Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
HK - 2021-04-06 - Item 4 - HIA - 3571 King St E
Date:March 23, 2021 To:Heritage Kitchener Committee From:Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner cc: Subject:Draft Heritage Impact Assessment 3571 King Street East The Planning Division is in receipt of a draft Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) dated November 30, 2020 and prepared by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. regarding options under consideration for the future of the former nuclear bunker located on theproperty municipally addressed as 3571 King Street East. The subject property is listed on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register as a non-designated property of cultural heritage value or interest. Theoptions for the former bunker include demolition or rehabilitation and adaptive reuse. The HIA was prepared for staff at the Region of Waterloo toprovide an assessment of these options. The heritage consultant that prepared the HIA and staff from the Region of Waterloo will attend the April 6, 2021 meeting of Heritage Kitchener to present the draft HIA and answer any questions from committee members. Comments from the Heritage Kitchener committee will be shared with Regional staff. A motion or recommendation to Council will not be required at the April meeting. The HIA has been reviewed by the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee (HPAC) at its meeting held on January 14, 2021. A copy of the comments prepared by members of HPAC are attached to this memorandum as information to the members of Heritage Kitchener. A copy of the HIA is also attached. ________________________ Victoria Grohn, BES Heritage Planner 4 - 1 Planning, Development and Legislative Services Cultural Services Date: January 29, 2021(amended) Memorandum To:Rod Regier, Commissioner of Planning, Development and Legislative Services Cc:Laurie Wells, Facility Project Management, Victoria Grohn, Heritage Planner, City of Kitchener on behalf of the Heritage Kitchener Committee (via email) From: The members of the Regional Heritage PlanningAdvisory Committee Subject:Proposed optionsand Heritage Impact Assessment for the Regionally Owned Nuclear Bomb Shelter, 3571 King Street E., Kitchener The Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee (HPAC) would like to provide comments, enclosed inthisMemorandum amdendedJanuary 29, 2021,foryour consideration. These comments are provided in accordance with 3.G.11 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP)and the HPAC Terms of Reference item 1.6 that states “The Heritage Planning Advisory Committee will comment on any proposed changes to heritage resources owned by the Region.”This memorandum will be provided to Regional Facilities, Project Management (cc via email) to aid in their evaluation of the Regionally owned nuclear bomb sheltermunicipally addressed at 3571 King Street East, Kitchener. City of Kitchener Heritage Planning staff are also copied on this memorandumso that it may be shared with the Heritage Kitchener Committee for consideration in their review of the Heritage Impact Assessment for the structure and the Committee’s review of any future potential heritage demolition or alteration permits. The structure located at 3571 King Street Eastwas built in 1966 as a cold warnuclear 35385811 4 - 2 bomb shelter, known as the Waterloo County Municipal Emergency Government Headquarters or MEGHQ. The structureis situated on a 1.23 acre parcel of land located on the south side of King Street East between Stonegate Drive and the Freeport Bridge. The 5720 square foot structure was built primarily underground of concrete and concrete block featuring 10 inch exterior concrete and metal doors, and was designed for a fallout protection factor of 500 (meaning that the inside radiation dose would be 1/500 of the outside dose).The purpose of this structure was to ensure a communication network remained viable and that municipal governance was maintained in the event of a nuclear disaster.The structurewas once capable of being completely self-sufficient with no outside requirements for power, water or sewageand could house approximately 40 individuals.The structurewas designed by the firm of Webb Zerafa Menkes and Matthew, also famously responsiblefor the design ofthe CN Tower. 3571 King Street East is listed on the City of Kitchener’s Municipal Heritage Register. Based on the recommendationsof the Heritage Impact Assessment completed for the Region of Waterloo by ARA Ltd. (November, 30, 2020),this property is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and meets the criteria for identification as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource. There are currently two options under consideration by the Region of Waterloo for the future of the Waterloo County MEGHQ. One option is the rehabilitation and reuse of the building, and the other is demolition. Regional HPAC has discussed the options for the Waterloo County MEGHQover the course of several meetings, including a delegation from Regional Facility Project Manager Laurie Wells on November 12, 2020. Based on these discussions, at their January 14, 2020 meeting, HPACpassed the following motion: Moved by B. Bryant Seconded by E. Thorsen THAT on the basis of the Committee’s review of the information regarding the proposed options for theRegionally owned Waterloo County MEGHQat 3571 King Street East, Kitchener, and in accordance with Policy 3.G.21 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), which states: “Built heritage resources owned by the Region and listed on a municipal heritage register, including Joseph Schneider Haus, the Governor’s House and Gaol, McDougall Cottage and West Montrose Covered Bridge will be conserved.”, the Regional Heritage Planning Advisory Committee (HPAC) provides the following comments: The Waterloo County MEGHQ Bomb Shelter at 3571 King Street East has been listed by the City of Kitchener on the Municipal Heritage Register, therefore, this 35385812 4 - 3 structure “will be conserved”. The definition of conserved within the ROP is as follows: “The identification, protection, use and/or management of cultural heritage and archaeological resources in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. This may be addressed through a conservation plan or a heritage impact assessment.” As per ROP polices 3.G.16 to 3.G.18 and policy 3.G.21 and in response to the proposed options forthe significant Waterloo County MEGHQ Bomb Shelter, a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) was completedby ARA Ltd and dated November 30, 2020.HPAC found this report to be well written and thorough. Based on the Analysis of the HIA, the Waterloo County MEGHQ Bomb Shelter, municipally addressed as 3571 King Street East Kitchener, meets the criteria for identification as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource. Therefore, HPAC recommends that Regional Staff be directed to follow the Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources and bring forward a request to Regional Council for consideration of the inclusion of the Waterloo County MEGHQ on the Waterloo Region Heritage Inventory. In concert with the recommendation to identify the Waterloo County MEGHQ Bomb Shelter at 3571 King Street East as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource, HPAC recommends soliciting recognition from the Ontario Heritage Trust and/or recognition from the National Trust for Canada or the Department of National Defense. HPAC recommends that the significant heritage Waterloo County MEGHQ Bomb Shelter at 3571 KingStreet East be conserved and adaptively reused for Regional purposes. HPAC does not recommend demolition. That all recommendations for Option 2, as presented in Section 12.2 of the HIA, be implemented. That as this project progresses, Regional HPAC and Regional Cultural Heritage Staff continue to be consulted. Carried (unanimously) 35385813 4 - 4 HeritageImpact Assessment 3571 King Street East City of Kitchener Region of Waterloo, Ontario Prepared for DST Consulting Engineers Inc. 550 Parkside Drive, Unit C1-B Waterloo,ONN2L 5V4 Canada By Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. 219-900 Guelph Street Kitchener, ON N2H 5Z6 Tel: (519) 804-2291 HR-202-2020 Project # 2020-0163 30/11/2020 RevisedReport 4 - 5 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,CityofKitchener i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Under a contract awardedin August2020byDST Consulting Engineers Inc.onbehalfof the Region of Waterloo,Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.(ARA) carriedout a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) forthe propertyat 3571 King Street East in the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo,Ontario.The propertyislisted on the City of KitchenersMunicipal Heritage Registerpursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Thesubject propertyis locatedwithin Schneider Park,adjacenttothe Freeport Bridge, the Grand River and theFreeport Hospital.The property islocated onClosed Street Plan 135 Lot 176 Plan 987 Lot 17 Part Lot 18 Plan 990 Lot2 Part Lot 1 and Plan 1411 Block B,in the City of Kitchener,RegionalMunicipality of Waterloo, Ontario(see Map 1).The propertyis currently owned by the Region of Waterloo. TheHeritage Impact Assessmentapproach consisted of the following: Background research concerning the project contextand historical contextof the subject property; Consultation with the City of Kitchener and Region of Waterloo heritage staff; Identification of any designatedor recognizedcultural heritage properties within and adjacent to the subject property; On-site inspection and identificationof all properties with potential Built Heritage Resources and Cultural HeritageLandscapeswithinandadjacentto the subject property; A description of the location and nature of cultural heritage resources; Summary of the cultural heritage value or interestof the subject propertyand evaluation of the propertyagainstthecriteria set out forRegionalSignificance; Evaluation of potential project impactsresulting from the proposed development; and Provision of suggested strategies for the future conservation of identifiedcultural heritage resources. 3571King Street East is listed on the City of Kitcheners Municipal Heritage Register.Basedon theresultsof historic research,consultation, field surveyandassessmentofthe subject property,3571 King Street East meets more than one criterion of cultural heritage value or interest outlined in OntarioRegulation 9/06 and is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Further, 3571 King Street East meetsthe criteria for identification as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource. There are currentlytwo options under consideration for the future of the bunker. Oneoption is the rehabilitation and reuse of the building(Option 2).Rehabilitationand reuse isthe preferred optionfrom a heritage perspective.Giventhat the exact rehabilitationactivitiesand reuseplans have yetto be determined, the impacts can only be examined at ahigh-level.Potential mitigation measure that may be necessaryto address possibleimpacts ofrehabilitationand reuse include: That the principles outlined intheStandards and Guidelines for the Conservationof Historic Places in Canada(ParkCanada2010) and the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties(MHSTCI2007)should be considered in rehabilitationand reuse plans. A Heritage Impact Assessment should be undertaken to ensure that future plans conform with these guidelines; November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 6 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 KingStreet East,City ofKitchener ii That aCultural Heritage Resource Documentation (CHRD) reportshouldbe preparedto document pre-rehabilitation and reuse conditionand; That if there are any activities that will result in ground disturbance, aStage 1 archaeological assessment should be undertaken. If it is determinedrehabilitationandreuse arenot feasibleand demolition is approved(Option 1), the following mitigation measures should be carried out: That portions of the 10inch thick walls be examined for selectiveremoval for interpretive elementsor for interpretation in one of the local museums. Other elements that could potentially besalvaged for interpretation includesany mechanical equipment (i.e., air filter)and the communication towers.This strategy shouldbe implemented through a Commemoration and InterpretationPlan as well as discussions with the Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum; That Consideration should be given to the potential retention ofa portion of the concrete wall as a knee wall to be interpreted; That if it is not possible to keep the concretewall to a knee height, an alternative may be to physicallymark the original linesof the building walls(i.e., floor plan)using hard landscaping (i.e., pavers or asphaltor concrete paths). Thesymbolic conservation should be interpreted.Themethod and locationof the interpretationshould be detailed in a Commemoration and Interpretation Plan; That as outlined in the CityofKitchenerOfficialPlan,A Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation (CHRD) reportshouldbe prepared; That a Stage 1 archaeological assessment should be undertaken;and That a revised Heritage Impact Assessmentmay be necessary, as determined by the Region of Waterloo Principal Planner, Culture Heritage and/or City of Kitchener Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. As outlined in the Cityof KitchenersTermsof Reference for HeritageImpactAssessments, adraft of thisHIA shouldbe submitted forreviewand comment totheHeritagePlanning Staffand Municipal HeritageCommittee.TheHeritage ImpactAssessmentshould also be submitted to theRegional heritage staff and presented to the Heritage Planning Advisory Committee. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 7 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 KingStreet East,City ofKitchener iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTSIII 1.0 PROJECT CONTEXT1 2.0 POLICY AND APPROACH1 2.1 Key Concepts4 2.2 Types of Recognition6 2.3 Evaluation of Significance7 2.3.1 Local Value7 2.4 Region of Waterloo Criteria7 2.5 Evaluation of Impacts9 2.6 Mitigation Strategies10 2.7 Summary of Approach11 3.0 SITE HISTORY11 3.1 Chorological History of the Subject Property13 3.2 Bunkers in Ontario14 4.0 CONSULTATION17 5.0 FIELD SURVEY18 6.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION18 6.1 Arrangement of Buildings and Structures18 6.3 BunkerStructure19 6.3.1 Exterior19 6.3.2 Interior19 6.4 Garage Structure19 6.5 Architectural Style/Design20 6.6 Condition Assessments20 6.7 Changes Over Time21 6.8 Archaeological Resources21 7.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY22 7.1 Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest22 7.2 Summary of CHVI of 3571 King Street East in Accordance with O. Reg. 9/0623 7.3 Evaluation of Regional Significance24 8.0 HERITAGE ASSESSMENT ADJACENT CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES25 9.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT25 9.1 Option 1: Demolition25 9.2 Option 2: Rehabilitation and Reuse25 10.0 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS26 10.1 Impacts of Option 1: Demolition26 10.2 Impact of Option 2: Rehabilitation and Reuse26 11.0 ASSESEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONSAND MITIGATION MEASURES27 11.1 Alternatives Considered27 11.2 Mitigation Measures for Option 1: Demolition27 ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 8 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 KingStreet East,City ofKitchener iv 11.2.1 Salvage of Components(Option 1 Impact 1)28 11.2.1 Retain a Portion of the Wall (Option 1 -Impact 1)28 11.2.2 Symbolic Conservation(Option 1 Impact 1)29 11.2.3 Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report(Option 1 Impact 1)29 11.2.4 Archaeological Assessment (Option 1 Impact 2)30 11.2.5 Dust and Noise (Option 1 Impact3)30 11.3 Mitigation Measures for Option 2: Rehabilitation and Reuse30 11.3.1 Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation Report(Option 2 Impact 1)30 11.3.2 Follow the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Option 2 Impact 1)30 11.3.1 Archaeological Assessment (Option 1 Impact 2)32 12.0 SUMMARY STATEMENT AND CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS32 12.1 Mandatory Recommendation32 12.2 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations32 13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES34 LIST OFAPPENDICIES Appendix A: Maps and Figures38 Appendix B: Subject Property Images58 Appendix C: Identified Ajdacent BHRs and CHLs76 Appendix D: Key Team MemberTwo-Page Curriculum Vitae87 LIST OF IMAGES Image 1: Exterior of 3571 King Street East60 Image 2: Exterior of 3571 King Street East Roof Detail60 Image 3: Exterior of 3571 King Street East CommunicationTower Detail61 Image 4: Exterior of 3571 King Street East Boat Storage61 Image 5: Interior of 3571 King Street East Boat Storage Detail62 Image 6: Exterior of 3571 King Street East Roof Detail62 Image 7: Exterior of 3571 King Street East CommunicationTower Detail63 Image 8: Exterior of 3571 King Street East Roof Detail63 Image 9: Exterior of 3571 King Street East South View64 Image 10: Exterior of 3571King Street East Concrete View64 Image 11: Exterior of 3571 King Street East South View65 Image 12: Interior of 3571 King Street East Boat Storage Detail65 Image 13: Interior of 3571 King Street East Metal Roof Beams Detail66 Image 14: Interior of 3571King Street East Staff Door Detail66 Image15: Interior of 3571 King Street East Shop Detail67 Image 16: Interior of 3571 King Street East Shop Detail67 Image 17: Interior of 3571 King Street East Electrical Infrastructure Detail68 Image 18: Interiorof 3571 King Street East Storage Detail68 Image 19: Interior of 3571 King Street East Staircase Detail69 Image 20: Interior of3571 King Street East Staircase Detail69 ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 9 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 KingStreet East,City ofKitchener v Image 21: Interior of 3571 King Street East Storage Detail70 Image 22: Interior of 3571 King Street East Storage Detail70 Image23: Interior of 3571 King Street East Mechanical Room Detail71 Image 24: Interiorof 3571 King Street East Gymnasium Detail71 Image 25: Interior of 3571 King Street East 72 Image 26: Interior of 3571 King Street East Hallway Detail72 Image 27: Interior of 3571 King Street East 73 Image 28: Interiorof 3571 King Street East 73 Image 29: Interior of 3571 King Street East Fire Escape to Roof Detail74 Image 30: Interior of 3571 King Street East View to Southern Entrance Detail74 Image 31: Interior of 3571 King Street East 10 Inch Concrete Detail75 LIST OF MAPS Map 1: Subject Property in the City of Kitchener38 sap of theCounty of Waterloo, Canada West(1861)39 Map Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo (1881)40 Map 4: Subject Property on a 1916 Topographic Map41 Map 5: SubjectProperty on a 2019 Aerial Image42 Map 6: Adjacent BHRs and CHLs43 Map 7: Exterior Photo Location Map, 3571 King Street East58 Map 8: Interior Photo Location Map, 3571 King Street East59 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: County and Township Settlement History11 Table 2: Summary of Land Transactions for 3571 King Street East14 Table 3: Summary of CHVI of 3571 King Street East in Accordance with O. Reg. 9/0623 Table 4: Evaluation of the Regional Significance of 3571 King Street in Accordance with Requirements for Regional Significance24 Table 5: BHRs and CHLs with CHVI25 LIST OFFIGURES Figure 1: Hierarchy of Emergency Government Facilities across Canada44 Figure 2: Carleton Place, aCentral Relocation Unit (CRU)45 Figure 3: Northwest Corner ofthe Edenvale Bunker45 Figure 4: View of Edenvale Bunker Interior46 Figure 5: Interior of Debert Bunker46 Figure 6: Historic Photo of 3571 King Street East, 196947 Figure 7: Waterloo Region Map47 Figure 8: View of Operations Room (2019 room labeled Boat Storage)48 Figure 9: View of Hallway48 ory Room (2019 room lab49 ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 10 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 KingStreet East,City ofKitchener vi Figure 11: View of Bathroom49 Figure 12: Air Purifier50 Figure 13: View of Stairs50 Figure 14: Carbon Monoxide Alarm51 Figure 15: Zone 2 S.S.B Network Map51 Figure 16: County Network EMO 1 Map52 Figure 17: County Network EMO 1 Map Close Up52 Figure 18:Exterior Photo 200353 Figure 19: Roof Detail53 Figure 20: Entrance54 Figure 21: Provisional Manning Table55 Figure 22: Floor Plan and Use of Bunker56 Figure 23: Example Historic Overlay-Heidentor in Eastern Austria57 Figure 24: The location and size of the northwest tower of the second57 GLOSSARYOF ABBREVIATIONS ARA Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. BOS Beasleys OldSurvey BHRBuilt Heritage Resource CEGHQCanadian EmergencyGovernment Headquarters CRUCentral Relocation Units CHRDCultural Heritage Resource Documentation CHVI CulturalHeritage Valueor Interest CHLCultural Heritage Landscape GCT German Company Tract GRCA Grand River Conservation Authority HIA Heritage Impact Assessment HPAC Heritage Planning Advisory Committee MEGHQMunicipal EmergencyGovernment Headquarters MHC Municipal HeritageCommittee MHSTCIMinistry of Heritage, Sport,Tourismand CultureIndustries OHA Ontario HeritageAct OHT Ontario Heritage Trust OP OfficialPlan O. Reg.Ontario Regulation PPSProvincial Policy Statement REGHQ Regional Emergency Government Headquarters RRURegional Relocation Units RSCHRRegionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource ROP Regional OfficialPlan TORTerms of Reference ZEGHQ Zone Emergency Government Headquarters ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 11 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 KingStreet East,City ofKitchener vii PERSONNEL ProjectDirector:P.J. Racher, MA,CAHP Heritage OperationsManager:K.JonasGalvin, MA,RPP,MCIP, CAHP Site Visit:K.Jonas Galvinand V. Nagy MSc HistoricalResearch:S.Clarke, BA Photography:K.Jonas Galvin Cartographer:K.Brightwell (GIS),L. Bailey (GIS) Technical Writers:K.JonasGalvin,P. Young, MA, CAHP,V. Cafik, BAand V. Nagy Two-pageCurriculum Vitae(CV) forkey team members thatdemonstrate thequalifications and expertisenecessaryto preform cultural heritage workin Ontario are providedin Appendix D. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 12 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 KingStreet East,City ofKitchener viii CITY OFKITCHENERMINIMUM REPORT REQUIREMENTS CHART City ofKitchener Minimum Requirements Relevant ARA Section (HIA ToR) 2.1 Present owner1.0 ProjectContext 2.2 Detailed site history3.0 Site History 2.3 Description of buildings and cultural heritage4.0 Consultation value and heritage attributes5.0 FieldSurvey 6.0 Property Description 7.0 Heritage AssessmentSubject Property 8.0 Heritage AssessmentAdjacent Cultural Heritage Resources 2.4 Documentationof subject property including Appendix A: Maps and Figures photographsAppendix B: Subject Property Images 2.5 Outline of the proposed development or site 8.0 Heritage Assessment Adjacent Built Heritage alterationand impacts and any adjacentResources properties9.0 Proposed Development 10.0 Analysis of Potential Impacts Appendix C: Identified Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes 2.6 Options for conservationand mitigation 11.0 Assessment ofAlternative Development Options and Mitigation methodsMeasures 2.7Summary of heritage conservation principles 2.0 Policy and Approach and their use 11.0 Assessment of Alternative Development Options and Mitigation Measures 2.8 Explanation and Justification of Proposed 9.0 Proposed Development Alterations 11.0 Assessment of Alternative Development Options andMitigation Measures 2.9 Recommendations12.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations 2.10 Qualifications and background of Appendix Ds CV.s authors/personnel 3.0 Summary Statement and Conservation 12.