, Costa Mesa, California: 1950s Facilities Master Plan (association with Richard Neutra/Robert Alexander) and 1970 Facilities Master Plan  University of California, Irvine: 1965 Original Master Plan, Phase I and IA (association with William Pereira)  Fullerton College, Fullerton, California:1970 Facilities Master Plan  Golden West College, Huntington Beach, California: 1972 Master Plan Update  Saddleback College, Mission Viejo, California: 1976 Campus Master Plan  Coastline Community College, Fountain Valley, California: 1978 Facilities Master Plan  Irvine Valley College, Irvine, California: 1978 Original Facilities Master Plan

Caudill Rowlett Scott (CRS), Architects

In 1946, the firm of Caudill and Rowlett was founded in Austin, Texas, by two architecture professors at the College of Texas A&M, William Caudill and John Rowlett. In order to start the firm, both men pooled their readjustment allowances from the U.S. Navy, totaling just $1,000. The fledgling firm struggled to start the company against the backdrop of a post-World War II mindset. The company relocated offices to College Station at the Southgate Center and picked up a third partner, Wallie Scott, in 1948 who was a former student of Caudill. That same year, a fourth partner, William Peña, joined the firm but requested that his name not be added to the firm’s name: Caudill Rowlett Scott (CRS).

Initially, much of the firm’s work came from residential house design in Texas and Oklahoma. In 1948, the firm landed their first job of what would be a long history in education architecture. The firm’s entrance into the educational realm is credited in part to Caudill’s 1941 book Space for Teaching, which examined the conditions and needs of elementary schools in Texas, and Rowlett’s dual degrees in architecture and education. CRS was awarded their first education project with an elementary school in Blackwell, Oklahoma. The Blackwell project was significant for two reasons: it represented CRS’s pioneering creation in schoolhouse design that was subsequently adopted across the United States during the 1950s, and it was during this project that CRS developed the “squatter” technique. In order to prevent the wasted time and money that results from long commutes to-and-from the office and the project site, CRS set up temporary offices at the school and “squatted” on site until all design tweaks and discussions with the school board were complete (College of Architecture 2016). This technique was implemented in the early brainstorming sessions held with the District for the design of Cypress Junior College.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-10 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

By the 1960s, CRS was famous for its integrated team approach, offering a one-stop-shop that combined the skills of architects, engineers, and planners. The firm also graduated to higher education and health facilities projects, and began to venture into international waters with projects in Saudi Arabia.

As projects and schools became bigger, CRS buildings shifted from being light and airy to more formal and sculptural. CRS architect Frank D. Lawyer was known for the sculptural elements he created for campuses like Cypress Junior College. The District requested a campus that was affordable but also built to last, so Lawyer selected concrete as the dominant material type and shaped the buildings with dramatic recesses to give the concrete character. CRS recognized that as a commuter school, Cypress needed ample parking, so the campus was designed to be bi- level: vehicular traffic circulated at ground level whereas pedestrian traffic was directed around campus using an elevated piazza that connected all the buildings (King and Langdon 2002).

In 1971, the firm went public and adopted a new name, CRS Design Associates. The firm expanded rapidly during this decade, acquiring several smaller companies. In 1983, the firm CRS Group Inc. became CRSS when engineer J.E. Sirrine joined the company. William Caudill passed away that same year, just before witnessing his once two-person firm transform into the largest architecture/engineering/construction corporation in the United States.

Sergio O’Cadiz, Artist and Architect

Sergio O’Cadiz Moctezuma (1934–2002) was born in Mexico City to a middle-class family. His father enrolled O'Cadiz in a Jesuit-run school to enhance the artistic tendencies that he demonstrated when he was just a toddler. O’Cadiz would go on to study architecture at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, known for its beautiful buildings and collection of murals by Diego Rivera and David Alfaro Siqueiros, and graduated in 1958.

Shortly after graduating, O’Cadiz began his professional career designing buildings in Mexico’s capital and teaching art classes. O’Cadiz moved to California in the early 1960s and quickly became a well-respected artist and designer. His talents were noticed by architect William Blurock, who began courting O’Cadiz in 1962. Eventually, Blurock managed to convince O’Cadiz to come work for his Costa Mesa-based company, William Blurock & Associates. By this time, Blurock was well-known for his high school and college building designs, considered by many to be a pioneer in creating buildings that were both artistic and functional despite their Brutalist aesthetic. The firm proved to be a perfect fit for O’Cadiz, who thrived in the company’s corporate environment as a conceptual architect and renderer. However, Blurock’s firm was unique in that it actively encouraged its workers to find ways of incorporating standalone art pieces into building designs. It did not take long for O’Cadiz to become well known for his architectural flourishes in school designs, including sculptures at Willard and Lathrop

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-11 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES intermediate schools in Santa Ana, murals at Monroe and Fremont elementary schools, and a 4,500-foot-long sculptured wall along the former library hall (now the College Complex) at Cypress Junior College in 1967.

O’Cadiz eventually left Blurock to start his own firm and open an art studio in Costa Mesa. He subsequently became a popular figure in the Orange County art scene, touted as “one of the most promising of the ‘new wave’ of young Mexican painters” by the Santa Ana Register. While O’Cadiz painted scenes of Mexico, his use of the abstract only hinted at ethnic and cultural themes, granting him easier access and acceptability by galleries in Newport Beach, Anaheim, and Los Angeles. As O’Cadiz further assimilated into middle-class American life, he bought a home in Huntington Beach and brought his family over from Mexico, all the while consulting in the construction of golf courses and resorts all over the world.

The 1970s represent O’Cadiz’s most significant artistic period in which he was able to meet the demands of both mainstream and Chicano art circles. When the Santa Ana College Chicano student group MEChA wanted to paint their own Chicano mural on campus, O’Cadiz was contacted by art professor Shifra Goldman to make it happen. In 1974, the 80-foot The History of the Chicano was dedicated at the school’s Nealy Library on two full walls. He was soon commissioned to design another Chicano-themed mural at California State University, Fullerton, in 1974. He also designed a concrete mural for the Santa Ana City Hall in 1972 and later made one in the same style for the East Los Angeles Occupational Center in 1977. He also created sculptural fountains for Fountain Valley’s Civic Center and Newport Beach’s Promontory Plaza, and a concrete sculpture for Brea in 1975. O’Cadiz’s “magnum opus” is said to be the Fountain Valley mural, painted in 1975 at the request of Colonia Juarez residents. Under O’Cadiz’s direction, residents painted an over 600-foot wall that depicted the history of their barrio. Sadly, the Fountain Valley mural became the center of controversy and eventually defacement, when sections of the mural depicting police violently arresting a young Mexican-American man were covered-over in white paint by vandals. After years of decay and neglect, the wall was eventually demolished in 2001.

