THE CORPORATION OF THE ClTy GF PORT COGUITLAN

~3-

Present requirement based on established standard
of 2.5 acres/1000 population for 1978 population of 26,000
is 65 acres,

Community Parks
Se key ars:

Park Names

Acreage
— ee

——a

City Hall

Lions

Port Cocuitlam Centre
Eyce Creek Centre

Total ~ 24.5

Present requirement based on established standard
of 75 acres/1006 population for 1978 Population of 26,000 is
195 acres.

Nature Parks
See Seta

Park Names
oes

Acreage

25.0 (partiy used as cemetery)
*130.0

Greenrount
Nature Area

Total ~ 155.0

- Present requirement based on established standard
of 10 acres/19co population for 1978 population of 26,000 is
280 acres,

PARKLAND COSTS
eee

¥,

fith the exception of those lands that are Gesignated

as Agricultural Land Reserves under the B.C, Agricultural Lane
Commission, Port Cequitlan is @oproaching to full development.
The belk of now housino in the next five years will primarily
be in-fill housing. As neighbourhood and com a =y parks are
generally provided within population centres, it would be
logical to base on costs of in-fill single-family residential
lands to deternine the costs of providing new Pack sites. The

ng @re random samples of sales Of in-fill lands in 197¢
and 1977,

Location Parcel Size Price/Acre

Harbour Street
Marshall Street
Coguitian Avenue
Vestrinster Avenue

$ 71,985
190,302
91,095
66,900

t

T

82

ne

C

CPCERTION OF iz Cli¥ OF PORT COQUITLA:
-4-
Location

Parcel Price/Acre

Hastings Street $ 35,300
Coast Meridian Road 47,955
Warwick Street

66, €14
Imperial Avenue 62,255

$ 67,000

Average Price/Acre

As to nature parks, rost of the sites can
in the rural areas and consequently land cost is sub
lower. Since very few land transactions eccurred in
areas during the past year, we do not have reliable 5
which land value in the rural areas can be deternirea

We assume, however, the land value to be in the erder °
per acre.

Using present househoia size of 3.5 persons and
established park standarde described carlier, the costs
viding parkland for each new dwelling uait are a@cproxina
as follows:

Neighbourhood Park 2.5 x 67000

Community Park 7.5 x 67000

Nature Park 10 x 20000

Total Cost Per Dwelling

Based on the foregoing calculations, in eréer to
maintain the established Standards of open Space, each nev
evelling unit shoulé bear a total park cost of $3,044, .
The charge of $800.00 per dwelling unit imposed by Counci
until the adoption of the 1977 Municipal Amenément Act is clearly
much less than the actual costs of providing parkland ane is
only slightly greater than the cost of Providing neichhkourhosoe
porks, Therefore a charge of $800.00 per dwelling unit r
the provision of parkland obviously meets the objective o
the Act in not Leing excessive in relation to the canital cost
of providing Prevailing standards of service in the City.

I recommend that a charge of $800.00 per new dwelling
unit to cover the Capital cost of providing park lang be re-
instituted and that a develooment cost charge by-law be aconted
within the framework of ‘ie 1977 Municipal Amendment Act in
order to effect this charge.

L. Lee,
City Planner,