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendation Recommendations 4.0 Mandatory Recommendations12.0 Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendation REGION OF WATERLOOMINIMUM REPORT REQUIREMENTS CHART Region of WaterlooMinimum RequirementsRelevant ARA Section (Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources) 3.1 Introduction1.0 Project Context 3.2 Historicbackground of the Resource3.0 Site History 5.0 Field Survey 6.0 Property Description 7.0 Heritage Assessment Subject Property 8.0Heritage AssessmentAdjacent Cultural Heritage Resources Appendix A: Maps and Figures Appendix B: Subject Property Images 3.3 Assessment of the impacts ofthe proposed 9.0 Proposed Development development or site alteration on the RSCHR 10.0 Analysis of PotentialImpacts andattributes 3.4 Identificationand evaluation of development 11.0 Assessment of Alternative Development Options and Mitigation alternatives, mitigation and conservation Measures measures 3.5Summary of Community and Indigenous 4.0 Consultation Engagement 3.6 Recommendations12.0Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations 3.7 AppendicesAppendix A: Maps and Figures AppendixB: Subject Property Images Appendix C: Identified Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 13 1 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 1.0PROJECT CONTEXT Under a contract awardedin August2020byDST Consulting Engineers Inc.onbehalfof the Region of Waterloo,Archaeological Research Associates Ltd.(ARA) carriedout a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) forthe propertyat 3571 King Street East in the City of Kitchener, Region of Waterloo,Ontario. The propertyislisted on the City of KitchenersMunicipal Heritage Registerpursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act(OHA). Thesubject propertyis locatedwithin Schneider Parkand contains a one-storey bunker built into the topographyand a one-storey wood garage above grade. Itis adjacenttothe Freeport Bridge, the GrandRiver and theFreeport Hospital.The property islocated onClosed Street Plan135 Lot 176 Plan 987 Lot 17 Part Lot 18 Plan 990 Lot2 Part Lot 1 and Plan 1411 Block B, in the City of Kitchener,RegionalMunicipality of Waterloo, Ontario(see Map 1).The propertyis currentlyowned by the Region of Waterloo.The bunker was originally proposed for demolition and as a resultof thisactivity, there was ğ requirementfor the completion of aHIA to address theimpactsproposed tothis listed heritage property(Option1). However,based on ongoing discussionsattheRegion of Waterloo,the rehabilitation and reuseof the bunker isnowunder consideration(Option 2). The purpose of this assessmentis to identify andevaluate the cultural heritage resources within andadjacent totheproject location that may beimpactedbytheproposeddevelopment options for the property including:Option 1involvingtheremoval of the existing structureat 3571King Street Eastor Option 2 involvingits retention and reuse.An assessment of development or site alteration impacts is included within the report as wellasan examination of mitigation measures.Thisassessment wasconductedin accordance with the aims ofthe provincial policiesand local policiesin theRegion of Waterloo Official Plan(2015),Region of Waterloos Regional Implementation Guidelinefor Conserving Regionally SignificantCultural Heritage Resources(2018),CityofKitchenerOfficialPlan(2014); andCity ofKitchenerHeritage Impact AssessmentTerms of Reference(2020). 2.0POLICY AND APPROACH The frameworkforthis assessment report is providedbyprovincial planning legislationand policies aswell as municipalOfficialPlansand guidelines. Section 2 of the PlanningAct indicatesthat a councilof a Municipalityhave regard for matters of provincial interestsuch as: (d) the conservationof featuresof significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeologicalor scientific interest.f the PlanningActdirects a municipal Councbe consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement(PPS2020).Policy 2.6.1 states:Significantbuilt heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved(MMAH 2020:31). TheRegion of Waterloo Official Plan(ROP) Chapter 3 contains policies that address cultural heritage resources,such as Policy 3.G.1indicatingthathe RegionandArea Municipalities willensure that cultural heritage resources are cons(2015:48). There are additionalpolicies that are for the identificationand protection ofRegionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources.The policy information below is also outlined in the Regional Implementation Guidelinefor Conserving Regionally SignificantCultural Heritage Resources(RSCHR)(2018:9). 3.G.2 The Region will prepare and update a Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving RegionallySignificant Cultural Heritage Resources. In accordance ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 14 2 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener withthe Ontario Heritage Act, this guideline willoutline the criteria and processes the Regionwill follow to identify and conserve cultural heritage resources of Regional interest including regional roads that have cultural heritage value or interest. 3.G.3 AreaMunicipalities will identify cultural heritage resources by establishing and maintaining a register of properties that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Area Municipalities will include on their register properties designated under Part IV, V orVI of the Ontario Heritage Act, and will consider including, but not be limited to, the following additional cultural heritage resources of cultural heritage value or interest: a) properties that have heritage conservation easements orcovenants registered against title; b)cultural heritage resources of Regional interest; and c) cultural heritage resources identified by the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Federal or Provincialgovernments. 3.G.4 The Region will coordinateand maintaina region-wide inventory of cultural heritage resources that are: a) listed on registers established and maintained by Area Municipalities; b) identified by the Federal or Provincialgovernments, and the Grand River Conservation Authority; c) identifiedthrough research by the Region, Area Municipalities, post- secondary institutions or local historical societies; d) of Regional interest; or e) owned by the Region. The ROPincludes policies related to potential impacts to cultural heritage resourceswithinthe region.Policy3.G.13 states: Area Municipalities will establish policies in their official plans to require the submission of aCultural Heritage Impact Assessment(CHIA) in support ofa proposeddevelopment that includes or is adjacent to a designated property, or includes a non- designated resource of cultural heritage value or interest listed on the Municipal Heritage Register(ROP 2015:51).Where a cultural heritage resource is of Regional interest there are policies that address the circulationandthe contents of a CHIAandmitigative recommendationsto conserve the resource, where feasible(ROP 2015:51-52). As specifiedin Policy 3.G.17in the ROP, aCHIA is to include, but not be limited to, the componentsoutlinedbelow: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritageattributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed developmentor site alteration; d)assessment of development or site alteration impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) schedule and reporting structure for implementation andmonitoring; and g) a summary statement and conservation recommendations(2015:51-52). TheRegional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resources(RSCHR)(2018) defines RSCHRs, their identification and evaluation, the objectives of the RSCHR identification process, documentation of RSCHRs, approval by Council of these resources and the conservation process, which may involve the completion of a Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA). The Guideline also provide a list of required components for a CHIA. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 15 3 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener WithinKitchenersOPthereareobjectivesfor the conservation ofcultural heritage resources including: 12.C.1.1esources through their identification, protection, use and/or management in such a way that their heritage values, attributes and integrity are retained. 12.C.1.2.To ensure that all development or redevelopment and site alteration is sensitive to and respects cultural heritage resources and that cultural heritage resources are conserved.(2014:12-1). TheCity ofKitchenersOPsupports identifyingandaddressing potential impacts to cultural heritage resourcesthroughPolicy 12.C.1.23 whichstates: The City will requirethe submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment and/or a Heritage Conservation Plan for development,redevelopment andsitealteration that has the potential to impact a cultural heritage resource and is proposed: a)on or adjacent to aprotected heritage property;(2014:12-5). As outlined in the OP, Heritage Impact Assessments(HIAs) are to have the following contents: a) historical research, site analysis and evaluation; b) identification of the significance and heritageattributes of the cultural heritage resource; c) description of the proposed development or site alteration; d)assessment of development or site alteration impactor potential adverse impacts; e) consideration of alternatives, mitigation and conservation methods; f) implementation and monitoring; and, g) summary statement and conservation recommendations(2014:12-6). Additionally,the OP states: 12.C.1.27.Anyconclusions and recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment andHeritage Conservation Plan approved by the City will be incorporated as mitigative and/or conservation measures intothe plans for development or redevelopment andinto the requirements and conditions of approval of any application submitted under the Planning Act(2014:12-6). TheOP also addresses proposed demolition/damage to cultural heritage resources with policies12.C.1.32 12.C.1.36. These policies state: 12.C.1.32.Where aculturalheritage resource is proposed tobe demolished, the City may requireall or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City forre-use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to theCity. 12.C.1.33. In the event that demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage toa significant cultural heritage resource is proposed and permitted, the owner/applicantwill be required to prepare andsubmit a thorough archival documentation, to thesatisfaction of the City, prior to the issuance of an approval and/or permit. 12.C.1.34. Where archival documentation is required to support the demolition, salvage, dismantling, relocation or irrevocable damage to a significant culturalheritage ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 16 4 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener resource, such documentation must be prepared by aqualified person and mustinclude the following: a) architectural measured drawings; b) a land use history; and, c) photographs, maps and other available material about the cultural heritageresource inits surrounding context. Archival documentation may be scoped or waived by the City, as deemed appropriate. 12.C.1.35. In the event that demolition is proposed to a non-designated property of culturalheritage value or interest listed onthe Municipal Heritage Register, the owner/applicant will be required to provide written notice to the City of the intent todemolish, 60 days prior to the date demolition is proposed. The significance of thecultural heritage resourcewill be evaluated and Council may usethe 60 days to pursuedesignation of the cultural heritage resource under the Ontario Heritage Act. 12.C.1.36. The City may give due consideration to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act anycultural heritage resource if that resource is threatened with demolition, significantalterations or other potentially adverse impacts(12-7). Heritage Impact Assessments Termsof Referencenes the required elements that shouldbe included in HIAs (City of Kitchener 2020). Throughcareful analysis of the heritage values and attributes of identified resourcesand landscapes, coupled withananalysisof project impacts andan outline of potential mitigation measures,the requirements of the PPS,these Official Plansand theirguidelinescan be met. 2.1Key Concepts The following concepts require clear definitioninadvance of the methodologicaloverview; properunderstanding isfundamentalforany discussionpertaining to cultural heritage resources: Cultural HeritageValue or Interest(CHVI), also referred to as Heritage Value,is identifiedif a property meetsoneof the criteria outlined inO.Reg.9/06 namely historic or associate value, design or physical value and/or contextualvalue.Provincial significance is defined underOntarioHeritageAct (OHA)O. Reg. 10/06. Built Heritage Resource (BHR) can be definedure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a peritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Built heritage resources are located on property that may be designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or that may be included on local, provincial, federal and/or international registePPS 2020:41). Cultural HeritageLandscape(CHL)is definedinthe PPSas:a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as havingcultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views,archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Culturalheritage landscapesmaybe propertiesthat have been determined to havecultural heritage value orinterest under the Ontario Heritage Act, or have been included on federal and/or international registers, and/or protected through official plan, zoning by-law, or other landuse planning mechanisms.2020:42). ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 17 5 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Itisrecognizedthat the heritage value ofaCHL is often derived from its association with historical themesthat characterize the development ofhuman settlementin an area (Scheinman 2006). In Ontario, typical themeswhich maycarry heritage valuewithina communityinclude butare not limitedto: 1) Pre-Contact habitation,2)early European exploration, 3)early European andFirst Nations contacts, 4) pioneer settlement, 5)the development of transportation networks,agriculture and rural life, 6)earlyindustry and commerce, and/or 7) urban development. Individuals CHLs may berelated to a number of these themes simultaneously. TheOperational Guidelines for theImplementation of the World Heritage Convention definesseveral types ofCHLs: 1) designed and created intentionally by man, 2)organically evolved landscapeswhichfallinto two-subcategories (relic/fossil or continuing), and3)associative cultural landscapes (UNESCO 2008:86). MCL (at the time) InformationSheet#2 Cultural Heritage Landscapes(MCL2006c) repeats these definitions todescribe landscapes in Ontario. Conserved on, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeologicalresources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in aconservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/orheritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and (PPS2020:41-42). Heritage Attributesaree principal features or elements that contribute to a protected heritagepropertyculturalheritage value or interest,andmay include the built, constructed,or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, waterfeatures, and itsvisual setting (e.g. significant views or vistas to or from a protected heritageproperty).PPS2020;44-45). Significantin reference to cultural heritageisdefined as:resources that have been determined to havecultural heritage value orinterest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act(PPS2020:51). Keyheritage definitions fromthe Region of WaterlooOfficialPlanare as follows: Builtheritage resourcesare defineone ormoresignificant buildings, structures, monuments, installations orremains associated witharchitectural,cultural,social, political, economic or military history andidentified as beingimportant to the community. These resourcesmay be identifiedthrough designation or heritage conservation easement under the Ontario Heritage Act, or listedby local, regional,provincialor federal jurisdicti2015:G-4). CulturalHeritage ImpactAssessmentis detailedstudy to determineif cultural heritageresources will be negatively impacted by a proposed development or site alteration. It canalso demonstratehowthecultural heritage resource will be conserved in the context of redevelopment or site alteration. Mitigative or avoidance measuresor alternative development approaches may al-5). Culturalheritage landscapedefinedgeographical area of heritage significance whichhas been modified by human activities and is valued by a community. It involvesa grouping(s) ofindividual heritage features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sitesand natural elements, which togetherformasignificant type of heritage form, distinctive fromthat of its constituent elements or pa2015:G-5). Culturalheritage resourcesarephysical remains and the intangible cultural traditions of past humanactivities. These include,butarenotlimitedto: ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 18 6 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener buildings (residential,commercial, institutional, industrialand agricultural); cultural heritage landscapes (designed, organic/evolved); structures (water tower; bridge, fence and dam); monuments(cenotaph, statue andcairn); archaeological resources; cemeteries; scenic roads; vistas/viewsheds; culturally significant natural features(treeand landform); movable objects (archivalrecords and artifacts); and cultural traditions (language, stories, music,dance, food, celebrations, artand craft) (2015:G-6). Key heritage definitions from the Cityof Kitchener Official Plan areas follows: Adaptive Re-usend/or structure usually for a new function, such as the use ofa former industrial buildingfor residential purpA-1) Cultural Heritage includes buildings, structures and properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or listedon the Municipal Heritage Register, properties on the Heritage Kitchener Inventory of Historic Buildings, builtheritage resources and cultural heritage landscapesas defined in the Provincial Policy Statemen(2014:A-5). Heritage Impact Assessment is defined asa document comprising text and graphic material including plans, drawings, photographs that contains the results of historical research, field work, survey, analysis, and description(s) of cultural heritage resources together with a description of the process and procedures in deriving potential effects and mitigation measures as required by official planpolicies andany other applicable or pertinent guidelines. A heritage impact assessment may includean archaeological assessment where appropri-11). 2.2Types of Recognition BHRs and CHLs are broadlyreferred toas cultural heritage resources. Avariety of types of recognition exist to commemorateand/orprotect cultural heritage resources inOntario. The Minister of the Environment, on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada (HSMBC), makes recommendations to declare a site, event or person of national significance. The National Historic Sites program commemorates important sites that had a nationally significant effect on, or illustrates a nationally important aspect of, the history of Canada. A National Historic Event is a recognized event that evokes a moment, episode, movement or experience in the history of Canada. National Historic People are people who are recognized as those who through their words or actions, have made a unique and enduring contribution to the history of Canada. Another form of recognition at the federal level is the Canadian Heritage Rivers System program. It is a federal program to recognize and conserve rivers with outstanding natural, cultural and recreational heritage. It is important to note that federal commemoration programs do not offer protection from alteration or destruction. The OntarioHeritageTrust(OHT) operates theProvincialPlaque Programthat has over 1,250provincialplaques recognizing keypeople, places andevents that shapedthe province. Additionally, properties owned by the province may be recognized as a itage properTC2010). ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 19 7 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Protectedproperties are thoseprotected by PartIV (individualproperties) or Part V (Heritage ConservationDistrict) designationunderthe OHA. Once designated, aproperty cannot be altered or demolished without the permissionof thelocal council. Acultural heritage resource may also beprotected through a municipalor OHT easement. Many heritagecommitteesand historical societies provide plaques for localplaces of interest. Under Section 27of the OHA, a municipality mustkeep aMunicipalHeritage Register. AMunicipal Heritage Register lists designated propertiesas well asother properties of cultural heritage value or interest inthe municipality. Properties on this list that are not formally designated are commonly referred toased.sted properties are flaggedfor planning purposes and are affordeda60-day delayin demolition if ademolitionrequest is received. 2.3Evaluation of Significance 2.3.1Local Value In order toobjectively identifyculturalheritage resources, O. Reg. 9/06 made under the OHA sets outthree principal criteriawithnine sub-criteriafor determining CHVI (MCL 2006a:2027). Thecriteria set outintheregulation were developed to identifyandevaluate properties for designationunder theOHA.Best practices in evaluating propertiesthat are not yet protected employ O.Reg. 9/06to determine ifthey haveCHVI.These criteriainclude:design orphysical value, historical orassociativevalueandcontextual value. 1. Theproperty has design valueor physical value because it, i. isarare, unique,representative or early exampleof a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displaysa high degreeof craftsmanshipor artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree oftechnicalor scientific achievement. 2. Theproperty hashistorical valueor associativevalue becauseit, i. hasdirect associations with a theme, event, belief,person, activity, organization or institution thatissignificant toa community, ii. yields, or hasthe potential to yield, informationthat contributes to an understanding of acommunity orculture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas ofanarchitect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i.is important in defining, maintainingor supporting thecharacter of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked toits surroundings,or iii. isa landmark. O. Reg. 9/06,s. 1 (2). 2.4Region of Waterloo Criteria The list below is the criteria used by the Regionof Waterloo to determine if acultural heritage resource is of RegionalSignificance. A candidate RSCHR is evaluated on: Recognition TheRSCHRor element(s) within the RSCHRmaybe recognized on an Area Municipal Heritage Register, and or Regionally, Provincially or Nationally under various legislation. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 20 8 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Rare orDates from a Prehistoric or Early Historic Period a)The prehistoric period is outlined by the Ontario Archaeological Society as the time from the firstarrival of Ice Age Paleo-Indian hunters until the arrival of European fur traders and missionaries inthe seventeenth-century. b) The early historic periodcomprises the post-contact period, and continues until the formation of Waterloo Countyin 1850. Design TheRSCHRor element(s) within the RSCHRmay serve as an exampleof the work of an outstanding regional, national, or international architect, engineer, builder, designer, landscape architect, interior designer, or sculptor, or as an example of vernacular architecture. a) Vernaculararchitecture includes all architecture that does not employ recognizable style. Distinguishable traits tend to be unique to each locality, often reflecting the ethnic origin of the builder, and demonstrate the influences of local climate, geology,geography, and economics on building construction. Vernacular architecture is found in a repeating pattern, or has repeated use of similar features. Association with Significant Person(s) TheRSCHRmay be associated with a person(s) recognized as havingmade a significant contribution to the social, cultural, political, economic, technological or physical development or as having materially influenced the course of regional, provincial, national, or international events. Association with Significant Event(s) TheRSCHRmay be associated with an historic event which is recognized as having regional, provincial, national, or international importance, having a significant or lasting impact on society. Illustration of Development TheRSCHRmay be an example and illustration or historic social,cultural, political, economic, or technological history or development. Contribution to Landscape TheRSCHRmay contribute to theurban or rural composition, streetscape,view shed, or landscape of which it forms a part of. a) Heritage or cultural landscapes caninclude gardens, parks, open space, urban streetscapes, and rural landscapes. They illustrate broad patterns of land use over time. b) A viewshed, or viewplane, can be used to recognize and preserve valued features of heritage landscapes. Viewsheds are determined by both height and breadth of a view from anadvantageous location Potential for Tourism TheRSCHRmay havethe potential tocontribute to commercial tourism or other development based on heritage and/or culture. a) Factors have been identified to determine whether a site can be adapted for heritage tourism. These factors are: , where re-use willnot compromise the significant architectural elements; mpatibility with the current zoning; capacity for educationor museum use; Integrity of the site; and, ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 21 9 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener st to conserve and maintain the site is sustainable Historical Association with the Grand River andits Major Tributaries TheRSCHRor element(s) within the RSCHR may be part of a group of historically associated structures which may be totally within the region or which may be part of a larger areawithin the contextof the Grand River and its main tributaries as a Canadian Heritage Rivers System. a) The Grand River is recognized by the Canadian Heritage Rivers System Program for its human heritage and recreational values. The Grand River and its main tributaries TheConestogo, Nith, Eramosa and Speed Rivers are all recognized under this designation(Region of Waterloo 2018:18-20). ApotentialRSCHR willbe evaluated against the ten criteria and a resource needs to meet four of the criteria to be considered to have Regional Significancein the Region ofWaterloo(Region ofWaterloo 2018:18).The above list may be drafted as questions to be answered: 1.Is the resource, or element(s)within the resource, recognized on a municipal, regional, provincial or national heritage list? 2.Does the resource date from aprehistoric or early historical period in the development of the Region, Province or Nation? 3.Is the resource, or element(s) within the resource, a good representative example of the work of an outstanding regional,national orinternational architect, engineer, builder, designer, landscape architect, interior designeror sculptor, or of vernacular architecture? 4.Is the resource associated with a person(s) who is recognized as having made a significant contribution tothe social,cultural, political, economic, technological or physicaldevelopment? Or as having materially influenced the courseof regional, provincial,national or international events? 5.Is the resource directly associated with an historic event which is recognized as having regional, provincial, national or international importance? 6.Is the resource a significant example and illustratiorehistoric or historic social, cultural, political, economic or technological development? 7.Does the resource contribute to the effectiveness of the urban composition, streetscape, view shed, or landscape of which it may form part of? 8.Does the resource havepotential for contributing to commercial tourist or other development that is basedon heritage and/orculture? 9.Isthe resource, or element(s) within the resource,part ofa group of similar structures whichcontribute to the particularor region? 10.Is theresource, or element(s) within the resource, part of a group of historically associated structures which may be totallywithin the Region or which may bepart of a larger area within the context of the Grand Riveras anationally designated Heritage River?(2018:42-43). 2.5Evaluation of Impacts Any potential project impacts on identifiedBHRs orCHLsmust be evaluated, includingpositive and negativeindirect impacts. InfoSheet #5:Heritage Impact AssessmentsandConservation Plans(2006b:3)providesan overview of several major types of negative impacts, including but not limitedto: Destructionof any, orpart of any, significant heritage attributes; Alterationthat is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with thehistoricfabric and appearance; ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 22 10 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Shadows created that alter the appearance of aheritage attribute or change the viability of anaturalfeatureor plantings, suchas a garden; Isolation ofa heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context orsignificant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views orvistaswithin, from,or of built and natural features; A changein land usesuch as rezoning abattlefield from openspaceto residential use, allowing new development orsitealterationto fill in the formerly open spaces; and Land disturbances such asachange in grade that alters soils, and drainagepatterns that adversely affectanarchaeological resource. TheRegional Implementation Guideline for Conserving RegionallySignificantCultural Heritage Resources(2018:31-32) contains alist of negative impacts thatmirror many of those in the above mentioned InfoSheet #5 but are articulatedfor RSCHRs. The Guidelinesstate: A CHIA should be required if the proposed development or Regional infrastructure project may result in potentialnegative impacts, including the following: Destruction of any, or part of any,cultural heritage resource or attribute of the RSCHR; Alteration that is not sympathetic to, or is incompatible with, the historic fabricand appearance of the RSCHR; shadows or obstructions that alter the appearanceof a cultural heritage resourceorattribute, or change the viability of an attribute (e.g. blocking sunlight to natural features or plantings that have been identified as heritage attributes); Isolation of a cultural heritage resource or attribute from its surrounding environments,context or significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of a significant viewor vista within, from or of built and natural features; nge in land use where the change in land use negates the resources cultural heritagevalue (for example, the change introduces new development or site alteration into a previously open spacethat was identified as a heritage attributesuch as infill on a battlefield, parkland or similar cultural heritage landscape); Land disturbanceorsite alteration such as change in gradethat alter soils and drainage patterns or vibrations that occur from construction activity that may adversely affect cultural heritage resources; and/or, disturbances such as noise and/or traffic in or near the RSCHR that impacts thepropertal heritage value(2018:31- 32). 2.6Mitigation Strategies If potential impacts toidentified heritage resourcesaredetermined,proposed conservation or mitigative/avoidance measuresmust be recommended. TheMinistry ofHeritage, Sport, Tourism and CultureIndustries(MHSTCI)InfoSheet#5: Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans(2006b:4), a component of the Heritage ToolKitseries (MHSTCI2006a) lists several specificmethods of minimizing oravoidinga negative impactonaculturalheritage resourceincluding, but not limitedto: ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 23 11 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Alternative development approaches; Isolating development and site alteration from significant built and natural features and vistas; Design guidelines that harmonize mass, setback, setting, and materials; Limiting height and density; Allowingonly compatible infill and additions; Reversible alterations; and Buffer zones, site plan control, and other planning mechanisms TheCity of KitcheneHeritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference provides a list of mitigation measures. The HIA Terms oshall beprovided that explain how the significant cultural heritage resources may be conserved. Methods of mitigation may include,but are not limited to:preservation/conservation in situ;adaptive re-use,and integration of all or part of the heritageresource,relocation(City of Kitchener2020:2). 2.7Summary of Approach Theapproach outlinedherein is supported by the best practices, guidelinesand policies of the following: Provincial Policy Statement(2020); Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990); ParStandards and Guidelines for the Conservationof Historic Places in Canada(2010); TheOntario Heritage Tool Kitseries (MHSTCI2006a); Region of Waterloo Official Plan(2015); Region of WaterlooRegionalImplementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally SignificantCultural Heritage Resources(2018) Cityof KitchenerOfficial Plan (2014); and City of KitcheneHeritage Impact Assessment Termsof Reference (2020). 3.0SITE HISTORY TheCity of KitchenerandRegion ofWaterloo have a long history of settlement includingpre- contactandpost-contact Indigenouscampsites and villages due toits favourable farmland and productive riverside lands. However, the potential cultural heritage resourcelocated on the subject propertyistied to the history of thegrowthof Euro-Canadian communities in the City of Kitchener. Accordingly, this historical context section spans the earlyEuro-Canadiansettlement history through to present. The early history of thestudy area can beeffectively discussed in termsofmajorhistoricalevents. The principal characteristics associated with theseevents are summarized inTable 1. Table 1:County and TownshipSettlement History (Smith 1846;Coyne 1895;Lajeunesse 1960;Cumming 1972; Ellis and Ferris 1990;Surtees1994; Bloomfield2006; Hayes 1997) Historical EventTimeframeCharacteristics Brûlé explores the area in 1610;Champlain visits in 1613 and 1615/1616; Iroquoian-speakers (Huron,Petun and Neutral) and th Early ContactEarly 17century Algonkian-speakers(Anishinabeg) encountered; European goods begin to replacetraditional tools ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 24 12 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Historical EventTimeframeCharacteristics Haudenosaunee(Five Nations)invade c.1650; Neutral, Huron Five Nations and Petun Nationsare defeated/removed; vast Iroquoian th Mid-17century th Invasionhunting territory establishedin the secondhalf ofthe 17 century; Explorers continue todocument thearea Ojibway,Odawa and Potawatomi expand into Haudenosaunee ththth Late 17and early 18lands inthe late17century; Nanfan Treaty between Anishinabeg Influx centuryHaudenosaunee andBritishin1701;Anishinabeg occupy the area and trade directly withthe French and English Growth and spread of the fur trade; Peacebetweenthe French Fur Trade andEnglish with the Treaty of Utrecht in1713;Ethnogenesisof th Early and mid-18century Developmentthe Métis; Hostilitiesbetween French and British lead tothe Seven Yearench surrender in 1760 Royal Proclamationof 1763recognizes the title of the First Nationsto the land; Numerous treaties arrangedby the Crown; th BritishControlMid-18century First acquisition is the Senecasurrender ofthe west side of the Niagara River in August1764 UnitedEmpire Loyalist influxafterthe American Revolutionary War (17751783); British developinterior communication routes and acquire additionalBetween theLakes Purchase th Loyalist InfluxLate 18century orchestrated by Haldimand in 1784 to obtain landsforSix Nations; Constitutional Actof1791 createsUpperand Lower Canada Became part of York g; Additional landsacquireetween the Lakes Pu 1792;Brant surrenders Blocks 16 of the HaldimandTractto thth County Late 18and early 19 theCrown in1798; Became part of Gore Districtand Halton Developmentcentury Countyin 1816;Wellington District and Waterloo County createdin 1840; WaterlooCounty independent after the abolition of the district systemin 1849 Waterloowas originally Block 2 of the Haldimand Tract; Block2 sold toUnited Empire Loyalist Richard Beasley and hispartners in 1798; Nearly 5,750ha sold to Pennsylvania Mennonites and Township non-Mennonites in1800; German Company formed to facilitate th Early 19century Formationthebulksaleof24,281ha in1805, represented by Daniel Erb and Samuel Bricker; Lotsdrawn byshareholders in Pennsylvania;Steady and rapid stream of settlersensued, disruptedonly by the Napoleonic Wars andWarof 1812 Twenty saw mills and eight grist millsin operationby 1846; Population was 4,424at that time; the arrival of the Grand Trunk Railway, theGalt & Guelph Railway and the Preston & Berlin thth Township Mid-19and early20 Railwayin the1850s ushered ina golden era; Prominent Developmentcentury communities existed at Berlin, Breslau, Shantz, Williamsburg, New Aberdeen, Strasburg,GermanMills, Freeport, Oregon (Upper Doon), Doon,Blair,Prestonand Hespeler in 1881 Villageof Berlinwas incorporated in 1854;GrandTrunk Railway to the Village by 1856;Industry including button factories, textile thth Town and City Mid-19and early 20 mills,manufactories;Incorporated as a Town in 1912; Became Developmentcentury City of Berlin in 1916; RenamedKitchener in 1916 due to anti- German sentiment resulting from First WorldWar 3.1Land UseHistory of theProject Location As discussedin Section 1.0, the subject property is located at 3571 King Street Eastinthe City ofKitchener, Ontario. In an attempt to reconstruct thehistoriclanduse of the study area,ARA examinedthree historical mapsthat documented past residents, structures (i.e., homes, businesses andpublic ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 25 13 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener thth buildings) and features between the early-19and late-20centuries in additiontooneaerial st imagefromthe21century. Specifically,the followingresourceswere consulted: G.R.and G.M.ss Mapof the County of Waterloo, Canada West (1861) (OCHMP 2015); Waterloo Townshipfrom H. ParsellIllustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Waterloo,Ontario(1881) (McGillUniversity 2001); A topographic map from 1916(OCUL 2019); and An aerial image from 2019 (City of Kitchener2019). The limits of thesubjectpropertyare shown on:1) georeferenced versionsof the consulted historicalmaps,and2) a georeferencedthe aerial image from 2019(seeMap 2Map5). Tremaines map of 1861 indicates that theTownship of Waterloo was well-settled at thetime, with various parcelsof farmland further subdivided for settlement.The Grand River traversed theTownshipand King Street, Morrison Road, Riverbank Drive andAllendale Road were all well established in the vicinity of the subjectproperty. All of the aforementioned thoroughfares maintain essentially the same routetoday.Southeast ofthe subject property, on the east side of the GrandRiver, thecommunity of Bridgeville (later renamed Freeport)is depicted. Settlement atBridgevilleis focused around the intersection of King Street and Riverbend Drive(seeMap 2).Parsell& Co.sMap of the Township of Waterlooindicates that the subject propertyis situated within Beasleys Old Survey, on the south side of King Street East(seeMap 3). Atopographicmap from 1916indicatesthat thePreston and BerlinRailroad hadbeen establishedat that time, traversing the vicinity of the study area and essentially paralleling the route of King Street.The Village of Freeport had dwindled in population and in 1916only one brickstructureremained(SeeMap4).An aerial imagefrom 2019 indicates that the bunker at 3571 King Street East is visible in aerial view, although primarily buried underground. Trails snake their way across the subject propertyto the adjacent Schneider Park to the west(see Map5). 3.1Chorological History of theSubject Property The early land transaction history of the subject property began with the Crown patentfor Block2, Grand River (also known as Block 2 of the HaldimandTract) going to Richard Beasley, JamesWilson and John B.Rousseau in February of 1798.BeasleysOld Surveyconsists of 12 lots intotal,11of which are located south-centrally along thesouthern boundaryof the Township of Waterlooon the west side of the Grand River, while Lot12abuts Lot53, German Company Tract(GCT).By1805, all of thelotsin Beasleys Old Survey (BOS) were occupied. The subject property is situated onpartof Lot 12, BOS,289 acres of which weresold by Samuel Betzner to John Bricker in 1802. In 1817 Bricker sold 200acres to Christian Shantz, who sold 195 acres of thatto Abraham C. Weber in 1853. DuringWebers period of ownership, various parcels of land weresold, which when coupled with the oftenillegibleland registry abstracts, makesunderstanding the property ownershiphistory unclear. In 1959, Plan987 was registeredas a subdivision ofpart ofLot 12, BOSand part of Lot 53, GCT.In 1964the City of Kitchener sold a portion of the land to the Corporation of the Countyof Waterloo for the Emergency Measures Organization for the County of Waterloo. This comprised ofa 0.57 acre parcel of land extending from the Grand River to King Street for the ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 26 14 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener construction of a bunker (Bloomfield 2006:405;LRO #58).Thepropertywas sold for $1.00. The property remains under the ownership of the Regionof Waterloo. Table2: Summary ofLand Transactions for 3571 King Street East (LRO #58) Instrument DateInstrumentGrantorGranteeComments Number Richard Beasley, N/A 5 Feb 1798PatentCrownJames WilsonandBlock 2, Grand River John B. Rousseau Richard Beasley, 394 Sep 800B&SJames WilsonandSamuel Betzner456acres JohnB. Rousseau 7228 Jun 1802B&SSamuelBetznerJohn Bricker289 acres 23215 May 1817B&John BrickerChristian Shantz200 acres 25431 Dec 1853B&SChristian ShantzAbraham C. Weber195 acres Property history unclear Planof Sub-Division of Part of Lot 53 GCT and Part of Lot Subject propertyPart of ВБА 30 Sep 1959 12, BOSLot 18 Corporation of the County of Waterloo, Trusteefor the Corporation of the ЋАБЋЏЉ 29 May 1964GrantEmergency 3571 KingStreet East Cityof Kitchener Measures Organization for the County of Waterloo 3.2Bunkers in Ontario The Federal Government ofCanada began Civil Emergency Planning in 1957as a resultof the growing tensions between the USSR and the USA and thepotential for nuclear war. As part of their effortto create an emergency plan and ensure the continuity of government, Canada constructed a system of bunkers.Figure 1details the hierarchy of Emergency Government Facilities across Canada.The bunkers were generally of two types: 1)those constructed to house government officialsand personnel and 2) those that created a county-wide communication network (Ozorak 2012). The most notable of the bunkers is the Diefenbunker (now a museum)inCarp, Ontario. This site, locatedjust outside of Ottawa,was constructedas the Canadian EmergencyGovernment Headquarters (CEGHQ)to house the Prime Minister should the need arise. It,in turn, had its twin Transmitter Station, knownas the Carp Richardson Detachment, near Perth. Thistrend of having a regional military bunker (referredto as a Regional Emergency GovernmentHeadquarter(REGHQ))paired with a transmitter station was planned for all the provinces, but was only carried outin six: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, NovaScotia, Quebec and Ontario (Ozorak 2012). Part of the goal was to spread government operations over a large area tominimize the risk of the entire system being impacted at once (Manning 2003). At the nationallevel was also the NORAD complex in NorthBay,Ontario.In 2017 the site was being explored for useas a secure place for the collections of the Canadian Broadcast Museum Foundation.It wasthoughtto bea secure repository for the countered audio-visual archive. It would also include photographs, scripts, setdesigns and other items of interest (National Post 2017). The complex iswithin a cavebuilt into the Canadian Shield, and accessibleby tunnels (CBC 2020). ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 27 15 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Central relocationunits(CRU)were also developed withinexistingfederalbuildings or those being constructed at the time(Manning 2003).These six planned sites were withinan hours drive ofOttawa and were to serve as sites for government officialsto carry out essential governmentoperations.However, not all thesiteswere operational and only two remained as of 2003(Kemptville and Carleton) as two-storey frame structures with belowground space (Manning 2003; seeFigure2). TheKemptville building has since been demolished and a fire destroyed theCarleton Place building(CBC 2019;Ottawa Citizen 2016). REGHQwas at CFB Borden with itsTransmitterStation(single storeyunderground bunker)in Edenvale (Ozorak 2012;see Figure3andFigure 4). Thisbunker was vacated in 1988 and closed in 1994, when the property was abandoned (Forsyth 2015).Googleearth imagery from 2020 showsthat the bunker is still intacton the Edenvale Aerodrome property. According toDaves Cold War Canadathe REGHQ of Nanimo, BC and Borden, ON have been sealed,andthe Penhold,AB location now appears to beahousing subdivision. The Shilo,MB and Valcartier, QB sites areboth notedto be part of operating military bases(DPetersn.d.). The site in Debert,NS is currentlyatourist attraction with tours, escaperooms and laser tag (Enter the Bunker 2020, see Figure 5).Similar to theCRU, therewere RegionalRelocation Units (RRU)and ZoneEmergencyGovernmentHeadquarters(ZEGHQs).Thelocation of these sites, and extent to which they were constructed/operated is notdetailed in the available researchmaterial. In A Guideto Civil Emergency Planningproduced by the Emergency Measures Office (EMO) (1964), itis noted that all communities should develop plans for survival against this potential peril orfallout(EMO 1964:41).These were called Municipal Emergency Government Headquarters(MEGHQ).The bunkerat 3571 King Street East in Kitchener is one MEGHC.It was constructedin 1966 as a joint venturebetween the County of Waterloo and the Department ofNational Defence.Asa Cold Warbunker,itwas built to address survival planning initiatives proposed bythe federal governmentin the eventthatthere was threatof nuclear war. According to Daves Cold War Canadait appears that only a few municipalities did anything (Peter,D. n.d.).Therefore,it is currently unknown how manyother MEGHQbunkers are still extant within the province.One other known site is at 220 Old Yonge Street in Aurorawhich was built by the City of Toronto as aMEGHQ(Martin 2016). The location isdesignated underPart IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the Town of Aurora(By-law 5905-16).It retainsits layout, emergency water storage tank and three-pane illuminated map for Metro Toronto. 