By the 1980s, interest in murals had faded and O’Cadiz disappeared from the public eye, although he continued to consult in school and library design for Ralph Allen & Partners. He also designed other murals, but they were not to the same level as his work from the 1970s.

More of O’Cadiz’s work has been destroyed in recent years, including his fountain at the City of Fountain Valley Civic Center, which was converted into planters. Half of his concrete mural at the City of Santa Ana was also destroyed to make way for a new annex building. The destruction of his work, and ultimately his legacy, disillusioned O’Cadiz and he rarely left his home. Near the end of his life he hired a lawyer in an attempt to sue Fountain Valley and Santa Ana for

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-12 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES destroying his art, arguing public patrimony. In order to pay the lawyer, he put up his entire collection as collateral.

In 2012, a decade after O’Cadiz’s passing, a lecture on the history of Chicano art was put on by O’Cadiz’s daughter, Pilar, at the Fullerton Public Library. The presentation on his work seemed to invigorate attendees who were fascinated by his work and lined up to inquire how they could purchase, or at least promote, his art (Arellano 2012).

4.3.1.2 Paleontological Setting

The project area is the campus of Cypress College, in the City of Cypress, California. This portion of Orange County lies within the Santa Ana Valley–Capistrano Valley Province and includes nonmarine sediments of Pleistocene and Holocene age, the former as part of the floodplain sediments flowing southward from Carbon Creek and Coyote Creek to the west (McLeod 2016). The project area, in general, is underlain by Quaternary-age alluvium and colluvium deposited by running water and the accumulation of rock and soil at the base of steep slopes, respectively (City of Cypress n.d.).

Pleistocene-age fossils have been found at shallow depths in surficial sedimentary deposits throughout Southern California (Jefferson 1991). It is likely that Pleistocene-age deposits underlie the campus at depth, and these deposits are known to produce Ice Age fossils elsewhere in Cypress (McLeod 2016). Pleistocene-age fossils found in the area include a variety of terrestrial ice-age mammals, including mammoths, horse, bison, camel, sloth, and a variety of birds (Rivin and Sutton 2010; Eisentraut and Cooper 2002; Jefferson 1991).

4.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances

Federal

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) establishes the nation’s policy for historic preservation and sets in place a program for the preservation of historic properties by requiring federal agencies to consider effects to significant cultural resources (e.g., historic properties) prior to undertakings.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects on historic properties (resources included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)). It also gives the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the state historic preservation offices an opportunity to consult. Federal agencies issuing permits for the proposed project will be required to comply with NHPA requirements.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-13 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Executive Order 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment”

Executive Order 11593 (36 FR 8921) (1) orders the protection and enhancement of the cultural environment through requiring federal agencies to administer the cultural properties under their control in a spirit of stewardship and trusteeship for future generations; (2) initiates measures necessary to direct their policies, plans, and programs in such a way that federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or archaeological significance are preserved, restored, and maintained for the inspiration and benefit of the people; and (3) in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, institutes procedures to assure that federal plans and programs contribute to the preservation and enhancement of non-federally owned sites, structures, and objects of historical, architectural, or archaeological significance (16 U.S.C. 470-1).

National Register of Historic Places

The NRHP is the nation’s official list of historic places. The NRHP is overseen by the National Park Service and requires that a property or resource eligible for listing in the register meet one or more of the following four criteria at the national, state, or local level to ensure integrity and obtain official designation.

 The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.  The property is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past. Eligible properties based on this criterion are generally those associated with the productive life of the individual in the field in which the person achieved significance.  The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.  The property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

In addition to meeting at least one of these four criteria, listed properties must also retain sufficient physical integrity of those features necessary to convey historic significance. The register has identified the following seven aspects of integrity: (1) location, (2) design, (3) setting, (4) materials, (5) workmanship, (6) feeling, and (7) association.

Properties are nominated to the NRHP by the state historic preservation officer of the state in which the property is located, by the federal preservation officer for properties under federal ownership or control, or by the tribal preservation officer if on tribal lands. Listing in the NRHP provides formal recognition of a property’s historic, architectural, or archaeological significance based on national standards used by every state. Once a property is listed in the NRHP, it

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-14 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES becomes searchable in the NRHP database of research information. Documentation of a property’s historic significance helps encourage preservation of the resource.

State

California Public Resources Code

California Public Resources Code, Sections 5097–5097.6, identify that the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources located on public lands is a misdemeanor. It prohibits the knowing destruction of objects of antiquity without a permit (express permission) on public lands, and it provides for criminal sanctions. This section was amended in 1987 to require consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) whenever Native American graves are found. Violations that involve taking or possessing remains or artifacts are felonies.

Public Resources Code, Section 5097.5, states that “no person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historic feature situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands.”

California Register of Historical Resources

The California Office of Historic Preservation maintains the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is the authoritative guide to the state’s significant historic and archaeological resources. The program provides for the identification, evaluation, registration, and protection of California’s historic resources. The CRHR encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historic, archaeological, and cultural significance; identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protection to resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The CRHR also has established context types to be used when evaluating the eligibility of a property or resource for listing. The four criteria are as follows:

 It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.  It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.  It represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-15 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

 It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Similar to the NRHP, eligibility for the CRHR requires an establishment of physical integrity, including the seven aspects previously described. The CRHR’s list of special considerations is less stringent than the NRHP’s, providing allowances for relocated buildings, structures, or objectives as reduced requirements for physical integrity.

California Health and Safety Code

California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5 et seq., requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has examined the remains (Section 7050.5b). If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (Section 7050.5c). The NAHC will notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 24 hours of notification of the MLD by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.

California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on archaeological resources (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). As defined in Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code, a “unique” archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site, about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.  Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.  Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-16 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

In addition, CEQA Section 15064.5 broadens the approach to CEQA by using the term “historical resource” instead of “unique archaeological resource.” The CEQA Guidelines recognize that certain historical resources may also have significance. The Guidelines recognize that a historical resource includes: (1) a resource in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the PRC and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource contained in the CEQA Guidelines, then the site is to be treated in accordance with the provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21083, which is a unique archaeological resource. The CEQA Guidelines note that if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (14 CCR 15064.5(c)(4)).

Local

There are no local regulations that protect cultural resources.

4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance

The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to cultural resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to cultural resources would occur if the project would:

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-17 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

No topics related to cultural resources were eliminated in the Initial Study for the proposed project; therefore, all topics are covered in the Program EIR impacts analysis.

