THE CORPORATION GF-THE CITY GF PORT COQUITLAM

-~ 2D =

2. This option is exactly as shown in the Crippen
report for the Fraser River Flood Control Program. It requires
a@ provision cf wide ditches ail along Broadway and along Coast
Meridian in order to provide storage capacity. The disadvantages
ef this system are a high initial cost due mainly to the need for
bridge structures crossing hoth ditches for each fronting property.
This proposal also requires right-of-way to be acquired along
both Broadway and Coast Meridian to accommodate the wide ditches.
Other disadvantages are the visual impact of the ditches. and the
affects on safety of having the ditches alongside our major
arterials.

2a. This option is a variation of 2 in which Broadway
is storm sewered from Kingsway to Cameron and the lower ditches
widened to make up the difference in storage volume. This
variation results in a slight reduction in cost due to saving
on right-of-way and fewer bridges along Broadway. However, the
cost is still almost half a million dollars more than option 1,

3. This option involves a completely enclosed storm
Sewer systei for the whole industrial area. This provides the
most aesthetic solution because there are no open ditches but
it does have other difficult problems. The initial capital cost
is double that of option 1 and, the cost of operation is very
high due to the need for very large pumping capacity. B.C. Bydro's
rates for supplying power to the needed pumps are based on the*
power demand rather than on thé actual use so that the power
costs are very high even iff the pumps only go on cnce a year.
A further disadvantage of this solution is that the pipes and
pumps are only capable of handling a one in ten-year storm.
Any storm larger such as the storm that we had in December would
cause flooding of the industrial properties,

3a, This is a variation of number 3 in which the run-
off from the pipes on Broadway and Coast Meridian is discharged
into a ditch and holding pond situated on City-owned land in the
Harbour Street area, The use of the holding pond eliminates the
need for the high pumping capacity and therefore greatly reduces
the capita] and Operating costs. Right~-of-way costs for the
holding pond have been valued at half the value of the right-of~-
way required in the other options because a pertion of this
property is under B.C. Hydro transmission lines. This option
is about half a million dollars more expensive than option 1 but
might deserve further consideration due to its elimination of
most of the ditch system. The effects of flooding during a
storm greater than one in ten years also needs to be further
examined.

fhe joint Committees recommended that Council confirm

its approval of option Iyn order that development cost charges
‘can be set and detailed design can commence. However, the
Committees did not have the benefit of the detailed cost comparison
shown in Table I and therefore may wish to recommend only that
development cost charges ba set on the basis af option Ll but that
both options l and 3a ba developed to a detailed design prior to

a decision being made.

[30005