3.2.13571 King Street East Bunker According to Regional Archivist C.Woodley,the need for emergency management originatedin the1950s whenthe Federal Government began urging communities with populations over 10,000 to organize Civil Defense Groups due to the threat posed by the former USSR.At this time elected members from the municipalities forming Waterloo County met to organize the WaterlooCounty Civil Defense Group.In 1959 the Waterloo County Civil Defense Group was renamed the Waterloo County Emergency Measures Organization.Under the Emergency Measures Act of 1972 it became mandatory for municipalities to prepare emergency plans.In April 1975, the Ontario government began to phase out the Provincial Emergency Measures Branch.Emergency planning continues in the Regionof Waterloo as the EmergencyPlanning sub-agency of the CAO's office(C. Woodley Pers.Com.August 11, 2020). TheCountyof Waterlooundertook emergency planning. Specifically,In 1955 a Rescue training chener on land leased from the City of Kitchener. Additionswere made during the years 1956-1959 enabling the building to be used for ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 28 16 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener the training of all services. In 1962 the site was no longer acceptable because of a slaughter house adjacent to the property. The County Emergency Measures organization also had administrative offices at 20 Queen Street in Kitchener andspace in the Agricultural Society building in Galt. However, none of the buildings provided a Protection Factor of greater than 30 or space for personnel and equipment in the event of a national disaster. A municipal radiological survey conducted during 1963confirmed thatno buildings with Protection Factor of near 500 wereavailable that offered the required facilities or that could be rented for a reasonable amount. Itwas determined that a new building would be most economical(C. Woodley Pers.Com.August11, 2020).Early candidate locations for the bunker included the basement of the Mutual Life of Canada Building (now known asthe Sun Life Insurance building at 227 King Street South,City ofWaterloo)or the police building. Ultimately, a locationonthe south side ofKing Street East near Freeport was chosen and land was sold for $1.00from the Cityof Kitchener e County of Waterloo for the Emergency Measures Organization for the Cofor that purpose.Knownhistorically as theFreeport or Waterloo County Municipal Emergency Government Headquarters (MEGHQ), the bunkerwas designed by Webb Zerafa Menkes and MatthewsofToronto.Other prominent buildings designed by the firm include the CN Tower(1976)andRoyal BankPlaza in Toronto (1976) (WZMH2020).TheMEGHQ bunker was designed to be an operational headquarters, administration building and training centre in the County of Waterloo. As a mound-typebunker, about 50% of the building was constructed below gradeand the remaining50% was covered with at least two feet (0.6 metres)of soil. A well,situated outside of the building,providedwater which was pumped at 30 Gallons Per Minute (114 Litres Per Minute), while a septic tank and weeping tileallowedfor wasteremoval. Powerto the bunker was accessed during peace times from the municipalityshydro providerand by 20kW diesel generator in timesof emergency (Waterloo County n.d.). Atthe time of itsconstruction, the approximately 5,500 square foot(511 m²)bunker included Operational Working Areas (operations room, conference room, communications room, message control, typing pool and war supply agency)and Operational Living Quarters (mens and womens dormsand kitchen dining room)for use during an emergency, which doubled as Peacetime Administration (Coordinatorsoffice, Deputy Coordinators office, Secretarys office and two stores) and a Training Area (two lecture rooms, syndicate roomand communications room)(Waterloo County, n.d.; see Map8).The bunker was heated by oiland was equipped with forced air circulation. Additionally, a two-speed fan was installed to supply fresh air to the interior. Theprovisionalmanning table, which lists the positionsfor people who would have accessto the bunker lists a total of 78spots for elected municipalofficials, county clerks, information, intelligenceandcommunicationsspecialistslike radio operators. Specialists staff for municipal services such as fire, police, and public utilitieswere also included. Other services such radiologicalmonitors and War supplies agencyare listed, as are administrativepositionssuch as cook. Forty-eightMunicipalOfficialpositions are listed, as are 30 EMO Volunteer spots(see Figure 21).Figure 22details the specific intendeduses of each room and workspacesfor these 78 individualswithin the bunker. Thebuilding was constructed in concert with thesurrounding topography to be situated below ground. Theconcrete and concrete block construction offered protectionto those inside, as did theexteriormetal and concrete exterior doors that were 10inches thick. Construction of the bunkerwas undertakenbythe companyEd. Witmer andSons Ltd. beginning in 1964(ROW11- 3, SOS 2013). In caseofanemergency ornuclear fallout, the MEGHQ was prepared with a th fallout factor of 500 (radiation dose inside the bunker 1/500of the dose outside the bunker). Thebunker was decommissioned in 1992,after which it sat vacant for a time before being ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 29 17 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener occupiedby the Kitchener-Waterloo Rowing Clubin 2003(Booth 2018).The Region of Waterloo hada structuralanalysis conductedin 2018whichdetermined that the building was not safe for use,forcing the Kitchener-Waterloo Rowing Club to seek other facility options (Booth 2018). 4.0CONSULTATION Section 3.5 of the Regional Implementation GuidelineConservingRegionally Significant Cultural HeritageResources(2018)indicates thata summaryof the consultationthat has occurredshould be included in the HIA process (2018:34-35).Below is a summary of the consultation endeavours conducted during the completion of thisHIA.Firstly, MHSTCIcurrent list ofHeritageConservation Districts was consulted.The studyareawasnot found to be locatedwithin adesignated district(MTCS 2020).The list ofproperties designated by the MHSTCIunder Section34.5 of the OHAwasconsultedandno properties in the study areaare noted.The OHT plaquedatabase and the FederalCanadian Heritage Database were searched. Thesubject propertyisnotcommemorated with an OHT plaque, nor is itrecognized as a NationalHistoricSite(OHT2020; Parks Canada 2020). Itdoes not appear thatthe subject propertyis subject to anOHT or municipal easement. Thesubject property is listed on the City of KitchenersMunicipal Heritage Register as alisted (non-designated) property.Astatementof significance was drafted to supportthe listing of the propertyon the register and a copy was provided to ARAandincluded in Section7.1. ARA staffcontactedthe Region of Waterloo Principal Planner, Cultural Heritagevia emailon August 8, 2020. TheRegion of Waterloo Plannerprovideda copy ofRegional Implementation GuidelineConservingRegionally SignificantCultural HeritageResources(2018), theCityof KitchenerTerms ofReference for HIAsas wellashistorical information on theproperty.ARA staff contactedtheCity of KitchenerCoordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning on August 12, 2020.Ateleconference was held with bothRegional and Municipalheritage staffon August28,2020 to review theHIAscope andtimelinesas well as to obtain additional information about the property. ARAhasconsulted withthe property ownersandthe Region of Waterloo, concerning the proposed plan for subject property.TheRegion of Waterloo initiallyproposedto demolish the bunker and garage buildingonthe property. Alternatives that were pursued prior to determining that demolitionwas the preferredalternative, at that time,were detailed in an email dated th August 13. The Region of Waterloo detailedthe discussionsthey had several years ago with theprevioustenants, the Kitchener-Waterloo Rowing Club. TheClubindicated that they did not wantto continue using the building due to their inabilityto fund the necessaryrepairs (as outlined in a structural engineering report). The Region attemptedto address the issues concerning the repairs buta mutually agreeable solution wasnot found(M.MusiejPers. Comm. August 13, 2020).The Region had discussionswith theCity of KitchenerOperations Environmental Departmentandit was shared that the City had interest inthe property but did not wish to havethe building onit(A.WilliamsPers.Comm. August 24, 2020).The optionsto 1) demolish the building or2)rehabilitateand reuse thebuildingwere presented to the Region of Waterloo Committee of the Wholeon October 6, 2020. The meeting minutes for this committee state: The Committee discussed the various options that can be done with the bunker, these included, rehabilitationof the existing structure to use as an education resource, usage of the building by the KenSeiling Waterloo RegionalMuseum, demolition, having a shared facility for future land use planning and partnership ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 30 18 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). The Committee emphasized the need to include the community on the future of the building. In response to the discussion on rehabilitation possibilities and demolition, Craig Dyer, Commissioner, Corporate Services, reiterated that the report is for informationas an awareness to Council. A future report would be coming forward to Committee,which would include the heritage impact assessment from the Heritage Planning Advisory Committee (HPAC) and a recommendation from staff. Alternatives to demolitionexploredby theRegion of Waterloo are incorporated into Section 11.0 below. Currentlyno community or Indigenous consultation hasoccurred. 5.0FIELDSURVEY A field survey was conductedonAugust 7, 2020to photograph and document the studyarea and record anylocang of theirsetting in the landscape and contribute tothe cultural heritage evaluation process. Legal permission to enter and conduct all necessary fieldwork activitieson the subjectpropertywas granted by the Region of Waterloo. Interior access was alsoprovided.A representative from the Region of Waterloo and DST Group were present during the site visit.There was no power to thebuilding, thereforeit was necessaryto use flashlightsduring the investigation as well as forphotography, as such the quality of some ofthe photos is not ideal.Thestairwell at thenorth-west corner of the buildingwas not accessed due to a portionof the ceiling on the interior of the buildinghad collasped.A second site visit was undertaken from publiclands on September 4, 2020. 6.0PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The project location is situated at 3571 King Street East. The exterior of the existingbunkeron the property was documentedin a clockwisemanner (see Appendix A, Image1-Image11). The interior of the structure was documented beginningatthe northernentrance and moving clockwise from boat storage to the shop to themechanical room, equipment storage, gym and then lockerroom and washroomfacilities(see Appendix A, Image12-Image31).Map7-Map8 located in Appendix A, illustrates thelocationand direction of each photograph taken of the structure. Thepropertyat3571King Street Eastcontains avacantconcrete bunker with an entrancefrom King Street East and from the southfrom the direction of the Grand River.Directly acrossKing StreetEastis the Freeport Hospital,aninventoriedCHL and the Freeport Bridge,a designated structure under Part IV of theOntario Heritage Act(By-law 2001-208), is within 150m of the property.Aresidential neighbourhood is located to theeastof thepropertyand the Grand River (a Canadian Heritage River and inventoried CHL) islocatedtothesouth of theproperty(see Section 8.0). 6.1Arrangement of Buildings and Structures Thebunkerstructureis locatedonthe northside of the lot withan entrance oriented tothe north, facingKingStreetEast.A one-storey garage is located onthe northernportion of the property.Two large communication towers are located on the north side of the lot(see Image1- Image 3and Image 7). ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 31 19 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 6.2LandscapeFeatures Thetopography of the propertyis sloping toward the Grand River, with the bunkerstructure set into the slope with theentrance facingKingStreetEast.Thestructureis set approximately 25 m from thesidewalk.Thebunker structure is surrounded on the southsidebymature trees(Image 11).There is a small grassed open spaceto the south of the building,but the remainder of the immediatesurroundinggreenspacehasbecome overgrown.The property parcel extends south to the Grand River and contains portions of trails within Schneider Park. 6.3BunkerStructure 6.3.1Exterior Thebunkeris a one-storey structure of 10 inchexterior concrete (seeImage 14).The entrance isvia a cast in place concrete structure that containsa stairwell.This is located at the north- west cornerof the building.East of the entrance is a one-storey garage(see Image4-Image 5). The roof is flat and made of poured concrete with a black film that suggests a past covering. The roof contains mechanical equipment(see Image8-Image 9). The east and west sides of thebunker are built up with earth and vegetation.There arenowindows in the structure and therefore no source of natural lightwithin the bunker. There are three entrances on the south side of the bunker(facing the Grand River); twolargermetal doors to facilitate movementof larger objects within the bunker and another smaller door meantfor human use(see Image10 andImage11). 6.3.2Interior Themainlevelofthebunkerat 3571King Street Easthas fourteen rooms connectedby one hallway and an entrance staircase.The ceiling construction of aroof slab supportedby open web steel joists and steel beamsis visiblethroughout the interior(Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. 2018:3; see Image 13). Interior walls are concrete block.Immediatelyto the right (west) of the entranceis a large open space(see Image 12).Thetwo metalgarage doorsare located on the southern wall of this room, and access to two rooms are from the rear (north) wall of this room (see Image 14).The large room has three doors to thehallwayonits eastern wall. The roomsto the north of the largest room are a shop and staff room(see Image 15and Image 16).Electrical equipmentare present in the shop section of the bunker(seeImage 17and Image21).The staff room hasaccesson its eastern wall into the hallway. Atthe northernend of the central hallway isanaccessto a storage room in thenorthwest corner(see Image 18andImage 22) andentrance staircase(see Image 19andImage20). The northeast corner ofthe building contains the mechanical room which retains someequipmentincluding awell-pump and equipmentassociatedwithair filtration(see Image 23).The east side of the central hallwayhas a series of five smaller roomsincludingtwo washrooms, immediately adjacent to the southern entrance(seeImage24-Image 28).There aremetalair ventsvisiblewithin the concrete structure to facilitate air flow.Above thesouthernentrance door there is a ladder leading to the roof(see Image 29). 6.4Garage Structure Aone-storeygable roofed garage is located on thenorthern portion of the property, east of the poured in placeconcrete stairwell. It has two metal garage doors on its north elevation.The interior shows wood trussesroof assemblage and wood frame walls.The exteriorwalls appear to be woodpanels and the roof is asphalt(seeImage4-Image 6). ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 32 20 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 6.5Architectural Style/Design Basedon the limited information on existing bunkers, and their hierarchyof uses(as described in Section 3.2), this bunker seems to have elements common toCanadianmound-typebunkers including the use of soilas an externalcovering, a flat roofand few entrances.Itis unique in its use of the topography. 6.6Condition Assessments Building inspections, designated substances surveys and hazardous materials inspections were conducted at the building as follows: May 2016 Designated Substances Surveyconducted by Pinchin Ltd. October 2018 StructuralBuilding Assessmentconducted by Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. March2019Asbestos Reassessment Reportconducted by MTE Consultants Ltd. July and August 2020 Designated Substances and Hazardous Materials Surveyby DST Consulting Engineers Inc., A Division of Englobe Corp. According to the Regional Bunker at 3571 King Street East, Kitchener.Report: COR-FFM-20- 09presented to the Region of Waterloos Committee of the Whole: a)Hazardous assessment reports completed by DST Consulting Engineers and MTE Consultants have identified mould, lead, asbestos, silica, and mercury in the building. The bunker has visible mould growth throughout the interior of the building due to the excessive water damage.Asbestos is located in the caulking, HVAC dampers, floor tiles, ceiling plaster, parging cement, and vapour barrier.The asbestos containing materials were all observed to be impacted by water damage, increasing the risk of exposure. Lead was observed in the paint, tileglaze, and caulking. Silica was observed in the parging, concrete and cement material, flooring compound, and roofing. There would be a substantial cost to remediate thebuilding of its hazardous materials. b)The structural report completed by Witzel DyceEngineering Inc. identified that excessive moisture has caused extensive structural damage to the building. Cover soils around and over the building have been removed. There is no waterproofing membrane currently installed on the roof, which allows ponding water to infiltrate the slab and building. There is significant soil erosion surrounding the structure, which could be undermining the bearing of the slab and footings.Theerosion could lead to collapse of parts of the building without warning. Retaining walls around the building are unstable, causing an unsafe condition. Portions of the steel deck supporting the roof slab have completely rusted out. Water damage has delaminated the underside of the roof slab jeopardizing its integrity. Further destructive testing would need to be completed to understand the full scope of repair. The findings of the inspections were summarizedby DST Consulting Engineersas follows: Observed signs ofexcessive moisture and water infiltration; Mould observed on ceiling and select washroom areas; Surface corrosion on almost all exposed steel; Minor hairline cracking in the exterior concrete roof; ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 33 21 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Soil erosion underneath the concrete stair structure which could undermine the bearing of theslab and footings; Partial collapse of interior roof area adjacent to the stair structure; Presence of asbestos containing materials (ACM) such as floor tile, HVAC unit vibration dampeners, door frame caulking, ceilingplaster, parging cement pipe fittings, tar vapour barrier, residualconcrete caulk; Presence of lead paint on interiorsurfaces; Potential presence of mercury in fluorescent light fixtures and PCVin fluorescent light ballasts; Silicacontaining materialsin concrete, cement, mortars, plasters, floorcompound layers and roofing materials; and Potential for halocarbon substances in outdoor, rooftop air conditioning and HVAC equipment. The Structural Building Assessment concluded that While the building structure does not appear to be an imminent danger to collapse, there are issues thatneed to be further inspected and repaired if the building is going to continue to be occupied(Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. 2018:2). 6.7ChangesOver Time Photos on the UERwebsite showsthe condition of the buildingin 2003and 2004, prior to any useorrenovationsby the Rowing Club.The photos show maps,desks,beds and equipment (seeFigure 8to Figure 20).ARegion of Waterloo letter to the City of Kitchenerfrom 2004 indicated that at that time Regional Facilities staff have undertaken a preliminary site inspection and have reported that major alterations have been made to the sexterior elevations by the current building tenants; that no materials from the Cold War period remain in the space (i.e. maps, supplies, desks, beds etc.);(pg.2). While in use by theRowing Club, the south end of the bunkerthatfaced theGrand Riverwas excavated to allow for the installation of garage doors for easy river-to-storage access.It is likely that someof the earth from the roof was removed at thistime.Photos from 1969and 2003 show agrassed roof (see Figure 6andFigure 19). The above groundgaragedoes not appear in the 1969 historic photo, but is present in 2003 (see Figure 6and Figure 20). A comparison of the historic and current floor plans show the removal of walls between the operations room and theco-ordinator conference room, and lecture room mensdormitory into the Boat Storageandtheremoval of one wallbetween thecommunicationroomand deputycoordinatoror messagecontrol, which is now a shop(see Map8). 6.8Archaeological Resources Preliminary analysis of the subject lands indicates that the property has potential for archaeological resources. Local indicators of archaeological potential include proximity to archaeological sites, water sources, early historic transportation routes and early historic settlements. Specifically,the studyarea is within 1 km of three registered archaeological sites and is directly adjacent to the Grand River, ahistoric watershed and cultural heritage landscape. Historic maps show that the study area is also directly adjacent to a historically surveyed roadway and is in the vicinity of the historic community of Freeport. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 34 22 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 7.0HERITAGE ASSESSMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 7.1Statementof CulturalHeritageValue or Interest Aspart ofthe process for listing the property on the Municipal Heritage Register, theproperty was evaluated by the City of Kitchenerand a Statementof Signficance was drafted. Description of Historic Place 3571 King StreetEast was built in 1966 as a cold war bunker. The building is situated on a 1.23acre parcel of land located on thesouth side ofKingStreet East between Stonegate Drive and the Freeport Bridge in the Centreville Chicopee PlanningCommunity of theCity ofKitchener within the Region of Waterloo. The principalresource that contributes to the heritage value is the bunker. Heritage Value 3571 King Street East is recognized forits design, physical, contextual, historic and associative values. Thedesign and physical values relate to the design and construction of the bunker. The building was built underground and capable of being completely self-sufficient with no outside requirements forpower, water or sewage (Waterloo-Wellington Museums and ArtGalleries, 1992). The building is 5720 square feet andlocatedprimarily underground. The building was constructed with concrete and concreteblock featuring 10inch exterior concrete and metal doors. The building was designed for a fallout protection factor of 500 meaning that the inside radiation dose wouldbe 1/500 of the outside dose. The contextual value relates to thesetting of the bunker as it was builtinto the topography of the land inorder to be underground and in close proximity to a water source, the Grand River, in order to be self-sufficient. The historic and associative values relate to the architect who designed the building and the broader national program established by the Department of National Defence. The building was designed bythe firm of Webb Zerafa Menkes and Matthews (Webb Zerafa Menkes and Matthews, 1965).Today, WZMH Architects is an award-winninginternationalpartnership responsible for the design of prominent buildings such as the CN Tower (WZMH Architects, 2014). Canadral civic defence organization was established in the early days of the Cold Warto develop strategies to protect civilian population and infrastructure in the event of nuclear war (Burtch,2011). Three phases of civil defence wereidentified starting with--1954, followed b54-1959, and ending withsurvival stage in1959 (Burtch, 2011). The national survival stage expressed the importance of government continuity and encouragedthe public to build fallout shelters (Burtch, 2011). The localneed for the emergency measures building was first contemplated in 1961 with potential candidate buildings being the basements of either the Mutual Life of Canada building orthe police building (County of Waterloo, 1961). The Township of Waterlooagreed to donate a parcel ofland on Highway 8 at Freeport to be used for the emergency measures buildingin 1962(County of Waterloo, 1962).Ed Witmer and Sons Ltd. were retained in 1964 to constructthe emergency measures building (County of ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 35 23 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Waterloo, 1964). The building was built as aco-operative ventureby the County of Waterloo and the Department of National Defence commonlyreferred to as MEGHQ (Municipal Emergency GovernmentHeadquarters) Freeport or Waterloo County MEGHQ (Waterloo-Wellington Museums and Art Galleries, 1992). Heritage Attributes The heritage value of 3571 King Street East resides inthe following heritage attributes: o All elements related to the Cold War bunker building, including: Exterior entrance with stairs; Concrete; Concrete block; Metal doors; and, Surface equipment (e.g. fire escapes, communication conduits, etc.). o Allelements related to the contextualvalue, including: Setting of the bunker into the topography; and, Locating in close proximity ofthe Grand River. 