4.3.4 Impacts Analysis

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

Dudek Architectural Historian and Archaeologist Samantha Murray, MA, RPA, conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site on June 3, 2016. The project site is entirely developed with an active college campus. Therefore, intensive archaeological survey methods (i.e., regularly spaced pedestrian transects) were not warranted. All buildings and structures that were constructed as part of the original campus design plan in the 1960s and 1970s were photographed, researched, and evaluated in consideration of CRHR designation criteria and integrity requirements, and in consideration of potential impacts to historical resources under CEQA. All 1960s and 1970s buildings were examined as a group due to their historical relationships as part of a campus design plan and/or their shared architectural aesthetic. The survey entailed walking all portions of the campus and documenting each building with notes and photographs, specifically noting their character-defining features, spatial relationships, and observed alterations. During the survey, the Director of the Physical Plant and Facilities, Albert Miranda, provided access to locked facilities on the campus athletic field and provided information concerning past construction projects on campus.

Dudek documented the fieldwork using field notes, digital photography, close-scale field maps, and aerial photographs.

The following character-defining features were identified during the cultural resources survey. Character-defining features are the physical characteristics of historic resources that convey their historical significance.

Buildings and Structures

 Rectangular or square in plan  Board-formed concrete walls (both interior and exterior)  Rounded, smooth concrete stairwells (projecting from exterior of buildings and piazza)  Wide exterior staircases with sharp, angular profile (piazza)  Colored glass mosaic tiles (orange, yellow, brown, blue)  Piazza connections  Reflected ceilings (concrete coffers on underside of piazza and interior buildings)

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-18 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Cross-shaped, smooth, formed-concrete posts (interior and exterior)  Angled fascia over front entrances with horizontal board-form concrete (rest of building is typically vertical board-form concrete)  Recessed entrances  Wide curb handrail on staircases  Metal louvers (exterior)  Tinted glass window panels  Cast metal lettering on exterior walls  Angled roof skylights  Diving platform  Concrete furniture

Campus Design Features

 Central grouping of buildings  Parking lots surround buildings on all sides  Circular access loop on perimeter  Bi-level campus facilitated by piazza (partially altered in recent years)  Original grounds (including pond and extant hardscape and landscape elements)

The 1960s and 1970s buildings at Cypress College appear to represent a significant continuity of buildings united aesthetically by their Brutalist architectural style. These buildings were developed as part of the original master plan for the campus, which was designed and executed by master architects William E. Blurock & Associates and CRS. The Cypress College Historic District period of significance is 1965–1976. This period begins with the early phases of campus planning when the District contracted with William E. Blurock & Associates and CRS for the design of Cypress Junior College and carries through all four phases of campus construction, ending with the last buildings constructed in 1976.

The boundary of this potential historic district includes the entire campus, with some 1960s and 1970s elements serving as contributing elements to the historic district, and others as non- contributing elements (i.e., they do not contribute to the historic district’s significance). All post- 1976 buildings on campus are non-contributors. Table 4.3-1 provides a complete list of all potential contributing and non-contributing elements. Figure 4.3-1 shows the location of all contributing buildings.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-19 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Table 4.3-1 Inventory of 1960s and 1970s Buildings Within the Potential Cypress College Historic District

Building Name and No. Year Built Historic District Status College Complex (6) 1969 Contributor Fine Arts (2) 1969 Contributor Gymnasium I (7) 1969 Contributor Student Activities Center (8) 1969 Contributor Technical Education I (10) 1969 Contributor Cooling Tower 1969 Contributor Campanile 1969 Contributor Ponds/grounds 1969 Contributor Piazza structure 1969–1976 Contributor Pool Facilities 1970 Contributor Business Education (9) 1973 Contributor Science, Engineering, and Math (3) 1973 Contributor Block House Storage/Restrooms (31) 1973 Contributor Technical Education II (12) 1973–1974 Contributor HVAC (37) 1972–1976 Contributor Technical Education III (13) 1975–1976 Contributor Gymnasium II (11) 1976 Contributor Humanities (1) 1976 Contributor Humanities Lecture Hall 1976 Contributor Theater Arts (4) 1976 Contributor Baseball Storage/Clubhouse (25) 1970–1979 Non-Contributor Softball Storage/Clubhouse (26) 1970–1979 Non-Contributor

All buildings on the Cypress College campus were constructed less than 50 years ago. A resource less than 50 years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance and to obtain a scholarly perspective on events and individuals associated with the resource (see 14 CCR 4852(d)(2)). The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1–4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria.

CRHR Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.

Cypress Junior College was born out of the merger of two junior college districts, FJC and NOCJCD, and the need for a new college to serve students in the western portion of the

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-20 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES district, relieving some of the pressures on the FJC campus. Construction planning for the new campus came at a time when the City of Cypress was beginning to experience rapid growth, with the era of dairy farming coming to a close and the effects of urban sprawl creeping in. Development of the new campus prompted the City to re-evaluate its master planning in consideration of new development that would inevitably form around the campus. Historic aerial photographs of the surrounding area from the 1950s and 1960s reveal that much of the region’s development had already occurred, with some development occurring around the time of the campus. As any new college campus influences planning and development of the surrounding area to some degree, it does not appear that construction of Cypress Junior College resulted in any significant contribution to patterns of development in the Cypress area. Further, no other events were identified as a result of archival and background research that would warrant consideration under this criteria. Therefore, Cypress College Historic District does not appear eligible under CRHR Criterion 1.

CRHR Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

While numerous persons are historically associated with Cypress College, archival and background research failed to indicate any associations with persons important in history. Therefore, Cypress College Historic District does not appear eligible under CRHR Criterion 2.

CRHR Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.

The buildings constructed as part of the original Cypress College campus design plan embody the distinctive characteristics of Brutalism, a modern architectural style that dates between the 1950s and 1970s in the United States; however, in California, the style is uncommon prior to the 1960s. During this time period, Brutalism became a popular style of architecture on college campuses throughout California and the United States, and was most commonly seen in the form of expansion/improvement architecture on existing campuses to house performing arts centers, libraries, student centers, and educational departments. Examples of entire campuses specifically designed in the Brutalist style are less common.

The campus buildings from the 1960s and 1970s are most strongly characterized by their hulking mass, blocky plan, sharp projecting angles, and use of concrete as the dominant material type. The buildings are unified aesthetically by a number of character-defining features, including board-formed concrete walls, rounded stairwells clad in glass mosaic tiles, reflected ceilings, cross-shaped smooth-formed concrete posts, recessed entrances, and minimal use of tinted glass panels.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-21 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Cypress College campus was designed by master architects William E. Blurock & Associates and CRS, two firms that have specialized in educational architecture for decades. The Cypress College project occurred during the peak of Blurock’s career (1960s–1970s) when he completed some of his most important educational designs, including Brutalist and New Formalist-style buildings on the University of California, Irvine, campus (in association with William Pereira).

Additionally, the prominent sculptural wall on the front of College Complex (formerly the library building) was designed and executed by local Orange County artist Sergio O’Cadiz during the early stages of his professional career in the United States while working for William E. Blurock. In the 1970s (just a few years after completing the wall at the college), O’Cadiz would reach the peak of his career where he achieved a balance of success in both the Chicano art movement and mainstream civic projects. This is one of the few extant examples of his sculptural work in Orange County, and is considered to be a notable example. The College Complex building stands apart from the other Brutalist buildings on campus for its high artistic value associated with the sculptural wall that sharply and dramatically projects from the front elevation of the building. The incorporation of a significant art piece within the overall design of the building both contributes to the campus district and conveys significance at the individual level.

While the 1960s and 1970s buildings are unified by their Brutalist style and shared character- defining features, and while they are functionally related buildings, the original master plan of campus has been substantially altered in recent years. A unique and prominent feature of the original campus was (and is) its bi-level design, which permitted vehicular access at the ground level via Lakeshore Drive (which once ran through the heart of the campus) and circulated most of the campus pedestrian traffic on the upper level via a piazza structure. Originally, most of the buildings were accessed at the second story via the piazza. However, this design feature has been partially compromised by recent campus improvement projects that demolished three primary sections of the piazza, creating disjointed circulation of pedestrian traffic. Buildings that were once accessible via the piazza (e.g., the Business Education building) are now much less or no longer accessible at the second story. In addition, one of the biggest character-defining features of the piazza, and the campus district as a whole, was the pre-cast concrete guardrails that could be seen from almost any vantage point on the campus and further conveyed the Brutalist aesthetic. Many of these guardrails were also affixed to building balconies. All original concrete guardrails were removed from the piazza and buildings in 2003 out of safety concerns and replaced with the existing metal guardrails.

Other compromised historic materials and details include most of the building interiors, replacement of the original concrete stairwells on the Humanities building, and some original landscaping and hardscaping. However, the essential physical features that constitute the district’s Brutalist architectural style appear to remain largely intact. While new buildings have

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-22 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES been added to the campus, and removal of portions of the piazza have altered the flow of the original bi-level design of the campus, the buildings are still united aesthetically by their Brutalist style and functionally by their history as the original 1960s–1970s campus buildings.

Despite alterations to the original campus design plan and the addition of new buildings in recent years, the original 1960s and 1970s Brutalist buildings still convey most of the major character- defining features of their style and design, and represent the notable work of a team of master architects. Therefore, the buildings appear eligible as contributors to a historic district under CRHR Criterion 3. Additionally, the College Complex building appears eligible as an individual property under CRHR Criterion 3 for its high artistic values associated with the O’Cadiz sculptural wall.

CRHR Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The buildings are unlikely to yield any information important to prehistory or history, nor is it associated with any archaeological resources. Therefore, Cypress College Historic District does not appear eligible for listing under CRHR Criterion 4.

Integrity: Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet one of the criteria of significance discussed above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Furthermore, integrity must be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility (OHP 2011).

Location: The Cypress College permanent campus buildings have always occupied the same location. While various functions may have changed within the buildings themselves, their location remains unchanged. Therefore, the historic district retains integrity of location.

Design: For historic districts, design concerns more than the integrity of the individual buildings. It also concerns the way in which buildings within the district are related and connected. Overall, contributing buildings within the historic district retain a preponderance of the major design elements and character-defining features of Brutalism that aesthetically unify them on the exterior, including their rectangular plans, board-formed concrete walls, rounded stairwells clad in glass mosaic tiles, reflected ceilings, cross-shaped smooth-formed concrete posts, recessed entrances, and minimal use of tinted glass panels. Major exterior alterations to the buildings include replacement of the original concrete stairwells on the Humanities building with glass and steel lattice, replacement of the original concrete guardrails with metal campus-wide, and removal of large sections of the piazza.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-23 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

The majority of all building interiors have been substantially altered as part of remodeling efforts, which in many cases included removal of character-defining features on the interior. Brutalism is known for incorporating the same hard materials used on the exterior of a building in interior spaces. Evidence of board-formed concrete walls, concrete-coffered ceilings, and concrete posts is still evident in many of the buildings, but it appears much has been lost. However, the reconfiguration of interior spaces on any campus is a common occurrence in response to changes in enrollment capacity, education pedagogy, and building functionality.

Integrity of the original campus plan has been somewhat compromised by elimination of three large sections of the piazza, which functioned to navigate pedestrian traffic on campus and access buildings via the second story. The elimination of piazza sections created a disjointed flow on campus that partially altered the original vision for the campus as a functioning bi-level design. While substantial portions of the piazza remain, the ingenuity of the original design is somewhat altered by the current configuration. The campus does, however, still retain the essence of its original plan as a cluster of buildings situated within the center of a circular access road, with parking lots located on all sides of the campus. Although Lakeshore Drive has been eliminated from the center of campus, the path of the road is now followed by a pedestrian walkway over the same portion of the pond where the road was once located.

In consideration of integrity of design, the campus buildings appear to retain requisite integrity of the Brutalist stylistic elements that unify them, and the college retains integrity of the basic layout of the original campus plan. However, aspects of design integrity related to the original campus bi-level plan and the associated piazza structure have been partially lost.

Setting: The area surrounding Cypress College has not substantially changed since the 1970s. Most of the residential and commercial development that surrounds the campus was already in place during the district’s period of significance. One notable change to the campus setting in recent years is the removal of Lakeshore Drive through the center of the campus, which once passed over the pond in between the library (College Complex) building and the Technical Education I building. Additionally, trees and greenspace once located on either side of the road on the east end of campus have since been replaced by the new Library and Learning Resource Center building. The setting has also been partially altered by removal of sections of the piazza, which changed the way certain buildings are now accessed. While most portions of the campus retain their setting, others (e.g., the area surrounding the campanile where the piazza once stood) have been altered. Therefore, the district retains partial integrity of setting.

Materials: The historic district buildings retain the key exterior materials that date from their period of significance, including board-formed and smooth concrete walls and stairwells, colorful glass mosaic tiles, coffered ceilings under the piazza and awnings, cross-shaped smooth- formed concrete posts, recessed entrances, metal louvres, and tinted glass panels. While sections

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-24 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES of the piazza have been removed, the remaining sections and repetitive nature of the materials historically utilized on campus form a significant portion that powerfully conveys the materials and intent of the original campus. The pre-cast concrete guardrails are the only original material that has been entirely removed from campus. Therefore, the historic district retains the requisite integrity of materials.