7.2Summary of CHVI of 3571 King Street East in Accordance with O. Reg. 9/06 Asummary of the CVHI of 3571 King Street Eastas identified in theCity of Kitcheners Statement of Significancehasbeen detailedin Table3. Table3:Summary of CHVI of 3571 King Street East in Accordance with O. Reg. 9/06 Rationale CriteriaDescription The bunker is a rare construction method using Is a rare, unique, representative or concreteblockfeaturing 10-inchexterior concrete and early example ofa style,type, metal doorsdesigned fora fallout protection factor of expression, material or construction 500which indicatesthat the inside radiation dose would method Design or be 1/500 of the outside dose. Physical Displaysa high degree of 3571KingStreet East does not display a high degree of Value craftsmanship or artistic valuecraftsmanshipor artistic value. The building was built underground and capable of Displays a high degree of technical or being completely self-sufficient with no outside scientific achievement requirements forpower, water or sewage. Has direct associations with a theme, The bunker is directlyrelated to emergency efforts in event, belief, person, activity,response to the cold war. organization or institution that is significant to a community Yields or has thepotential to yield3571 King Street East does not yield or have the Historical information that contributes to the potential toyield information that contributes to the or understanding of a community or understanding of a community or culture. Associative culture Value The building was designed by the firm of Webb Zerafa Demonstrates or reflects the work or Menkes and Matthews (WebbZerafaMenkes and ideas of an architect, builder, artist, Matthews, 1965).Today, WZMH Architects is an award- designer or theorist who is significant winninginternational partnership responsible for the to a community design of prominent buildings such as the CN Tower. Is important in defining, maintaining 3571King StreetEastdoes not contribute to defining orsupporting the character ofan area the character of the area. The bunkerwas builtinto the topography of the land in Contextual Is physically, functionally, visually or order to be undergroundand in close proximity to awater Value historically linked to its surroundings source, the Grand River,in order to be self-sufficient. 3571 KingStreet East is nota landmark. Is a landmark ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 36 24 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 3571 King Street East meets more than one criterionof culturalheritage value or interestandis worthy of designationunder Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 7.3Evaluationof Regional Significance TheTable below outlinesthe criteria usedby the Region of Waterloo to determine if acultural heritage resource is of RegionalSignificance. Table4: Evaluation of the Regional Significanceof 3571 KingStreet in Accordance with Requirements for Regional Significance Rationale Criteria Is the resource, or element(s)within the resource, 3571 KingStreet East is listed on the City of Kitchener recognized on a municipal, regional,provincial or Municipal HeritageRegister. national heritage list? Does the resource date from a prehistoric or early 3571King Street Eastdoes not date from a prehistoric historical period in the development of the Region, or earlyhistorical period in the development ofthe Province orNation?Region, Province or Nation. Is the resource, or element(s) within the resource, a The building was designed by the firm of Webb Zerafa good representative example of the work of an Menkes and Matthews (Webb Zerafa Menkes and outstanding regional, national orinternational Matthews, 1965).Today, WZMH Architects is an award- architect, engineer,builder, designer, landscapewinninginternational partnership responsible for the architect, interior designer or sculptor, or of design of prominent buildings such as the CN Tower. vernacular architecture? Is the resource associated with a person(s) who is3571 King Street Eastis not associated with a specific recognized as having madea significantcontribution person. to the social,cultural, political, economic, technological or physical development? Or as having materially influenced the courseof regional, provincial, national or international events? Is the resource directly associated with an historic The building was constructed in responseto emergency eventwhich is recognized as having regional, measures related to the Cold War. provincial, national or international importance? 3571 King Street Eastis the onlyknowncold war bunker Is the resource a significant example and illustration intheRegion to be used for the continuityof of tehistoric or historic social, cultural, government in the event of anemergency. It isone of political, economic or technological development?only two known Municipal Emergency Government Headquarters(MEGHQ)that exist in Ontario. Does the resource contribute to the effectiveness of 3571 King Street Eastis built into the topography and the urban composition, streetscape, view shed, ordoes not contribute to the effectiveness of the urban landscapeof which it may form partof?composition, streetscape, view shed, or landscape. 3571 King Street Easthas the potential to tourism as Does the resource have potential for contributing todemonstrated by other bunkers servicing as commercial tourist or other development that is designations (i.e., Diefenbakermuseumand the regional basedon heritage and/or culture?bunker in Debert,NSwhichis currently atourist attractionwith tours, escape rooms and laser tag). Isthe resource, or element(s) within the resource, 3571 King StreetEastis not part of a group of similar part of a groupof similar structures which contribute structures whichcontribute tothe particul to the particarea or region. Is theresource, or element(s) within the resource, 3571 King Street East is notpart of a group of part of a group of historically associated structures historically associated structures which may be totally which may be totally withinthe Regionor which may within the Region orwhich maybepart of a larger area be part of a larger area within the context of thewithin the context of the Grand River as a nationally Grand River as a nationally designated Heritage designated Heritage River. River? A resource needs to meet fourof thecriteria to be considered regionallysignificant.Table4 demonstrates that 3571 King Street East meets five criteria, and therefore,Regional Council should giveconsideration to identifying this structure as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 37 25 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 8.0HERITAGE ASSESSMENT ADJACENT CULTURALHERITAGE RESOURCES In additionto the subject property, ARA examined adjacentpropertiesto ensure athorough examination ofimpactsthatmayresult fromtheproposed activity. TheCity of KitchenersOfficialPlan states that:Adjacent-lands, buildings and/or structures that are contiguous or that are directly opposite toother lands, buildings and/or structures, separated only by a laneway, municipal roador otherright-of-way(2014:Part F, A-1).Assuch, three adjacent cultural heritage resourceswere identified:Freeport Bridge(BHR 1), the Grand River (CHL 1),and Grand River Hospital FreeportSite (CHL 2). The individual information forms which summarize the identified cultural heritage value of each resource are in Appendix Cand include thelocation, description,and photographic documentation ofeach property.Asynthesis of theCHVI of the BHRand CHLs arefound in Table5below.The locations of the BHRand CHLsandtheir relationship totheproject locationappear onMap6. Table5: BHRsand CHLs with CHVI BHRCHVIStatus Address/NameCriteria Met Number(Y/N) Design orPhysical Value, Historic or Designated BHR 1Freeport BridgeYesAssociative Valueand ContextualCity of KitchenerBy-law 2001- Value208 Historic or Associative ValueandInventoried in the City of CHL 1Grand RiverYesContextual ValueKitcheCultural Heritage Landscape Study Design orPhysical Value, Historic or Inventoried in the City of Grand River Hospital CHL 2YesAssociative Valueand ContextualCultural Heritage FreeportSite ValueLandscape Study 9.0PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT There are currently two plans being considered for theproperty: 1) the demolition of theexisting structure;or2)rehabilitationandreuseofthe existing structure. 9.1Option 1: Demolition One of the proposed plansfor theproperty isthe demolition of the bunkerandgarage structure. According to DST ConsultingEngineersInc.,the City of Kitchener has expressed interested in using the area as a recreational park, however acceptance is conditional, and would require the demolition of the existing building structures.As such, the Region of Waterlooproceededwith the Heritage ImpactAssessment and the preparation of Technical Specifications and Engineering Plans for the demolition of the Site buildings.(A.Williams Pers.Comm. August 24, 2020). Thedemolition wouldinclude the removal of the entire structureincluding bunker,garage and communicationtowers as well as thegradingof the site asper the City of Kitcheners By-law requirements. 9.2Option2: Rehabilitation and Reuse The best option for heritage properties is the avoidanceof removal/demolitionactivities, as this willallowfor the retention ofthe cultural heritage resource.Retentionin situallowsforheritage ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 38 26 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener resources to be retainedintheir original locationand encouragesadaptive re-use.As a result of ongoing discussionsat the Region of Waterloorehabilitation and reuse is now being considered an option.Theassessmentsof the existing conditionshave identifiedissues that would need to be addressed as part of exploring thefeasibilityof adaptive reuseof the building. Rehabilitationactivities havenot been fully developed,however, they would at minimum, involveaddressing the deficiencies outlinedinthe condition assessments (seeSection6.6) including: hazardous materialsandthe lack of waterproof membrane on the roof;the steel deck supporting the roof slab;as well as water damage and erosionthat could be could be undermining the bearing of the slab and footings. A plan for the reuse of the building has not yet been developed, however,3571King Street East has the potential fortourism as demonstrated by otherbunkers servicing as tourist destinations. Examples ofretention and reuse of bunkers include theDiefenbaker asamuseum and the regional bunker in Debert, Nova Scotia that iscurrently atourist attraction with tours, escape rooms and lasertag.At the Region of WaterloosCommittee of the Whole,the following ideas were proposed:use as an education resource, usage of the building by the KenSeiling Waterloo Regional Museum,having a shared facility for future land use planning and partnership with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA)(Region of Waterloo 2020b). 10.0ANALYSIS OFPOTENTIAL IMPACTS 10.1Impacts of Option 1: Demolition Theproposed activities related to Option1: Demolitionhave the potential to impact the CHVI and the heritage attributes of 3571 King Street Eastas follows: Option 1Impact 1 -Theproposed development entails the demolition of the existing buildingat3571 King Street East.The proposed removal/demolition of the entire bunker building will result in a loss of all of its heritage attributes. This a direct adverse and permanent impact. Option 1Impact 2 There is the potential for impacts to unknownarchaeological resources if heavy equipmentis to be used during demolition activities. Option 1Impact 3-There will be indirect impacts related to air, noise and dust during demolition activities, which will be temporary. There will be no impacts to theadjacent cultural heritage resources as views to thebunker are not identifiedasheritage attributes ofany of BHR 1, CHL 1 or CHL 2. Therewill also be no direct impactsbydemolition activities as theheritage attributesof these adjacent cultural heritage resources are located a distance away from the bunker building. 10.2Impact of Option 2: Rehabilitationand Reuse Due to the fact that the exact rehabilitationand reuseactivitieshavenot been determinedat this time, the impacts can only be examined at ahigh-level.Once arehabilitationand reuse plan hasbeen developed, aHIA should be undertaken. Proposed activities related to Option2: Rehabilitationand Reuse havethe potential to impact the CHVIand the heritage attributes of 3571 King StreetEastas follows: Option 2Impact 1 The extent and nature of rehabilitation activitieshave not been determined,thereforethere is the potential fordirect impactsor destruction of heritage attributes. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 39 27 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Option2Impact 2 There is the potential for impacts to unknownarchaeological resources ifrehabilitationor reuse activitieswill result in ground disturbance. There will be no impacts to theadjacent cultural heritage resources as views to thebunker are notidentifiedasheritage attributes of any of BHR 1, CHL 1 or CHL 2. Therewill also be no direct impactsbyrehabilitation and reuse activities as theheritage attributes of these adjacent culturalheritage resources are located a distance away from the bunker building. There are some direct impacts of the proposed development that may be positive in nature including: Ongoing maintenance of the heritage building to ensure its ongoing viability Retentionof a significant cultural heritage resource 11.0ASSESEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONSANDMITIGATION MEASURES 11.1AlternativesConsidered Currently there aretwo proposed developmentoptions forthe bunker property: its demolition or its rehabilitation and reuse. From approximately2003 until 2018 the building was rented by the Kitchener-Waterloo Rowing Club.In2018aStructural Building Assessmentwas conducted by Witzel Dyce EngineeringInc. TheClubindicatedthat they did not want tocontinue using the building as they could not afford the repairsoutlined in a structural engineering report.The bunker has been vacantsince 2018. AsoutlinedbyDST ConsultingEngineersInc.,The Region ofWaterloo has investigated possible options for building reuse as a storage facility butdeterminedthat it was not economically feasible due to current building condition.Development of the propertyis limited due toits locationadjacent to the Grand River floodplain.(A.Williams Pers.Comm. August 24, 2020). As the Kitchener-Waterloo Rowing Club was no longer occupying the property another optionis to leave the building as it is(i.e. do nothing).As outlined in theRegional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resourcesavoidanceor not proceeding with the development should always be considered analternative(2018:34).The opment approach whereby the proposed project to demolish the bunker would not thwould beadvantageous ifit would result in no potential negative project impacts on cultural heritage resourcesin the short- term.However, the Do Nothingoption would result inthecontinued deteriorationof the building. 11.2Mitigation Measures for Option 1: Demolition If Option 1Demolition(which involvesof complete demolitionof the bunker at3571 King Street) is carried out, the following mitigation measuresshould beadhered to.The impacts that are addressed by each mitigation measure have been provided in brackets for reference. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 40 28 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 11.2.1Salvage of Components(Option 1 Impact 1) This option allowsfor the retentionof components of abuilding forreuse prior to itsdemolition. The selective removal of identified architecturalorlandscape elements preserves portions or features of buildings and structures thatpossess historical, architectural or cultural value and can divertthem from becominglandfill material (Town ofAurora2016). This mitigation option is not the strongest option from a heritageperspective;however a removal andreuse program wouldallow for the conservation of key components of astructure.Given thatthe building is constructed ofconcrete, there areno materials that can be salvaged for reuse in other buildings. However, portionsof the 10inch thick walls could be selectively removed for interpretiveelements or for interpretationinone of the local museums.Otherelements that could potentiallybe salvaged for interpretationincludeany mechanical equipment(i.e., air filter) andthe communicationtowers.This strategy fulfills the City of Kitcheners OP policy 12.C.1.32 which requires that where a cultural heritage resource isproposed to be demolished,the City may require all or any part of the demolished cultural heritage resource to be given to the City for re-use, archival, display or commemorative purposes, at no cost to the City. This mitigation measureshould be implemented throughaCommemoration and Interpretation Plan as well as discussionswith the Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum. TheCommemorationand InterpretationPlan would outline the salvage plans, as well as it may include any plans to interpretportions of the bunker i.e. theknee wall(see Section 11.2.1 below), or symbolic conservation methods(see Section11.2.2below),throughtechniquessuch asplaques.Asign(s)placed close to thesite of the bunker or along the nearby trail, accessible to passing residents and visitors,would serve to convey informationaboupast. Some suggested themes for the signage include,but are not limited to:Emergency Government Facilities across Canada, Civil Emergency Planning in Canada, Municipal Emergency Government Headquarters (MEGHQ), County of Waterloo emergency planning, history of the subject bunker including floor plans and historic photos.Another suggestion is to mount an interpretive rendition of the bunkeras it stood ona clear plexiglass panel,allowingthe viewer to look through the plexiglass and seethe outline ofthe bunker structure againstthepost- demolished landscape(see Figure23for a commemorative example).This signage would complement and further explain the commemorativekneewall and/orfloor plan. Plaques orother interpretative displaysmaybe made of materials salvaged from the bunker (i.e., pieces of the 10inch walls). Examples of incorporating materials into interpretative displays can be seen elsewhere including as part of the Region of WaticPlaque Program. Throughthis program, salvaged materials from historic structures have been incorporated into plaque bases to provide a physical tie to the historic area or resource being commemorated.Yellow bricks salvaged from a prominent home in theformer settlement of German Millswere used to construct the base for a historicplaque that celebrated the area significance. Another plaque p Heritage Bridges Recognition Program incorporated a piece of the steel I-beam removed from the uniquely constructed bridge before it was reconstructed. A Commemoration and Interpretation Plan wouldexplore these options and recommend signage locations, the design of graphics and text, as wellas how the commemoration should be displayed.The development of a Heritage Interpretation Plan or Strategy should be finalized prior to demolition activities commencing in order to carry out any potentiallyrecommended actions (i.e., salvage, further documentation) ahead of demolition. Installation oftheinterpretive elements may follow demolitionas part of the site redevelopment. 11.2.1Retain a Portionof the Wall (Option 1-Impact 1) ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 41 29 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Consideration should be given to thepotential of retaininga portion of the concretewall as a knee wallto be interpreted.If a portion of the wall is to be retained,itsstructuralstabilitywould need to be determined, andit would need to be determinedifcapping such a knee wallshould be considered in order to mitigateany potential of intrusion of moisture and the possibilityof erosion.Long-term maintenance should also be explored.This addresses Impact 1. 11.2.2SymbolicConservation(Option 1 Impact 1) Symbolic conservationallowsforthe recovery of heritagecomponents ofapropertyand reuses them to makepossible a visiblerecordof the resource(s). It,along with the reuse of portions of aproperty,isoftenthe recommended mitigationstrategywhen retention or relocation ofa structure is not feasible. Parks CanadasStandards and Guidelinesfor the Conservation of Historic PlacessuggestsIdentifying the presence ofarchaeological features by using ground markings is anexcellent wayto communicate the heritage value of(2010:102, see Figure 24). As such,if it is not possible to keep the concretewall to a knee height, an alternative may be to physicallymarkthe original linesof the building walls(i.e., floor plan)using hard landscaping (i.e., pavers or asphaltor concrete paths). The method and location of the interpretationshould be detailedin a Commemoration and Interpretation Planas outlined above. 11.2.3Cultural Heritage Resource DocumentationReport(Option 1 Impact 1) ACultural Heritage Resource Documentation (CHRD) report should be prepared. A CHRD report is completed inorder to provide in-depthdocumentation of the buildings. The process involves photographic documentation ofthe structure as a whole from all (accessible) angles as well as detailed photographs of all elements. Contextual photographs are also taken of the landscapesurrounding the resource. These photographs are recorded on a photo map. A physical description of the resource and detaileddescription of the landscape and context are also included in the report. Additional measured drawings,land use history,archival photographs ormaps obtained would also be addedto the report.ThisCHRDwould contain the needed archival documentation, as outlined in the City of KitchenersOP12.C.1.33and 12.C.1.34.TheCHRD could also include 3D laser scan capture and/or a digital 3Dmodel ofthe building.Thisreport should becarried out by a qualified heritage professionalandprovided to local municipalities,stakeholder groups, local historical societies, museums, archives and/or libraries as part of the public record.Thecompletion ofaCHRDshould be carried out prior to demolition. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 42 30 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 11.2.4Archaeological Assessment(Option 1Impact 2) Due to the potentialfor impacts by heavyequipmentduring demolition activitiesandthe archaeological potentialof the property,ARArecommendsanarchaeologicalassessmentbe undertaken.Alicenced professional archaeologistshould be engaged todeterminethepotential for thepresence of archaeological resources through the completion of aStage 1 archaeological assessmentin accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists. The Stage 1 assessment consistsof comprehensive background research into the study area. This is accomplished through an examination of the archaeology, history, geography, and current land conditions in the vicinity of the project lands. This stage also generates an inventory of known archaeological sites within 1 km and previous archaeological fieldwork results within 50 m of the study area, which are used to assist in predicting zones of archaeological potential. Sources utilized during a background study include archival sources (e.g., historical publications and records), current academic and archaeological publications (e.g., archaeological studies, reports and management plans), modern topographic maps, recent satellite imagery, historicalmaps/atlases, and thelogical Sites Database. The resultsform appropriate recommendations (i.e., no further work in areas of no archaeological potential andStage 2 archaeological assessment for any areas of archaeological potential). 