Workmanship: The workmanship of the historic district is evident in the technology of the board-formed concrete that shapes the buildings, the purposeful use of textured and smooth concrete finishes, and in the striking Brutalist characteristics of the buildings and the sculptural qualities that they exude. The sculptural wall on the College Complex also yields a particularly high degree of workmanship. Overall, the historic district retains integrity of workmanship.

Feeling: The campus district buildings and other contributing elements strongly express the Brutalist aesthetic. The elephantine, fortress-like buildings, with their sharp angles, broad expanses of textured concrete walls, and deeply recessed, nearly invisible fenestration, are complimented by the colorful mosaic tile stairwells that pop from the buildings and piazza. The massive triangular-shaped sculptural wall projecting forcefully from the entrance of the College Complex building clearly serves as the campus centerpiece. Walking the campus, one feels immersed in the Brutalist style, with no details spared. Even the diving platform in the pool follows the cold concrete aesthetic. The campus evokes the spirit of modernism through its original 1960s and 1970s buildings, and therefore retains integrity of feeling.

Association: The campus district is not associated with any important historic events or people.

As a result of the significance evaluation, including consideration of CRHR evaluation criteria and integrity requirements, the original 1960s–1970s campus appears to be eligible as a historic district under CRHR Criterion 3 for conveying a concentration of planned buildings, structures, and associated elements united aesthetically by their embodiment of the Brutalist style. The buildings also represent the notable work of master architects William E. Blurock & Associates and CRS, two firms that pioneered educational architecture and created some of their most important work during the historic district’s period of significance (1965–1976).

Additionally, the Cypress College Complex building appears eligible as both a district contributor and an individual property under CRHR Criterion 3 for its high artistic value associated with the Sergio O’Cadiz sculptural wall that prominently projects from the building’s front entrance.

Construction of the SEM building and associated elements (i.e., immersive digital classroom, viewing platform, and incineration enclosure), Veterans’ Resource Center/Student Activities Center, and parking Lot 7 structure have the potential to adversely impact historical resources. While the exact details of the proposed work is not yet known, new construction adjacent to a historic district and proposed additions to contributing elements can result in significant impacts

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-25 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES to historical resources without proper mitigation in place. However, with adoption of appropriate mitigation (Mitigation Measure [MM]-CUL-1), impacts resulting from new construction activities can be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The campus buildings have already been subject to extensive interior renovations that have compromised elements of their integrity on the interior. However, buildings that do retain character-defining features, including board-formed concrete walls, use of smooth concrete, reflected ceilings, cross-shaped concrete posts, concrete staircases, and mosaic glass tiles, should be retained, particularly in areas where they remain relatively intact. Portions of buildings that have already been subject to major alterations where much of the original character-defining features have been lost will not apply. Removal of large sections of original materials that contribute to the Brutalist aesthetic should be avoided. In consideration of the fact that extensive alterations have already occurred to the building interiors, and in thoughtful treatment of those portions that still retain character-defining elements, impacts to building interiors would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (MM-CUL-1).

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliance work is noted to be a part of the work for all buildings proposed for renovation. In order to avoid a significant impact to the identified campus historic district and its contributing elements, it is strongly recommended that the District complete these renovations in a manner that is sympathetic to the architectural style of the buildings and in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. National Park Service (NPS) Preservation Brief 32, Making Historic Properties Accessible (Jester and Park 1993), provides specific guidance on how to make historic buildings ADA accessible while minimizing changes to historic materials and features. Impacts resulting from ADA-compliance work would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (MM-CUL-1).

Exterior renovations identified for the Cypress College campus buildings include the following:

 Installation of a new elevator on the Humanities Lecture Hall that could result in an expansion of the building  Replacement of roofing on Gymnasiums I and II  Construction of a standalone restroom building on the north elevation of Gymnasium II  Installation of security hardware/cameras  Reconfiguration of the existing pool and diving complex from its current “L” shape to a rectangular footprint, and upgrades to the existing deck and on-site facilities  Replacement of the original concrete stairwells of the Fine Arts Building; Technical Education Buildings 1, 2, and 3; Student Activities Center; Gymnasium II Building; and the Business Education Building, with helical lattice steel and glass structures that extend above the roof-line

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-26 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

These proposed exterior renovations have the potential to adversely impact historical resources, as they are proposed for buildings that contribute to the historic district on campus. Further, the vast majority of the historic district’s character-defining features are found on the buildings’ exteriors. Most of the impacts associated with the above-described proposed exterior renovations will be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation, specifically, conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (MM-CUL-1). However, replacement of the original concrete stairwells with lattice steel and glass (as currently seen on the Humanities building) will result in a significant adverse impact to the identified historic district on campus, as the original concrete stairwells are a major character-defining feature of the district and the proposed replacement materials are not in keeping with the Brutalist style of the contributing buildings. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate below a level of significance. Mitigation for replacement of the original concrete stairwells (as described) is provided (MM-CUL-2).

The project proposes to demolish three buildings as part of implementation of the Facilities Master Plan: (1) the existing SEM building, (2) the Baseball Storage/Clubhouse (Building 25), and (3) the temporary modular restrooms (Building 38).

The existing SEM building is a contributing element of the historic district on campus and is considered a historical resource under CEQA. Demolition of a historical resource constitutes “substantial adverse change” and is considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)) that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance. However, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if it does not mitigate below a level of significance. Mitigation for demolition of the SEM building is provided (MM-CUL-2).

Building 25 and Building 38 are not considered historical resources under CEQA. As described in Table 4.3-2, Building 25 is a heavily altered building that does not contribute to the historic district on campus, nor does it qualify for individual listing in the CRHR. Building 38 is a ubiquitous modular building that was installed during the 1990s and has no historical associations or architectural significance. Therefore, demolition of these buildings would result in a less-than-significant impact. No additional mitigation is required for demolition of these buildings.

The project proposes to make several site improvements as part of implementation of the Facilities Master Plan: (1) improve parking/vehicular entry improvements, (2) address piazza pedestrian circulation problems and add amenities to encourage student gathering, and (3) infrastructure improvements.

A character-defining feature of the original campus design is its circular access road that traverses the perimeter of the paved parking areas. However, improvements to entrances and

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-27 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES exits that do not alter this general design will result in a less-than-significant impact to the campus historic district.

The bi-level campus design is a key component of the original campus design, and while it has been altered in recent years, it remains a character-defining feature of the campus. The proposed site improvements to the piazza, including the addition of street furniture, planters, lighting, and rehabilitation of the characteristic exterior stairs, have the potential to adversely impact historical resources. While the exact details and specifications of these items are not yet known, impacts resulting from piazza improvements would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated (MM-CUL-2).

Infrastructure improvements that do not require any modification to or removal of character- defining features of the historic campus district will result in a less-than-significant impact.

As a result of these findings, the Cypress College Historic District is considered a historical resource under CEQA. As such, the proposed project has the potential to adversely impact historical resources through demolition of the SEM building and removal of character-defining features in the contributors to the district. The impact is significant and adverse even with the incorporation of mitigation measures.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

Records Search

Dudek requested a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search from the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), which houses cultural resources records for Orange County. Dudek received the results on May 9, 2016. The search included any previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a one-half-mile radius of the project site. The CHRIS search also included a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Points of Historical Interest list, the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list.

The SCCIC records indicate that four cultural resources investigations have been conducted within one-half-mile of the project site. Of these, two studies have overlapped a portion of the project site (OR-00333 and OR-02365). A summary of these studies is provided in the paragraphs that follow. Two additional previously conducted studies occurred within one-half- mile of the project site, but did not intersect the project site. Table 4.3-2 presents a record of all previously conducted studies identified as a result of the records search.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-28 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Table 4.3-2 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies Within One-Half-Mile of the Project Site

SCCIC Proximity to Report No. Title of Study Author(s) and Date Project Site OR-00333 Archaeological Survey Report: the Site of Proposed Van Horn, David M. 1978 Within Parking Lot 9 at Cypress College in Cypress OR-02365 Cultural Resource Assessment, Cingular Wireless Facility Duke, C. 2001 Within No. Sm 063-02 Orange County, California OR-02782 Cultural Resource Assessment AT & T Wireless Services Duke, C. 2002 Outside Facility No. 13010a Orange County, California OR-04061 Record Search and Field Reconnaissance for Proposed Wlodarski, Robert J. 2008 Outside Bechtel Wireless Telecommunications Site OC0195 (C&H Printing) located at 6946 Lincoln Avenue, Cypress, California 90630

OR-00333

In 1978, Archaeological Associates conducted a cultural resources survey of the proposed location of Lot 9 within the Cypress College campus for the District. The subject parcel measured approximately 6.5 acres and was located in the northeastern portion of the campus. No archaeological or built environment resources were identified as a result of the survey, and no further mitigation measures were recommended for the proposed project.

OR-02365

In 2001, LSA Associates Inc. (LSA) conducted a cultural resources assessment for a proposed location of a Cingular Wireless telecommunications facility. The proposed project consisted of the installation of antennas and microwave dishes mounted on the roof of a modern-age building located in what is now the southwest corner of the Cypress College campus at 9200 Valley View Street. As no ground disturbance was proposed for the project, the cultural resources assessment consisted of a review of archival literature of the project site and surrounding one-half-mile radius. The results of the records search indicated that no archaeological or built environment resources were previously recorded within the records search area. No further cultural resource considerations were recommended for the proposed cellular antenna installation project.

According to the SCCIC records, there are no previously recorded cultural resources located within the project site and surrounding one-half-mile search radius. There is one unmapped built environmental resource included in the California Historic Property Data File recorded within the one-half-mile search radius. This resource consists of a private residence built in 1955 that is located approximately one-quarter-mile northwest of the project site. This resource was found not eligible for NRHP listing and was not evaluated for listing in the CRHR or local listing.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-29 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Native American Coordination

Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal Outreach Efforts

As part of the process of identifying cultural resources within or near the project site, Dudek contacted the California NAHC to request a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF). The NAHC emailed a response on February 24, 2016, which stated that the SLF search was completed with negative results. Because the SLF search does not include an exhaustive list of Native American cultural resources, the NAHC suggested contacting Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations who may have direct knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project site. The NAHC provided the contact list along with the SLF search results.

Dudek prepared and sent letters to each of the five persons and entities on the contact list requesting information about cultural sites and resources in or near the project site. These letters, mailed on June 14, 2016, contained a brief description of the proposed project, a summary of the SLF and SCCIC records search results, survey results, and a reference map. Recipients were asked to reply within 30 days of receipt of the letter should they have any knowledge of cultural resources in the area.

Dudek has received one late response to the coordination letters to-date. On July 6, 2016, Andrew Salas, Chairman of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded via email. Mr. Salas stated that the proposed project area is situated within an area where the ancestral territories of Kizh Gabrieleno villages overlapped during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric periods. For this reason, Mr. Salas considers the project area to be highly sensitive for cultural resources and recommends the presence of both a Native American and archaeological monitor on site during all ground-disturbing activities.

While the letter from Dudek did not constitute Assembly Bill (AB) 52 notification, Mr. Salas requested AB 52 consultation in his response letter. Dudek forwarded this request to the District and noted that Mr. Salas never requested notification from the District and his request for consultation was untimely. On August 4, 2016, the District sent a letter to Mr. Salas in response to his request for consultation and suggested a meeting with District representatives on or before August 19, 2016. Mr. Salas did not respond. On August 18, 2016, the District sent a follow-up email to inquire about a consultation meeting and Mr. Salas also did not respond to that email.

Assembly Bill 52 Efforts

The proposed project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” as part of the CEQA process, and requires the CEQA lead agency to notify any groups (who have requested notification) of the proposed project who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project. The

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-30 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

District reports that they have not received any requests from California Native American tribes for AB 52 project notification (other than the indirect request from Mr. Salas as described in the paragraph above). After making reasonable, good-faith efforts to consult with Mr. Salas and receiving no response, the District concludes that AB 52 consultation on the project has ended.

No archaeological resources were identified within or adjacent to the project area as a result of the CHRIS records search or the Native American coordination efforts described above. Because it is always possible that intact archaeological deposits are present at subsurface levels and could be uncovered during ground-disturbing activities, MM-CUL-3 is included to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, compliance with all applicable rules, ordinances, and regulations, as well as implementation of the mitigation measure MM-CUL-3, significant impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

According to the Los Angeles County History Museum records search results (McLeod 2016), there are no documented fossil localities within a 1-mile radius of the project boundary. However, fossil localities are found nearby within the same Pleistocene sedimentary deposits as found at the project area. Younger Quaternary deposits east of the project site and on the west side of the Santa Ana River produced a fossil sheep, Ovis (LACM 1652); as well as a fossil horse, Equus (LACM 4943), east of the Santa Ana River in older Quaternary deposits at depths of 8 to 10 feet below the surface (McLeod 2016).