11.2.5Dust and Noise(Option 1 Impact 3) During demolition work, dust and noise should be managed to minimize the disturbance to the environment andcommunities. 11.3Mitigation Measures for Option 2: Rehabilitation and Reuse If the Option 2: Rehabilitationand Reuse is selected,then the following mitigation measures should be carried out.The impacts that are addressed by each mitigation measure have been provided in brackets for reference. 11.3.1Cultural Heritage Resource DocumentationReport(Option 2 Impact 1) ACultural Heritage Resource Documentation (CHRD) report should be preparedprior to any rehabilitation or reuse activities(see Section 11.2.3for the details on conducting a CHRD).The completion ofaCHRDshould be carried out prior toany rehabilitation or reuse activities. 11.3.2Follow the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of HistoricPlaces in Canada (Option 2Impact 1) Standardsand Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Standards and Guidelines)lays out the best practice principle for heritage conservation.The Standards and GuidelinesPreservation, Rehabilitation and 1.Conserve the heritage value of an historicplace. Do not remove, replace or substantially alter its intact or repairable character definingelements. Do not move a part of an historic place if its current location is a character-defining element. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 43 31 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 2.Conserve changes to an historic place that, over time, have become character-defining elements in their own right. 3.Conserveheritage value by adopting an approach calling for minimal intervention. 4.Recognize each historic place as a physical record of its time, place and use. Do not create a false sense of historical development by adding elements from other historic places or other properties, or by combining features of the same property that never coexisted. 5.Find a use for an historic place that requires minimal or no change to its character- defining elements. 6.Protect and, if necessary, stabilize an historic place until anysubsequent intervention is undertaken. Protect and preserve archaeological resources in place. Where there is potential for disturbing archaeological resources, take mitigation measuresto limit damage and loss of information. 7.Evaluate the existing condition of character-defining elements to determine the appropriate intervention needed. Use the gentlest means possible for any intervention. Respect heritage value when undertaking an intervention. 8.Maintain character-defining elements on an ongoing basis. Repair character-defining elements by reinforcing their materials using recognized conservation methods. Replace in kind any extensively deteriorated or missing parts of character-definingelements, where there are surviving prototypes. 9.Make any interventionneeded to preserve character-defining elements physically and visually compatible with the historic place andidentifiable on close inspection. Document any intervention forfuture reference(2010:22). The Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Propertiesis a document created by the Ministry of Heritage Sport, Tourism, and Culture Industries (MHSTCI). The principles are considered as best practice in relation toheritage conservation of built heritage resources. They include: 1.Respect for documentary evidence: do not restore based on conjecture. Conservation work should be based on historic documentation such as historic photographs, drawings, or physical evidence. 2.Respect for the original location: do not move buildings unless there is no other means to save them. Site is an integral component of a building or structure. Change in site diminishes the cultural heritage value considerably. 3.Respect for historic materials: repair/conserverather than replace building materials and finishes, except where absolutely necessary. Minimal intervention maintains the heritage content of the built resource. 4.Respect for original fabric: repair with like materials. Repair toreturn the resource to its prior condition, without altering its integrity. 5.er period. Do not destroy later additions to a building or structure solely to restore to a single time period. 6.Reversibility: alteration should be able to be returned to original conditions. This conserves earlier building design and technique, e.g. Whena new door opening is put into a stone wall, the original stones are numbered, removed and stored, allowing for future restoration. 7.Legibility: new work should be distinguishable from old. Buildings or structures should be recognized as products of theirown time, and new additions should not blur the distinction between old and new. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 44 32 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 8.Maintenance: with continuous care, future restoration work will not be necessary. With regular upkeep, major conservation projects and their high costs can be avoided (MHSTCI2007). The principles outlined in Standards and Guidelines and the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties should be considered inrehabilitationand reuse plans. A HIA should be undertaken toensure that future plans conform with these guidelines. 11.3.1Archaeological Assessment(Option 1 Impact 2) Due to the archaeological potentialof the site,if there will be any ground disturbance during rehabilitationor reuse,ARArecommendsanarchaeologicalassessmentbe undertaken(see Section 11.2.4). 12.0SUMMARY STATEMENT ANDCONSERVATIONRECOMMENDATIONS 12.1Mandatory Recommendation 3571King Street East is listed on the City of Kitcheners Municipal Heritage Register.Basedon theresultsof historic research,consultation, field surveyandassessmentofthesubject property,3571 King Street East meets more than one criterion of CHVIin Ontario Regulation 9/06and is worthy of designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Furthermore,3571 King Street East meets the criteria for identification as a Regionally Significant Cultural Heritage Resource. 12.2Summary Statement and Conservation Recommendations Option 1: Demolitionis under consideration andentails the demolition of the existingbuildingat 3571 King Street East.The proposed removal/demolition of the entire bunker building willresult in a loss of all of its heritage attributes. This a direct adverse and permanent impact. TheCity of Kitchener has expressed interestin using the area as a recreational park,however acceptance is conditional, and would require the demolition of theexisting building structure. The Region of Waterloo has investigated possible options for building reuse as a storage facility butdetermined that it was not economically feasible due to its current condition.Development of the propertyis limited due toits locationadjacent to the Grand River floodplain. Option 2: Rehabilitationandreuse isalso being considered and it isthe preferredoption from a heritage perspective.Due to the fact that the exact rehabilitationandreuseactivities havenot been determined, the impacts can only be examined at ahigh-level.At a high-level the potential mitigation measures include: The principles outlined in Standards and Guidelines for the Conservationof Historic Places in Canadaand the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties should be considered inrehabilitationand reuse plans. A HIA should be undertaken toensure that future plans conform with these guidelines. That aCultural Heritage Resource Documentation (CHRD) reportshouldbe preparedto document pre-rehabilitation and reuse condition. That if there are any activities that will result in ground disturbance, aStage 1 archaeological assessment should be undertaken. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 45 33 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener If it isdetermined Option 2: Rehabilitationand Reuse is not feasibleandOption 1: Demolition is approved, the following mitigation measures should be carried out: That portions of the 10inch thick walls be examined for selectiveremoval for interpretive elementsor for interpretation in one of the local museums. Other elements that could potentially be salvaged for interpretation includes any mechanical equipment (i.e., air filter)and the communication towers.This strategy should be implemented through a Commemoration and InterpretationPlan as well as discussions with the Ken Seiling Waterloo Region Museum. That consideration should be given to the potential retention ofa portion of the concrete wall as a knee wall to be interpreted If it is not possible to keep the concretewall to a knee height, an alternative may be to physicallymark the original linesof the building walls(i.e., floor plan)using hard landscaping (i.e., pavers or asphaltor concrete paths). The symbolic conservation should be interpreted.Themethod and locationof the interpretationshould be detailed in a Commemoration and Interpretation Plan. That as outlined in the CityofKitchenerOfficialPlan,A Cultural Heritage Resource Documentation (CHRD) reportshouldbe prepared That aStage 1 archaeological assessment should be undertaken That a revised HIA may be needed, as determined by the Region of Waterloo Principal Planner, Culture Heritage and/or City of Kitchener Coordinator, Cultural Heritage Planning. Asoutlined in the Cityof KitchenersTermsof Reference for HeritageImpactAssessments, a draft of thisHIA shouldbe submitted for reviewand comment totheHeritagePlanning Staffand Municipal HeritageCommittee(MHC).TheHIA should also besubmitted to the Regional heritage staff and presented to the Heritage Planning Advisory Committee (HPAC). ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 46 34 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 13.0BIBLIOGRAPHYAND SOURCES Bloomfield, E. 2006Waterloo TownshipthroughTwo Centuries.Kitchener:Waterloo Historical Society. Booth, L. 2018Rowing Club Forced out of its Home as Repair Costs Mount in TheRecord. Wednesday, May 16, 2018. CBC 2019Secretive RCMP training facilitysuspected inillnesses, deaths. Accessedonline at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/canada-training-centre-kemptville-rcmp- asbestos-mould- 1.5378334#:~:text=For%20nearly%2020%20years%2C%20members,while%20others% 20became%20seriously%20ill. 2020The Hole Turth: Five Facts about NorthBays Cold War-EarBunker. Accessed online at: https://www.cbc.ca/shortdocs/m_blog/the-hole-truth-five-fast-facts-about-north-bays- cold-war-era-bunker. City ofKitchener 20133571 King Street East Statement of Significance. Provided to ARA. 2020Heritage Impact Assessment Terms of Reference. Development Services Department Planning Division. Coyne, J. H. 1895The Country of theNeutrals (As Far as Comprisedin theCounty ofElgin): From Champlain toTalbot.St. Thomas: Times Print. Cumming, R. (ed.) 1972Historical Atlasofthe County of Wellington, Ontario.Reprint of1906 Edition. Toronto: Historical AtlasPublishing Co. Ellis,C.J. & Ferris, N. (eds.) 1990TheArchaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D.1650.Occasional Publication ofthe LondonChapter, OASNumber5. London:OntarioArchaeological Society Inc. Enter the Bunker 2020Enter the Bunker. Accessed online at:https://enterthebunker.com/. Emergency Measures Office (EMO) 1964A Guide to Civil Emergency Planning. Ottawa, ON. Forsyth, B. 2015Abandoned Bases: Ontario. Accessed online at: http://militarybruce.com/abandoned- canadian-military-bases/abandoned-bases/ontario/. Lajeunesse, E.J. 1960The Windsor BorderRegion: Canadt Frontier.Toronto: The Champlain Society. Land Registry Office#58 (LRO) Lot12,Beasleys Old Surveyin theAbstract Index to Deeds. Township of Waterloo, ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 47 35 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Waterloo County, Ontario. Accessed onlineat:www.onland.ca. Lot 18,Plan 987,Plan491inthe AbstractIndex to Deeds. City of Kitchener,Waterloo County,Ontario. Accessedonline at:www.onland.ca. Martin, S. 2016Diefenbunker: Aurora House with Cold War Era Bunker Hits Market for $1.6M in Aurora Banner. Manning, B. 2003BeyonForgot.Material History Review57:7992. Ministry of MunicipalAffairs and Housing (MMAH) 2020ProvincialPolicyStatement, 2020.Toronto: MinistryofMunicipalAffairs and Housing. Ministry ofHeritage,Tourism, Sport and Culture Industries(MHSTCI) 2010Standards &Guidelinesfor Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties.Toronto: Ministryof Tourismand Culture. 2020Listof Heritage Conservation Districts.Accessedonlineat: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/ heritage/heritage_conserving_list.shtml. 2006aHeritage Property Evaluation:A Guide to Listing, Researching andEvaluatingCultural HeritageProperty in Ontario Communities. Ontario Heritage Tool Kit Series. Toronto: Ministry ofCulture. 2006bInfoSheet #5: Heritage ImpactAssessments and Conservation Plans.Ontario Heritage ToolKit Series. Toronto: Ministry of Culture. 2006cInfoSheet#2: Cultural Heritage Landscapes.Ontario Heritage ToolkitSeries.Toronto: Ministry ofCulture. 2007InfoSheet: Eight Guiding PrinciplesintheConservation of Built Heritage Properties. Accessed online at: www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/InfoSheet_8%20Guiding_ Principles.pdf. MTE ConsultantsInc. 2019Asbestos Reassessment Report. Kitchener: MTE Consultants Inc. National Post 201760-storeys underground, ColdWar bunker eyed as place to preserve Canada's broadcast history. Accessed onlineat: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/tunnel- vision-plan-afoot-to-store-canadas-broadcast-archive-in-cold-war-bunker Olenick, C. 2020Personal Communication Regarding Bunker at 11 Oriole Crescent,Guelph, Ontario. Ontario Council ofUniversity Libraries (OCUL) 2019Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project.Access online at: https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/. OntarioHeritage Trust(OHT) 2020Ontario HeritagePlaque Guide. Accessed online at:www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/ index.php/online-plaque-guide. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 48 36 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Ottawa Citizen 2016Fire destroysCold War-era barracks near Carleton Place.Accessed online at: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/carleton-place-area-olde-barracks-destroyed- by-fire. Parks Canada nd 2010Standards and Guidelines for the Conservationof Historic Places in Canada 2Edition. Accessed onlineat:www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng- web2.pdf. 2020Directory of Federal Heritage Designations.Accessed online at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/culture/dfhd. n.d.Freeport Bridge onCanadian Register of Historic Places.Accessed online at: https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=8068&pid=0. Parsell, H. 1881Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Countyof Waterloo.Toronto: H. Parsell & Co. Peters, D. n.d.EmergencyGovernment Facilities.https://davescoldwarcanada.com/home/emergency- government-facilities/. Pinchin 2016Designated Substance Survey: Bldg #573-Regional Bunker Building, 3571 King Street East, Kitchener,Ontario.Waterloo: Pinchin. Region of Waterloo n.d.Waterloo County MEGGQ and Administration Building, Freeport, Kitchener, Ontario. ROW 11-3. Provided to ARA. 2004Listing of 3571 King Street East (Cold War Bunker)on the City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register.Letter from Region of Waterloo Cultural Heritage Planner to City of Kitchener Heritage Planner. Providedby Region of Waterloo. 2015Official Plan.Accessed online at: www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regionalGovernment/ PreviousROP.asp. 2018Regional Implementation Guideline for Conserving Regionally Significant Cultural HeritageResources. 2020aRegional Bunker at 3571 King Street East, Kitchener.Report: COR-FFM-20-09. 2020bCommittee of the WholeMeetingMinutes October 6,2020.Accessed onlineat: https://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Council/Detail/2020-10-06-0900-Committee-of-the- Whole. Scheinman, A. 2006CulturalHeritageLandscapes inWaterloo Region.Draft manuscript commissionedby the Region of Waterloo. Smith, W.H. 1846Smitanadian Gazetteer: Comprising StatisticalandGeneral Information Respecting all Parts of theUpper Province,or CanadaWest.Toronto: H.&W. Rowsell. Accessed online at:https://archive.org/details/smithscanadianga00smit. Surtees,R.J. 1994Land Cessions, 17631830.In Aboriginal Ontario: Historical Perspectivesonthe First Nations, edited by E.S. Rogers and D.B. Smith, pp. 92121.Toronto:Dundurn Press. ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 49 37 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Townof Aurora 2016Architectural SalvageProgram Guide.Accessed onlineat:www.aurora.ca/ TownHall/ Documents/Heritage%20Advisory%20Committee/Architectural%20Salv age%20Program%20Guide.pdf. Tremaine, G.R.& G. M. 1861Tremapofthe County of Waterloo, Canada West.Toronto: George R.& G.M. Tremaine. UER 200311.20.03. Accessed online at: https://www.uer.ca/locations/viewgal.asp?locid=20052&galid=10360. 2010Historical K/W Record photo from 1969. Accessed online at: https://www.uer.ca/locations/viewgal.asp?locid=20052&galid=29005. UNESCO 2008Guidelines onthe Inscriptionof Specific Types of Propertieson the World Heritage List. Operational Guidelines forthe Implementation ofthe WorldHeritageConvention,Annex 3. Accessed online at:http://whc.unesco.org/ archive/opguide08-en.pdf#annex3. Waterloo County n.d.MEGHQ and AdministrationBuilding, Freeport, Kitchener, Ontario. Witzel Dyce Engineering Inc. 2018Structural Building Assessment: KW Rowing ClubBuilding 3565 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario.Provided byDST Consulting Engineers. WZMH 2020History. Accessed online at:https://www.wzmh.com/about/history/ ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 50 38 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Appendix A:Maps and Figures Map 1:SubjectPropertyin the City of Kitchener (Produced by ARA under licence using ArcGIS®softwarebyEsri, ©Esri) ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 51 39 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Map 2:Subject PropertyonG.R. and G.M.TremaiTremthe Countyof Waterloo,CanadaWest(1861) (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software byEsri, © Esri; OHCMP2015) ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 52 40 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Map 3:Subject PropertyonaMap of Waterloo Townshipfrom H. Parse Illustrated Historical Atlasof the CountyofWaterloo(1881) (Producedunder licence usingArcGIS®software by Esri, © Esri;McGill University 2001) ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 53 41 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Map4:Subject Propertyona 1916Topographic Map (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri; OCUL 2018) ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 54 42 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Map5:Subject Propertyona2019 Aerial Image (Produced under licence using ArcGIS® software by Esri, © Esri;City ofKitchener2019) ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 55 43 Heritage Impact Assessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Map6:Adjacent BHRs and CHLs (Produced byARA under licence usingArcGIS® software byEsri, ©Esri) ____________________________________________________________________________ November 2020 Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 56 ada _ 44 td. 163 0 across Can ___ s L - e 20 at i 20 ssoc ct # A _________ _ Proje _ esearch ARA .d.) n al R ic , D. _________ eolog Peters ( ____ Archa __ Kitchener of City ______ , t East tree Hierarchy of Emergency Government Facilities S : 1 _____________ gure Fi 3571 King _____ nt __ _ _ essme s ______ 20 ___ _20 020 2 e Impact As - ag ____ 02 it _ ember 2 - _ _ Her _NovHR 4 - 57 45 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure2:Carleton Place, aCentral RelocationUnit(CRU) (Manning 2003:8) Figure3:Northwest Corner of the Edenvale Bunker (Photo Taken onMay 14, 2015) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 58 46 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure4:View ofEdenvale Bunker Interior (Photo Taken on May 14, 2015) Figure5: Interior of DebertBunker (Enter the Bunker 2020) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 59 47 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure6: Historic Photo of 3571 King Street East, 1969 (UER2020) Figure7:Waterloo Region Map (UER 2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 60 48 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure8: View of Operations Room (2019room labeled Boat Storage) (UER 2003) Figure9: View of Hallway (UER 2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 61 49 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure10: View of Womens Dormitory Room (2019 room labeled Womens Locker) (UER 2003) Figure11: Viewof Bathroom (UER 2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 62 50 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure12: Air Purifier (UER2003) Figure13: View of Stairs (UER2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 63 51 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure14:Carbon Monoxide Alarm (UER 2003) Figure15: Zone2 S.S.BNetwork Map (UER 2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 64 52 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure16:County Network EMO 1 Map (UER 2003) Figure17: County Network EMO 1 Map Close Up (UER 2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 65 53 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure18:Exterior Photo 2003 (UER 2003) Figure19: Roof Detail (UER 2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 66 54 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure20: Entrance (UER 2003) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 67 55 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure21:Provisional Manning Table (Waterloo County n.d.:8 November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 68 56 td. 0163 - es L at20 i 20 t # ssoc c A e roj P 14) RA esearch A R al ic eolog Archa Floor Plan and Use of Bunker Kitchener (Waterloo County n.d.: : of 22 City , Figure t East tree S 3571 King t n Assessme ct 20 pa 2020 0 2 - itage Im ember202 - Her NovHR 4 - 69 57 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Figure23: Example Historic Overlay-Heidentor in Eastern Austria (Curbed 2016) Figure 24:The location and size ofthe northwest tower of the second Habitation de Champlain, uncovered at Place-Royale in thearrondissement historique deQuébec, hasbeen highlighted with ground markings (Parks Canada 2010:120) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 70 58 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Appendix B:SubjectPropertyImages Map7:Exterior PhotoLocation Map, 3571KingStreetEast (Produced byARA under licence using ArcGIS®software by Esri, © Esri) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 71 ast E 59 td. 0163 - es L at20 i Street 20 t # ssoc c A e King roj P 571 3 RA , esearch A R ) al ic 2019 tion Map eolog MTE ( Loca Archa Kitchener to of Pho City , t East Interior : 8 tree p S Ma 3571 King t n Assessme ct 20 pa 2020 0 2 - itage Im ember202 - Her NovHR 4 - 72 60 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image1:Exteriorof3571King Street East (Photo takenonAugust 7, 2020; Facing Southwest) Image 2:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastRoof Detail (Phototaken on August 7,2020; Facing Southwest) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 73 61 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 3:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastCommunicationTowerDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; Facing Southwest) Image4:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastBoat Storage (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingSouth) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 74 62 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 5:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastBoat StorageDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020;FacingSouth) Image 6:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastRoofDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; Facing Northwest) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 75 63 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 7:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastCommunicationTowerDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; Facing Northwest) Image8:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastRoofDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; Facing North) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 76 64 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 9:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastSouth View (Phototaken on August 7, 2020;Facing South) Image10:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastConcrete View (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingNorthwest) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 77 65 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image11:Exterior of 3571 King Street EastSouth View (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; Facing North) InteriorImages Image 12:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastBoat Storage Detail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingSouth) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 78 66 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 13:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastMetal Roof BeamsDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020) Image 14:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastStaff DoorDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingNorth) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 79 67 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 15:Interiorof 3571King Street EastShopDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingNorth) Image 16:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastShopDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020;FacingNorth) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 80 68 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 17:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastElectrical InfrastructureDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingNorth) Image 18:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastStorageDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingSoutheast) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 81 69 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 19:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastStaircaseDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingWest) Image 20:Interiorof 3571 KingStreet EastStaircaseDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingWest) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 82 70 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image21:Interiorof 3571 KingStreet EastStorageDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingSoutheast) Image 22:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastStorageDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingSoutheast) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 83 71 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 23:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastMechanical RoomDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingEast) Image 24:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastGymnasiumDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingNortheast) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 84 72 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 25:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastWomens WashroomDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingSouth) Image26:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastHallwayDetail (PhototakenonAugust 7, 2020; FacingNorth) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 85 73 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image27:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastWomens WashroomDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020;FacingEast) Image 28:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastMensWashroomDetail (Phototaken onAugust 7, 2020; FacingEast) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 86 74 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image 29:Interiorof 3571 King Street EastFireEscape to RoofDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingEast) Image 30:Interiorof3571 King Street EastView to Southern EntranceDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingSouth) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 87 75 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Image31:Interiorof 3571 King Street East10 Inch ConcreteDetail (Phototaken on August 7, 2020; FacingEast) November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 88 76 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Appendix C:Identified Ajdacent BHRs and CHLs BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE NO.1 Name:Freeport Bridge Street Address:King Street Eastat Grand River Recognition: DesignatedCity of Kitchener By-law 2001-208 Type of Property:Bridge :1925-1926 Construction Date(s) : Description According to the Statement of Significance onthe Canadian Register of Historic Places, the cultural heritage value or interest of this property is as follows: The Freeport Bridge spans the Grand River and serves as agateway between the City of Kitchener and the City of Cambridge on the Old Highway8. It is part of a group of four multiple-span concrete bow string arch bridges spanning the Grand River that were erected inthe same time period and are similar in style. Thegroup of bridgesrepresent the upgradingof the transportation networks that occurred in Ontario after World War I to accommodate the increased number of automobiles. The group includes two other bridges within the Region of Waterloo, the Main Street Bridge in Cambridge and the Bridgeport Bridgein Kitchener. Of these three bridges,the Freeport is the oldest. The fourth bridge, the Caledonia Bridge, is located in the nearbyCity of Caledonia. A prominentlandmark in the Region of Waterloo, the Freeport Bridge is widely recognized asthe most important bridge in the Region. The current Freeport Bridge is the fourth consecutive bridge in this location. The first bridge was erected in 1820, with successive constructions in 1865, circa 1880 and this bridge in 1925. This reinforced concrete bowstring arch bridge was designed by A.B. Crealock, who was the Bridge Engineer for the Province of Ontario in the 1920s. Construction began in 1925and was finished in 1926 atan estimated cost of $s bowstring design waspopular inthe 1920s and 1930s as it required minimal material, was simple to install and could easily accommodate vehicular traffic. It has a length of 160 metres, with seven spans and sixpiers. Two lanes of carscan cross the bridge and the 6 foot widesidewalk is a unique feature found on this bowstring arch bridge. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 89 77 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener : Photograph Date of Photograph:August 7, 2020 Indicatorsof CulturalHeritage Value or Interest from O. Reg. 9/06: O. Reg.9/06CriteriaYesNo 1. The propertyhas design value or physical value because it, i. Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material orYes construction method, ii. Displays ahigh degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, orYes iii. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement.Yes 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. Hasdirect associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activityYes organization or institution that issignificant to a community, ii. Yields, or has the potentialto yield, informationthat contributes to anYes understanding of a community of culture,or iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work orideas of an architect, artist, builder,Yes designer or theorist who issignificant toa community. 3. The property has contextual value becauseit, i. Is important in defining, maintainingor supporting the characterof an area,Yes ii. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to itssurroundings, orYes iii. Is a landmark.Yes November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 90 78 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener : Evaluationof Cultural Heritage Value orInterest According toO. Reg. 9/06 The Freeport Bridge is a representative concrete bowstring arch bridge, with a Design orPhysicalValue: unique sidewalk feature.The Freeport Bridge is a concrete bowstring arch construction,decorative concrete rails and balustrades.The Freeport Bridge is a reinforced concrete bowstring arch bridge which required minimal material and was simple to install. Historical or Associative Value:The Freeport Bridge reflects 1920s and 1930s ideals in bridge construction, as it required minimal material, was simple to install, and could easily accommodate vehicular traffic. The Freeport Bridge represents the upgrading of the transportation networks that occurred inOntario after WWI. The Freeport Bridge was designed by A.B.Crealock, a Bridge Engineer for the Province ofOntario in the 1920s. Contextual Value: The Freeport Bridge is a gateway marker between the City of Kitchener and the City of Cambridge. The Freeport Bridge is functionally linked to three other bridges in the area which were built in the same era and style, and is the fourth consecutive bridge in this location.The Freeport Bridge is a prominent bridge in the Region of Waterloo and is widely recognized as the most important bridge in theRegion. Identification of CHVI:PossessCHVI. Heritage Attributes:Accordingto the DesignationBy-lawand the Canadian Register of Historic Places,the key heritage attributes include: location on thesite of threeprevious bridges whose presence date back to 1820; reinforced concrete bowstring arch construction; original dimensions of the bridge, 160.1 metres in length and 22.1 metres wide with a 1.83 metre sidewalk; seven concrete spansand six concrete piers; decorative concrete rails and balustrades; concrete deck beam; key location spanning the Grand River;prominence as a gateway marker between the City of Kitchener and the City of Cambridge; proximity to three other bridges in the area which werebuilt inthe same era and style. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 91 79 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE NO. 1 :Grand River Name :City of Kitchener -TheGrand River is continuous from the northern limit where Boundary Kitchener meets Waterloo at Kiwanis Park south to the meander bend justnorth of Bloomingdale Road. Recognition: Inventory Cultural Heritage Landscape Study(City of Kitchener 2014)Inventory Candidate CHL (Scheinman 2006) :River Type of Landscape : Description According to Scheinman: Traversing cultural, political, and economic boundaries, the Grand River is the key natural heritage feature of the Region, inspiring a legacy of Aboriginal and European cultures that have shaped the settlement of the area. The river historic influence is evident in the many archaeologicalsites, mill ruins, industrial complexes, rural villages, and diverse communities thatlie along its length. As it winds its way through marshes, woodlands,Carolinian forests, parkland and urban areas, the riverprovides a common threadthat links the natural and cultural features from pre-historic times to today. The Grand is thequintessential cultural heritage landscape that has been celebrated in legend and lore, and commemorated as a Canadian Heritage River.From a practical standpoint, the identification and protection of cultural heritage landscapes within the Grand is likely bestestablished as a series of cultural pockets, rather than as a singular entity encompassing the river corridor, although its significanceas alinking element should be recognized. A number of key cultural heritage sites along the Grand River are included in the list of Candidate Cultural Heritage Landscapes below. (2006: 20) Cultural HeritageLandscape Study: Few rivers in Canada have seen as much of the flow of history as the Grand River. First Nations have flourishedin the watershed for more than 10,000 years. The last three centuries have brought an influx of European, American and other settlers, initially seekingagricultural land,but eventually diversifyingintocentres ofindustry with the arrival of the railway. Although the River provided sustenance to the early pioneers of the Kitchener area, it did not play the same role it did in other watershed communities where waterpower was the genesis of founding industries. Instead the River was probably perceived asmore of an obstacle, restricting the flow of goods and services eastward and requiring substantial investment toconnect Kitchener to its eastern and southern markets. TheGrand and its tributaries drain approximately 6735 square kilometres (2600 square miles) and the combined watershed is the largest catchment basin in Southwestern Ontario. The Kitchener reaches of the Grand create the eastern boundary of the City. Along the eastern edge of Kitchener, theGrand cutsits way through an ancient glacial spillway and has alternating banks that range in height from a few metres toover 30 metres. The alluvial plains inwhich the Riverruns vary in width, from less than a kilometre to more than 2 kilometres and have been asource of an abundant supply of sands and gravels for manydecades. The November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 92 80 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Grand River Forest, with its rare Carolinian species south of Kitchener, lines much of the shore in thesouthernmost reaches. This Forest changes to a mixed deciduoushardwood forest with black willow communities lining thebanks through the Kitchener reaches.The River is subject to occasionalextreme flows and flooding. In 1954, Hurricane Hazelcaused flows of more than 10 times normal levels. This resulted in significant changes to the landscape in the Bridgeportreach due to the construction of dikes and other flood control measures. The Kitchener reaches have been the locationof a variety of settlementsand other historical activities since the arrival of pioneer settlers beginning around 1800. The highlightsof theseactivities includethe following. In 1829, Jacob Shoemaker established Glasgow Mills at the mouth of Laurel Creek on the west bank of theRiver. At aboutthe same time JohnTyson settled on theeastbank and called the settlement Bridgeport. The Bridgeport Bridge was built on Bridge Street in 1934, eight years after its sister bridge was constructed at Freeport. The bridge is a five-span reinforced concrete bowstring and is 126 metres long. Shoemaker's Ford& Wooden Bridge is located south of the current Bridgeport Bridge. It was used to connect the two sides of the early settlement of Bridgeport. The first wooden bridge at Shoemaker's Fordwas constructed in 1847. The Grand Trunk Railway Bridge (at Breslau)embankmentswere started in 1854 and constructed over a period of 2 years. The abutments are made of limestone block. Two concrete piers in the river complete the span. The original bridge spans were constructed of wroughtiron imported from England. The iron tube structure was replaced by steelgirders in 1905. Other early fords along the Kitchener reaches included the Breslau Ford, the Zeller's Ford, and the Sam Bricker's Ford. Livergood's Ford was first called Reichert'sFord and later the Livergood's Ford, afterChristian Reichert and George Livergoodearly local settlers. After the first permanent major bridge in Waterloo Township was erected here in 1820, the area became known as TollBridge (and later Bridgeville). Tolls came to an end in1857and the area wasrenamed Freeport in 1865. In 1880, the first iron bridge in Waterloo County was erected here. The existing Freeport Bridge is a seven span, six-pier, concrete bowstringarch. There was a lane or road from the Dundas Road in Preston to Freeport and beyond.This road was extended to the Grand River in the vicinity of Pioneer Memorial Tower. Soon after 1800, Bechtel's Ford and later a wooden bridge were established from this road westward across the Grand River. On the western side, the bank was quite steep (over 30 metres in height), but pioneers built the incline of the road from south to north up the steep bank and gradually emerged on the Huron Road. About 1836, a woodenbridge was built across the Grand River at the Bechtel's Ford location and lasted untilabout 1857, when it was removed by an early spring flood.In 1994, the Grand River and its major tributaries, the Nith, Conestogo, Speed and Eramosa rivers, were designated asCanadian Heritage Rivers. It was the 15th Canadian Heritage River tobe designated in Canada. Although the river has been much altered byits people, it still provides large natural areas and scenic views and is of outstanding recreational and educationalvalue. Many decades of careful management have maintained these values even asthe urban nature of the watershed grew.While use of the river has changed, the major recreational role it plays,and the well-preserved evidence of the cultures that were drawnto its banks, makes it worthy of its status as a Canadian Heritage River (2014). November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 93 81 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener : Photograph Date of Photograph:August 7, 2020 Indicators of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest fromO. Reg. 9/06: O. Reg. 9/06CriteriaYesNo 1. The property has design value orphysical value because it, i. Is arare, unique,representative or early example of a style, type, expression, materialor construction method, ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. Demonstrates a highdegree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value becauseit, i. Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief,person,activityYes organization or institution that issignificantto a community, ii. Yields, or has the potential to yield, informationthat contributes to an understanding of acommunity of culture, or iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who issignificant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value becauseit, i. Is important in defining, maintaining orsupporting the character of an area,Yes ii. Is physically, functionally, visually orhistorically linked toitssurroundings, orYes iii. Is a landmark.Yes November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 94 82 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener : Evaluationof Cultural Heritage ValueorInterest According toO. Reg. 9/06 Historical or AssociativeValue: The Grand River has been the ancestral home of Indigenous peoples for10,000 yearsand has influenced the settlement of the watershedarea. Contextual Value:The Grand River CHL is important indefining,maintaining and supporting the character of the Region ofWaterlooas it dominates the landscapeand hasinfluenced the ant. The CHLis physically, functionally, visuallyand historically linkedto its surroundings as itwas aprinciple factor that has influencedPre-Contact lifeways andhistoric settlement patterns. The Grand Riverwatershed is one of the best-known watersheds in southwesternOntario and is federally recognized as a Canadian Heritage River. The Grand RiverCHLis a landmark in the community.Theviews to and from the river represent important scenic landscapes. Identification of CHVI:Possess CHVI. Heritage Attributes:According to theCultural Heritage Landscape Study, the heritage attributes of the Grand River include: a well-defined river valley with alternating steep and shallow banks; and wonderful meandering river with significant vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitat. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 95 83 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPE NO. 2 Street Address:3570 King Street East Name:Grand River Hospital Freeport Site Recognition: Listed City of Kitchener Municipal Heritage Register Inventory Cultural Heritage Landscape Study (City of Kitchener 2014) :Hospital Type of Property Dateof Construction:circa 1916 : Description The Grand River Hospital Freeport Site consists of a two-storey red brick hospital building, a one-storey building, a one-storey square building and a gazebo. The two-storey hospitalbuilding isin the Georgian style. It is symmetrical with a central wing and twoside wings.The roof is gabled, with cross gablesover the wings, anddecorative cornice and cornice returns. The central wing has five bays, with the first storey featuring a central entrance flanked bytwo windows. The entrance features sidelights, a transom window and door surround with engaged pillars. The first storey facade windows feature six-over-six sash windows with round arch heads, radiating brick voussoirs and sills and keystones. Second storeywindows are six-over-six sash windowswith brick voussoirs and sills. Brick banding defines betweenthe first and second storey. The facade of the wings feature circular windows with brick surround in the peak of the gable ends.The building is constructed of red brick laid in Flemish common courses. The one-storeybuilding is constructed of red brick laid in Flemish common courses,with a banding of red brick laid on the short ends. The hip roof has two gables with cornice returns on the facade. A hip roof dormeris on the facade and east elevation. Theentrance door and window in the gable ends have large rounded arch heads composed of brick and feature radiating brick voussoirs with keystones and stone lintel ends. Stone sillsare featured under the windows. According to the Cityof Kitchener CulturalHeritage Landscape Study: Prior to widespread introduction of antibiotics, Tuberculosis was a disease that was frequently fatal and widespread. It was the most commoncauseof mortality in Canada in thelate 19thand early 20th century. It was known by the late 19th century that rest, a healthy diet, ahigh elevation and fresh air were the best means of combating the illness. The first sanatorium was constructed in Canada bytheNational Sanatorium Association in Muskoka,Ontario in1896. This was followed by similar institutions across Canada constructed remotely from urban areas toisolate them against the spread of the bacillus. The FreeportSanatorium was constructed on the outskirtsof Berlin, to thesoutheast, and could be accessed both by road and via the Preston Berlin Railway. Of interest is that it was located at the highestelevation of anyof the 14 such sites in Ontario. The site was developed as a result, in 1908,ofthe establishment of the"Anti- Consumption League" which was later named theBerlin Sanatorium Association. Investment came from municipalities inWaterloo County with significant assistance from the activities of the Sanatorium Auxiliaries and Women'sInstitute chapters. The sitewas purchased in 1912 from Benjamin Shantzwhose house served as the original treatment centre. The site is located on a glacial spillway and at thetoe of the till moraine that dominates much of Kitchener's east side. Its location afforded good views across the river and probably determined the aspect ofthe original buildings. In 1928 considerable grading of the grounds was completed to remove a November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 96 84 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener gravel bank against the railway. This area was topsoiled and lawn was installed.In 1931, landscape architect,Arthur H.Sharpe,of Oakville was retainedto provide a landscape plan for the central area of the sanatorium. He supervised its installation that same year. Sharpe is noted for the preparationof site and landscape plans forShoreacres Estate (now PalettaPark) inBurlington, owned by Edyth Merriam McKay, heir to one of the founders of the Stelco Steel Co. Subsequent expansion from 1926 through 1953 saw the construction of nurses residences, doctor's residence, treatment centre, men's and women's residences, and other support buildings. With improvements in drug therapies in the late 1950's, the site wasre-positioned to include chronic-rehabilitativecare with the tuberculosis division closed in 1970 and replaced by a large health care complex that, by 2010, included mental health care. The buildings dating to the original construction have attributes that are similar including roof-lines of medium-pitched gable and hipped roofs; original doors and hardware with leaded glass sidelights and glass or wood transoms; Greek (Doric pattern)pilastersandentablatures; brickvoussoirs over the windows; original double sash wood windows; brickor concrete sills; dark variegated brick construction including walls and chimneys; concrete foundations;and, other features which are consistent with an overallGeorgian Revival aesthetic. : Photographs November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 97 85 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener :September4, 2020 Date of Photographs : Indicators of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest from O.Reg. 