On March 9, 2016, a pedestrian survey was conducted to determine the areas of potential paleontological sensitivity. Particular attention was paid to exposed geology. Proposed improvements to the campus have the potential to impact paleontologically sensitive sediments at an unknown depth. High-sensitivity Pleistocene-age deposits have been known to yield scientifically significant paleontological resources in this region of Orange County. In general, scattered brush and the developed nature of the campus obscured the surface geology during the survey.

The review of record search data and field survey results did not identify any existing paleontological resources in the project area. Based on the survey and records search results, the site has the potential to reveal paleontological resources during construction.

A paleontological records search performed by the Los Angeles County Museum (LACM) did not identify any known fossil localities in the project area, but there are localities documented nearby (McLeod 2016). Geological mapping and geotechnical investigations also indicate that the site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium and colluvium, including older, Pleistocene-age deposits anticipated at depth, which have produced numerous plant and animal fossils in the region; therefore, the geological units should be considered to have a high potential to contain

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-31 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES significant paleontological resources. Because excavations into undisturbed Pleistocene-age deposits are possible during construction, such disturbance should be monitored during construction in order to mitigate adverse impacts to scientifically significant paleontological resources (MM-CUL-4 and MM-CUL-5). All scientifically significant fossils salvaged from the project area will be permanently curated in an accredited regional museum where they will be available for future scientific research (MM-CUL-6). In the event that unexpected, intact paleontological resources are unearthed during construction, a significant impact could occur. Therefore, compliance with all applicable rules, ordinances, and regulations, as well as implementation of the recommended mitigation measures (MM-CUL-4 through MM-CUL-6), significant impacts to paleontological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Prior to mitigation, impacts to paleontological resources would be considered significant.

Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

There is no evidence of human remains on the project site and the potential for the inadvertent discovery of human remains on the project site is very low because there is no evidence of any historical camps or human settlement on the site. Additionally, existing regulations through California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 et seq. state that if human remains are discovered during project construction, no further disturbance shall occur until the Orange County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC shall be contacted within a reasonable time. Subsequently, the NAHC shall identify the MLD. The MLD shall then make recommendations and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Given the very low potential for human remains on the project site and required compliance with existing regulations pertaining to the discovery of human remains, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to human remains.

4.3.5 Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce significant impacts to recorded historical resources, recorded archaeological resources, unrecorded subsurface archaeological resources, and unrecorded paleontological resources within the project area.

MM-CUL-l Prior to the start of new construction, additions, renovations, or site improvements within or adjacent to the potential Cypress College Historic District, construction and design plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the Secretary of the

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-32 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, specifically, the Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Weeks and Grimmer 1995). Proposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)- compliance work should reference both the “Accessibility Considerations” section of the Rehabilitation Guidelines and National Park Service (NPS) Preservation Brief 32, Making Historic Properties Accessible (Jester and Park 1993), to ensure that ADA-compliance work minimizes changes to historic materials and features. Prior to approval, plans for new construction and/or renovation shall be reviewed for conformance with the standards by a qualified architectural historian or historic preservation specialist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for architectural history (36 CFR Part 61).

The following mitigation is recommended after a thorough consideration of alternatives to activities that will result in substantial adverse change to the potential historic district on campus. While MM-CUL-2 will not reduce impacts below a level of significance, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken.

MM-CUL-2 Prior to replacement of the concrete stairwells on the Fine Arts; Technical Education 1, 2, and 3; Student Activities Center; Gymnasium II; and the Business Education buildings, and prior to demolition of the existing Science, Engineering, and Math (SEM) building, the North Orange County Community College District must ensure preparation of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Documentation shall be completed by a qualified historic preservation professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for history or architectural history. The documentation should capture the physical condition of the existing building with: (1) existing drawings (where available); (2) photographs of the buildings with large-format negatives; and (3) a written narrative that includes a detailed history and architectural description of the buildings, and highlights the historical significance.

One original copy of the final HABS documentation packet shall be offered to the following entities:

 The Library of Congress HABS Collection (to be offered as a donation)  The South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton  Orange County Public Library

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-33 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Orange County Archives  Orange County Historical Society  Los Angeles Conservancy

MM-CUL-3 In the event that archaeological resources (sites, features, or artifacts) are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; 14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082), the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery may be warranted.

MM-CUL-4 A qualified paleontologist should attend the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety issues.

MM-CUL-5 A paleontological monitor should be on site on a full-time basis during the original cutting of previously undisturbed deposits of high paleontological resource potential (e.g., older Quaternary alluvium) to inspect exposures for contained fossils. Geological units with a low potential for yielding paleontological resources, including Holocene-age alluvium and previously disturbed deposits, would not require monitoring. A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. The paleontological monitor should work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist.

If any subsurface fossils are found by construction personnel, activity in the immediate area should be suspended and the fossils left in place untouched until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. A qualified paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them. Construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be immediately redirected away from the vicinity of the discovery to allow room for the recovery of resources as necessary. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (such as a complete large mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances, the

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-34 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should be allowed to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for the recovering of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. Fossil remains collected during monitoring and salvage should be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged.

MM-CUL-6 Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, should be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections, such as the Dr. John. D. Cooper Center at California State University, Fullerton. Donation of the fossils should be accompanied by financial support for initial specimen storage. A final summary report should be completed that outlines the results of the discovery. This report should include discussions of the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, and significance of recovered fossils.

4.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation

Mitigation measures listed in Section 4.3.5 would reduce potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level. However, under CEQA, the mitigation measures required herein for impacts to historical resources would reduce but not eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project to the identified historic district and its contributing resources. The substantial demolition or alternation of the buildings, structures, objects, features, and landscape elements that comprise the Cypress College Historic District would result in a substantial adverse change to the historic property (the historic district) and the environment. The impact to the Cypress College Historic District cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Nevertheless, the measures outlined for documentation of the historic district (HABS documentation) are important to assure that information regarding the historical development of the college campus, its association with William E. Blurock and CRS Architects, and its physical manifestation of Brutalist-style educational facilities are documented, retained, archived, and promoted. The impact to historic resources remains significant and unavoidable.

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts on cultural resources evaluate whether impacts of the proposed project and related projects, when taken as a whole, substantially diminish the number of historical or archeological resources within the same or similar context or property type. As discussed throughout this section, the proposed project could have potentially significant impacts to unknown archaeological resources, and mitigation would be required to reduce adverse impacts to less than significant. It is anticipated that cultural resources that are potentially affected by

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-35 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES related projects would also be subject to the same requirements of CEQA as the proposed project and mitigate for their impacts, if applicable. However, the proposed project would have significant and unmitigable impacts on the identified historic district and its contributing resources. The impact to the Cypress College Historic District cannot be mitigated to a less-than- significant level. In the event that related projects would also result in potentially significant and unmitigable impacts to historical resources, then the proposed project would contribute cumulatively considerable impacts. These determinations would be made on a case-by-case basis, and the effects of cumulative development on cultural resources would be mitigated to the extent feasible in accordance with CEQA and other applicable legal requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact associated with cultural resources due to the fact that demolition or removal of any historically designated building would impact the potential historic district.

4.3.8 References

Arellano, G. 2012. “Sergio O’Cadiz: El Artist.” OC Weekly. October 4, 2012. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://www.ocweekly.com/arts/sergio-ocadiz-el-artist-6424237.

Bissell, T. 2012. “William E. Blurock: 1922-2012.” In Architectural Record. July 11, 2012.

Brutalism Online. 2016. “Introduction to Brutalism.” Accessed June 3, 2016. http://brutalism.online/brutalism.

City of Cypress. n.d. City of Cypress General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Accessed June 3, 2016. www.ci.cypress.ca.us/community_development/eir/4_geology.pdf.

City of San Diego. 2007. San Diego Modernism Historic Context Statement. The City of San Diego, California.

College of Architecture. 2016. “CRS History.” CRS Center, Texas A&M University. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://crs.arch.tamu.edu/about-us/history/.

Conti, J. 2013. “Architecture’s Brutalist ‘Fad’ Swept Through Schools, Public Construction.” TribLive. March 9, 2013. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://triblive.com/aande/ architecture/3580891-74/buildings-brutalist-architecture.

District (North Orange County Community College District). 2011. Cypress College Comprehensive Master Plan. Prepared by HMC Architects. May 2011.

Eisentraut, P.J., and J.D. Cooper. 2002. County of Orange Archaeological/Paleontological Curation: Final Guidelines, Procedures, and Policies. Fullerton, California: California State University, Fullerton.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-36 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Fullerton College Library. 2012. “Fullerton College: A Pictorial History. Accessed June 3, 2016..http://libraryfchistory.fullcoll.edu/photos.php?image_id=577.

Ganer, P. 2006. A Tree Grows in Cypress: A Brief History of the First 40 Years of Cypress College: 1966-2006. Published by Cypress College.

Jefferson, G.T. 1991. “A Catalog of Late Quaternary Vertebrates from California.” Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Technical Reports 7:1-129.

Jester, T. and S. Park. 1993. “Preservation Brief 32: Making Historic Properties Accessible.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. Heritage Preservation Series.

King, J. and Philip Langdon. 2002. The CRS Team and the Business of Architecture. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

LAT (Los Angeles Times). 1965a. “Architects to be Screened for New JC.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): August 8, 1965; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. OC12.

LAT. 1965b. “Two Firms Design New College.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): September 16, 1965; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. OC1.

LAT. 1965c. “Trustees to Decide on Temporary JC Campus.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): October 25, 1965; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. OC8.

LAT. 1965d. “Temporary Units Planned for College.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): November 7, 1965; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. L24.

LAT. 1965e. “Cypress College Drawings Ok’d.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): December 9, 1965; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. OC1.

LAT. 1967a. “Pilings Being Driven at Cypress College.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): August 13, 1967; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. N9.

LAT. 1967b. “$6.6 Million Cypress Program: Solid Footing Prepared for JC Building at JC.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): October 1, 1967; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. OC1.

LAT. 1969a. “Cypress College to Mark Growth in Dedication Friday: Cypress College.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): October 9, 1969; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. D2.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-37 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

LAT. 1969b. “Cypress Junior College Finds Status by Losing Middle Name.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): October 2, 1969; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. E7.

LAT. 1970a. “President of Cypress College to Resign.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): April 30, 1970; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. D16.

LAT. 1970b. “New President Named at Cypress College.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): July 2, 1970; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. C7.

LAT. 1971. “Architects Cite Cypress College Master Planning.” Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File): January 31, 1971; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. Pg. L10.

Lowder, J.B. 2013. “Were Brutalist Buildings on College Campuses Really Designed to Thwart Student Riots?” The Eye. Slate’s Design Blog. October 18, 2013. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/2013/10/18/campus_brutalism_were_the_buildings_ designed_to_thwart_student_riots.html.

McAlester, V.S. 2013. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

McLeod, S.A. 2016. Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Cypress College Project, in the City of Cypress, Orange County, Project Area. Unpublished letter report by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. February 16, 2016.

Michelson, A. 2015. “William E. Blurock (Architect).” Pacific Coast Architecture Database. Accessed June 3, 2016.http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/3565/.

Mindel, L.F. 2016. “10 Buildings People Love to Hate but Shouldn’t: Reconsidering Brutalism, Architecture’s Most Argued-Over Style.” Architectural Digest. Posted January 28, 2016. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ brutalist-architecture-masterpieces.

NETR (National Environmental Title Research LLC). 2011. Address search for: Cypress College, CA. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://www.historicaerials.com/.

OHP (Office of Historic Preservation). 2011. California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register). Sacramento, California: Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-38 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

Rivin, M. and E. Sutton. 2010. Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines for Curation of the Orange County Archaeological and Paleontological Collections. Based on Final Report: Development of a Model Curation Program for Orange County’s Archaeological and Paleontological Collections, by P. Eisentraut, PhD, PI for Archaeology and J. Cooper, PhD, PI for Paleontology. November 2010. https://docs.google.com/file/d/ 0B4oxskno9Md9SUlxZVE3eUJ4RE0/edit.

Turner, P.V. 1984. “Chapter VII. Dynamism, Change, and Renewal” in Campus, An American Planning Tradition. M.I.T. Press and the Architectural History Foundation. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://www.brynmawr.edu/cities/archx/campus/.

Walker, D.G. 1968. “The House Plan at Cypress.” ERIC Institute of Education Sciences. Accessed June 3, 2016. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED026985.pdf.

Weeks, K. and A. Grimmer .1995. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services.

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-39 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-40 d x m . s t n e m e l E g n i t u b i r t n o C t c i r t s i D c i r o t s i H e g e l l o C s s e r p y C _ 1 - 3 . 4 e r u g i F \ R I E P \ T N E M U C O D \

C Project Boundary O D P A M \ 1 0

2 Contributors 2 4 9 j \ s t c e j

o Buildings & Structures r P \ : Z

: n 0 187.5 375 h t a Piazzas P

Feet

-

e l t t a b c

: y b d e FIGURE 4.3-1 v SOURCE: Bing Maps, 2016 a s t s a L

-

Cypress College Historic District Contributing Elements 6 1 0 2 / 7 2 / 7

: Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program Environmental Impact Report e t a D 4.3 – CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Cypress College Facilities Master Plan Program EIR 9422 September 2016 4.3-42