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06CriteriaYesNo 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression,materialor Yes construction method, ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship orartistic merit, or iii. Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative valuebecause it, i.Has direct associations with atheme, event, belief, person, activityYes organizationor institutionthat issignificant to a community, ii. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community of culture,or iii.Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who issignificant to a community. 3. Theproperty has contextual value because it, i. Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting thecharacter of anarea,Yes ii. Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linkedto its surroundings, orYes iii.Is alandmark.Yes November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 98 86 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener : Evaluationof Cultural Heritage Value or Interest According toO. Reg. 9/06 Designor Physical Value: The Freeport Hospital is a good example of a Georgian stylehospital. Historical or Associative Value:The Freeport Hospital is associated with the Canadian National Sanatorium Association, the Anti-Consumption League (Berlin Sanatorium Association), Benjamin Shantz, and landscape architect Arthur H. Sharpe.The Freeport Hospital has the potential to yield information relating to early 20th century illnesses and treatment in the Kitchener-Waterloo area. Contextual Value: The Freeport Hospital is important in defining and maintaining the character of the area.The Freeport Hospital is historically linked to the area.The Freeport Hospital is a well-known building in the City of Kitchener and is a significant local landmark. :PossessesCHVI. Identification of CHVI Heritage Attributes:Key heritage attributes according to the City of Kitchener Cultural Heritage Landscape Studyinclude: mid-19th century buildingsin the Georgian Revival architectural style. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 99 87 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Appendix D:Key Team Member Two-Page CurriculumVitae CurriculumVitae Paul J.Racher, MA,CAHP Principal-ManagementandSenior Review (MSR)Team ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATESLTD. 219-900 GuelphStreet,Kitchener, ON N2H 5Z6 Phone: (519) 804-2291 x100 Mobile:(519)835-4427 Fax:(519)286-0493 Email:pracher@arch-research.com Web:www.arch-research.com Biography Paul Racher is a Principal of ARA. He has a BA in Prehistoric Archaeology from WLU and an MA in anthropology from McMaster University. He began hiscareer as a heritage professional in 1986. Over the three decades since, hehas overseen the completion of several hundred archaeological and cultural heritagecontracts. Paul has years of experience related to linear transportation and rail projects, notably through the work to complete a Cultural Heritage Inventory for the RegiKitchener to Cambridge, Ontario. He holds professional license #P007 with the MHSTCI. Paul is aformer lecturer in Cultural Resource Management atWLU. He is a professionalmember of theCanadianAssociation of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and a formerPresident of the Ontario Archaeological Association (OAS). Education 1992-1997PhD Programme,Departmentof Anthropology,University ofToronto. Supervisors:E.B.Banningand B.Schroeder. Withdrawn. 1989-1992M.A.,Department ofAnthropology, McMasterUniversity, Hamilton, Ontario. Thesis titled:TheArchaeologist's 'Indian': Narrativityand Representation in Archaeological Discourse. 1985-1989Honours B.A.,Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario. Major:Prehistoric Archaeology. Professional Memberships and Accreditations CurrentMinistry ofTourismCulture andSportProfessional Licence (#P007). ProfessionalMember oftheCanadian Association of HeritageProfessionals (CAHP), Volunteer on the ethicscommittee. Memberof theOntario Archaeological Society (OAS), Volunteeronthe ProfessionalCommittee. Associate of theHeritage Resources Centre, University ofWaterloo. RAQS registeredwith MTO. WorkExperience CurrentPrincipal, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Responsible for winning contracts, client liaison, project excellence, and setting the policies andpriorities for amulti-million dollar heritage consulting firm. 2000-2011ProjectManager/Principal Investigator, Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Managed projects for a heritage consulting firm. In10fieldseasons, managed hundreds ofprojects of varying size. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 100 88 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 2008-2011Part-TimeFaculty, WilfridLaurier University. LecturerforCulturalResource Management course(AR336). Inchargeofall teaching,coursework, andstudent evaluations. 1995FieldArchaeologist, University of Toronto. Served asa supervisor onamultinational archaeologicalproject in northern Jordan. 1992-1995TeachingAssistant, University ofToronto. Responsibleforteaching andorganizing weeklytutorials fora number of courses. 1991-1994Part-TimeFaculty,Wilfrid LaurierUniversity. Lectured forseveral coursesin anthropology. Heldcompleteresponsibilityforall teaching, coursework,andstudent evaluations. 1992-1996Partner in ConsultingCompany, Cultural Management Associates Incorporated. Supervisedseveralarchaeological contractsinSouthern Ontario.Participatedin a major (nowpublished)archaeological potential modeling projectforMTO. 1989-1991Partnerin Consulting Company, Cultural Resource Consultants. Managedthefinancialaffairsof a consultingfirm whilst supervisingthe completion of severalcontractsperformed forheritage parksincentral Ontario. 1988-1991PrincipalInvestigator/ProjectDirector, Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. Oversaw the completionof large contracts, wrotereports, and was responsible forensuring thatcontractswere completed withinbudget. 1988AssistantDirector of Excavations, St. Marieamong the Hurons,Midland, Ontario. Duties includedcrew supervision, mapping, reportwritingand photography. 1986-1987Archaeological CrewPerson,ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd., Waterloo,Ontario. Participated in background research,survey,andexcavationon anumberof Archaeological sites across Ontario. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 101 89 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Kayla JonasGalvin, MA,RPP,MCIP, CAHP Heritage Operations Manager ARCHAEOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 1480Sandhill Drive, Unit 3,Ancaster,ON L9G 4V5 Phone: (519)804-2291 x120Fax:(519)286-0493 Email:kjgalvin@arch-research.comWeb:www.arch-research.com Biography Kayla Jonas Galvin, ArchaeologicalResearch Associates Ltd.rations Manager, has extensive experience evaluating cultural heritage resources and landscapes for private and public-sector clients to fulfil therequirementsof provincial and municipallegislation such as the Environmental AssessmentAct, the Standards& Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Propertiesand municipal Official Plans. She served as Team Lead on the Ministry of Tourism, Culture andSportHistoric Places Initiative, which drafted over 850 Statements of Significance and for Heritage Districts Work!, a study of 64 heritage conservation districts in Ontario. Kayla wasan editorof Arch, Truss and Beam: The Grand River Watershed Heritage Bridge Inventoryand has worked onMunicipal HeritageRegisters in severalmunicipalities. Kayla has drafted over 192designation reports and by-laws for the City of Kingston, the City of Burlington, the Town of Newmarket, Municipality of Chatham-Kent, City of Brampton and the Township of Whitchurch-Stouffville.Kayla is the Heritage Team Lead forter assignments for Infrastructure Ontario and oversees evaluation of properties accordingto Standards & Guidelines for the Conservationof ProvincialHeritage Properties. Kaylais a Member of the CanadianInstitute of Planners (MCIP), a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) and a Professional Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). Education 2016MAin Planning, Universityof Waterloo.ThesisTopic: GoderichACase Studyof ConservingCulturalHeritage ResourcesinaDisaster 2003-2008Honours BES UniversityofWaterloo,Waterloo,Ontario JointMajor:Environment and Resource Studies and Anthropology ProfessionalMembershipsand Accreditations CurrentProfessional Member, CanadianAssociation of Heritage Professionals(CAHP) Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP) Registered Professional Planner (RPP) Board Member, Ontario Association of Heritage Professionals. Work Experience CurrentHeritage Operations Manager,ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. Oversees businessdevelopment for the Heritage Department,coordinates completionofdesignation by-laws,Heritage ImpactAssessments, BuiltHeritage andCulturalHeritageLandscape Assessments, andCultural HeritageResource Evaluations. 2009-2013HeritagePlanner,Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo Coordinated thecompletion of various contractsassociatedwithbuiltheritage including respondingtogrants,RFPs and initiating service proposals. 2008-2009,Project CoordinatorHeritage ConservationDistrict Study, ACO 2012Coordinated the fieldresearchand authoredreportsfor thestudy of 32Heritage Conservation Districts in Ontario. Managed theefforts ofover 84 volunteers, four staff andmunicipal plannersfrom 23 communities. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 102 90 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 2007-2008TeamLead,HistoricPlace Initiative,Ministry of Culture Liaised with Ministryof CultureStaff, CentreDirector andmunicipal heritage staff todraft over850 Statements of Significance forpropertiesto be nominated totheCanadianRegister of Historic Places.Managed ateam of four people. Selected Professional Development 2019OPPI andWeirFouldsClientSeminar:Bill108More Homes,More Choice, 2019 2019Annualattendance atOntarioHeritage Conference, Goderich,ON(Two-days) 2019Information Session:Proposed Amendments to the OHA, by Ministryof Tourism, CultureandSport 2018Indigenous CanadaCourse, University of Alberta 2018Volunteer Dig,Mohawk Institute 2018 Indigenizing Planning, three webinarseries,CanadianInstituteof Planners 2018Cultural Heritage, Archaeology and PlanningSymposium 2018TransformingPublic Apathy toRevitalize Engagement, Webinar,MetorQuest 2018Howto Plan forCommunities:Listen tothe Them, Webinar,Canadian Institute of Planners 2017EmpoweringIndigenous Voicesin Impact Assessments, Webinar, International Associationfor Impact Assessments 2017CulturalHeritage, Archaeology andPlanningSymposium 2017CapitalizingonHeritage, National TrustConference,Ottawa,ON. 2016Cultural Heritage,Archaeologyand Planning Symposium 2016Heritage Rising, NationalTrustConference,Hamilton 2016OntarioHeritage ConferenceSt.Marysand Stratford, ON. 2016Heritage InventoriesWorkshop,City ofHamilton &ERAArchitects 2015 Cultural Heritage,Archaeologyand Planning Symposium 2015City of Hamilton: ReviewofExistingHeritage Permit andHeritageDesignation Process Workshop. 2015Ontario HeritageConference, Niagara ontheLake,ON. 2015LeadershipTraining forManagers Course, Dale Carnegie Training Selected Publications 2018nservingCultural HeritageLandscapesin Waterloo: An Innovative Appro OntarioAssociation ofHeritageProfessionals Newsletter,Winter2018. 2018ioneerCemeteriesOntarioAssociationofHeritageProfessionals Newsletter. Spring2018.Inprint. 2015WritteninStone: Cemeteries as Heritage ResoMunicipalWorld,Sept.2015. 2015inging Historyto LMunicipalWorld,February 2015, pages 11-12. 2014Inventorying our HisOntario Planning Journal, January/February 2015. 2014Mad about Modernism.Municipal World, September 2014. 2014ssessing thesuccess ofHeritageConservationDistricts: InsightsfromOntario ithR. ShipleyandJ.Kovacs.Cities. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 103 91 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener Penny M. Young, MA, CAHP(#P092) Project Manager -Heritage ARCHAEOGICALRESEARCH ASSOCIATESLTD. 1480 Sandhill Drive, Unit3,Ancaster,ON L9G4V5 Phone: (519)804-2291 x121Email:penny.young@arch-research.com Web: www.arch-research.com Biography PennyYounghas 27 years ofcultural heritagemanagement experience,21yearsworking in government, as a Heritage Planner, Heritage Coordinator,RegionalArchaeologistand ArchaeologicalDatabase Coordinator where she managed andcoordinatedthe impactsto cultural heritage resourcesincludingbuiltheritage,archaeological sites andculturalheritage landscapes for compliancewith municipal, provincialandfederallegislation andpolicy.She has conductedresults-drivenandcollaborative managementof complex culturalheritage resource projectswithin the public sectorinvolving developingproject terms of reference, definingscope of work, preparationofbudgetsand conducting sites visits to monitor andprovide heritage/archaeological and environmentaladviceand direction. At theMinistry of TransportationPenny revised, updatedanddeveloped policy,aspart of ateam, for the Ontario HeritageBridgeGuidelinesfor Provincially OwnedBridge Guidelines for Provincially Owned Bridges.She received theMTOCentral Region Employee RecognitionAwardin 2001 and 2002. WhileatMTO she provided technical adviceandinputinto thedevelopment ofthe MTO Environmental ReferenceforHighway Design-Section 3.7 Built Heritage andCulturalHeritage Landscapesand theMTOEnvironmental GuideforBuiltHeritage andCultural Heritage Landscapes.She is a professional member of the CanadianAssociation of Heritage Planners (CAHP)andholdsProfessional License #P092 fromMHSTCI.Shealsoholds memberships in the Ontario Professional Planners Institute(OPPI) andthe OntarioArchaeological Society (OAS). Education 1990-1993Masterof Arts,Department of AnthropologyMcMaster University,Hamilton Ontario.Specializing in Mesoamerican andOntario archaeology. 1983-1987Honours Bachelor of Arts (EnglishandAnthropology), McMaster University, Hamilton,Ontario. Professional Memberships andAccreditations CurrentProfessional Member,Canadian Associationof Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Member ofOntario Archaeological Society Pre-Candidate Member,Ontario Professional Planners Institute(OPPI) Ministry ofTourism Culture &SportProfessional Licence (#P092) WorkExperience CurrentProject Manager -Heritage,Archaeological ResearchAssociates Ltd. Coordinates ARAprojectteams andconducts heritageassessmentprojects including HeritageImpact Assessments, BuiltHeritage andCulturalHeritage Landscape Assessments, andCulturalHeritageResourceEvaluations. Additional responsibilitiesinclude the completionof designation by-laws and heritageinventories.Liaiseswithmunicipal staff,provincial ministries and Indigenous communitiestosolicit relevant projectinformationandtobuild relationships. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 104 92 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 2008-2016Heritage Planner, Culture ServicesUnit,Ministry ofTourism,Culture& Sport(MTCS) Responsibleforadvisingand providingtechnicalreviewformanagement of culturalheritageresources inenvironmentalassessmentundertakings and planning projects affecting provincial ministries, municipalities,private sector proponents and Indigenouscommunities.AdvisedonmunicipalitiOfficialPlan (OP) policiescultural heritageconservation policies. Provided guidance on compliancewiththe Public Work ClassEA, other ClassEA legislation and2010 Standardsand Guidelinesfor Provincial HeritageProperties. 2014Senior HeritagePlanner, Planningand BuildingDepartment,Cityof Burlington(temporary assignment) Projectmanagerof the studyfor a potentialHeritage Conservation District. Providedguidanceto a multiple company consultant teamand reportedto municipalstaff andthepublic.Liaisedwith Municipal Heritage Committee and municipalheritagepropertyownersapprovedheritage permits and provided direction on Indigenousengagement, archaeological siteassessments and proposed development projects. 2011Heritage Coordinator, Building, Planning and Design Department,Cityof Brampton (temporaryassignment) Project leadfornewHeritage ConservationDistrict Study.The assignment includeddirectingconsultants,managing budgets, organizing a Public Information Session, and reportingto Senior Management and Council. Reviewed development/planningdocumentsfor impacts to heritageincluding OP policies,OP Amendments,Plans ofsubdivision andCommitteeof Adjustment applications and Municipal ClassEAundertakings. 2010-2011Senior Heritage Coordinator, Culture Division,CityofMississauga (temporary assignment) Providedadviceto Senior Management and Municipal Councilonheritage conservationofbuilt heritage, archaeological sitesandculturalheritage landscapes.Liaisedwith multiple municipal staffincludingtheClerkoffice, Parksanddevelopmentplannersandthepublic. Supervised and directed project workfor junior heritage planner. 1999-2008RegionalArchaeologist, PlanningandEnvironmentalSection, Ministry of Transportation(MTO) Responsibilitiesincluded:project management andcoordination ofMTO archaeology and heritage program, managed multipleconsultants,conducted andcoordinated field assessments,surveys andexcavations,liaisedwithFirst Nationcommunities andBandCouncils, estimatedbudgetsincluding $200,000 retainercontracts. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 105 93 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener SarahClarke,BA Research Manager ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD. 219-900GuelphStreet,Kitchener,ONN2H 5Z6 Phone:(519)755-9983Email:sclarke@arch-research.com Web: www.arch-research.com Biography Sarah ClarkeisArchaeological Research AssociatesLtderitage ResearchManager.Sarah hasover 12 years of experiencein Ontario archaeology and 10yearsofexperience with backgroundresearch. Herexperienceincludes conducting archivalresearch (bothlocal and remote),artifact cataloguing andprocessing, and fieldworkatvariousstagesin boththe consulting andresearch-basedrealms. AsTeamLeadof Research, Sarahis responsiblefor conductingarchival researchin advance of rchaeological and heritageassessments.In thiscapacity,she performs Stage 1 archaeological assessmentsitevisits, conducts preliminary built heritage andcultural heritage landscapeinvestigations andliaises withheritage resource offices and local community resources in orderto obtainandprocessdata. Sarahhas in-depth experience inconductinghistoric researchfollowing theOntarioHeritage Toolkitseries, andthe StandardsandGuidelinesfor ProvincialHeritage Properties.Sarah holdsan Honours B.A. in North American Archaeology,withaHistorical/Industrial Option from Wilfrid Laurier University andiscurrentlyenrolledin Western Universiensive AppliedArchaeologyMAprogram. She isamemberofthe Ontario Archaeological Society(OAS),the Society forIndustrial Archaeology,the OntarioGenealogical Society (OGS), the CanadianArchaeological Association, and isaCouncil-appointedcitizen volunteer on theBrantford Municipal Heritage Committee. Sarah holds anR-level archaeological license with the MHSTCI(#R446). Education CurrentMAIntensive AppliedArchaeology, WesternUniversity,London,ON.Proposed thesis topic: Archaeological Management at the MohawkVillage. 19992010HonoursBA,Wilfrid LaurierUniversity,Waterloo, Ontario Major: North American Archaeology, Historical/Industrial Option Professional MembershipsandAccreditations CurrentMember of theOntarioArchaeological Society CurrentMemberof theSociety for IndustrialArchaeology CurrentMember of theBrantHistoricalSociety CurrentMember of theOntario GenealogicalSociety CurrentMemberof the CanadianArchaeologicalAssociation CurrentMemberof theArchivesAssociationofOntario Work Experience CurrentTeam LeadResearch;TeamLeadArchaeology,Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. Manageand plan theresearch needsforarchaeological and heritageprojects. Researchatoffsite locations includingland registryoffices, locallibrariesand local and provincial archives. Historicanalysis for archaeologicaland heritage projects. Field Director conductingStage 1 assessments. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 106 94 Heritage ImpactAssessment3571 King Street East,City ofKitchener 2013-2015HeritageResearchManager; Archaeological MonitoringCoordinator, Archaeological Research AssociatesLtd. Stage 1archaeological field assessments,researchat local and distant archives atboththe municipalandprovinciallevels, coordinationofconstruction monitors forarchaeological project locations. 2010-2013Historic Researcher, TimminsMartelle Heritage ConsultantsInc. Report preparation,local and offsite research (libraries, archives); correspondencewiththe Ministry ofTourism, Culture, and Sport;report submissionto the MTCSand clients; and administrative duties (PIF andBorden form completion and submission, data requests). 2008-2009Field Technician, ArchaeologicalAssessmentsLtd. Participatedinfieldexcavation andartifactprocessing. 2008-2009TeachingAssistant, Wilfrid Laurier University. Responsiblefor teaching andevaluating first yearstudent lab work. 2007-2008Fieldand Lab Technician, Historic Horizons. Participated in excavationsat DundurnCastle and Auchmar in Hamilton, Ontario. Cataloguedartifacts from excavations at Auchmar. 2006-2010Archaeological FieldTechnician/Supervisor,Wilfrid Laurier University. Fieldschool student in 2006, returned as afield school teachingassistant in 2008 and2010. Professional Development 2019Annual attendance atOntarioHeritageConference,Goderich,ON 2018Cultural Heritage,ArchaeologyandPlanningSymposium st 2018Grand River Watershed 21Annual Heritage Day Workshop &Celebration 2018Mississaugasof the NewCredit First NationHistoricalGathering andConference 2017OntarioGenealogical Society Conference 2016OntarioArchaeologicalSocietySymposium 2015Introduction toBlacksmithing Workshop, Milton Historical Society 2015AppliedResearchLicenseWorkshop, MTCS 2014Applied ResearchLicense Workshop, MTCS 2014HeritagePreservationandStructuralRecordingin HistoricalandIndustrial Archaeology. Four-monthcourse taken atWilfrid Laurier University,Waterloo, ON.Professor:Meagan Brooks. Presentations 2018TheEarly BlackHistoryofBrantford.Brant HistoricalSociety,City ofBrantford. 2017Mush Hole Archaeology.OntarioArchaeological Society Symposium, Brantford. 2017Urban Historical Archaeology: ExploringtheBlackCommunity in St. Catharines, Ontario.Canadian ArchaeologicalAssociationConference,Gatineau,QC. VolunteerExperience CurrentCouncil-appointed citizenvolunteerfor theBrantfordMunicipal Heritage Committee. November2020 ArchaeologicalResearchAssociates Ltd. HR-202-2020 ARAProject #2020-0163 4 - 107