THE CORPORATION OF THE City OF PORT COQUITLAM
MEMORANDUM C 0 U NV C | [

JAN 14 1989
Mayor and Council January 10,1980

F.E. Peters,
City Engineer

Re: Off-site Drainage Requirements for C.P.R.

In further discussion with the Mayor and Council about
the resolution passed last week that the $80,000 contribution
would not apply to large scale developments at the west end of
the C.P.R. Yard, I find that my explanation of the problem was
not very clear and that Council may not have understood the
reasoning behind the resolution.

There is no inherent objection to draining the whole of
the C.P.R. Yard to the ditch at the east end and from there
into the Dominion pumping station. The entire land area of
the C.P.R. Yard has been included in the calculations for
runoff at this pumping station. The problem occurs if, for
some reason, it should prove to be more attractive to the C.F.R.
to drain their proposed commercial development westwards to the,
Coquitlam River instead of through the length of their yard to
the eastern end. Unless we make some restriction, the conditions
in Mr. MacCauley's letter imply that we will pick up their

drainage at whatever point they wish to dispose of it and that
they would have no further off site costs. Obviously, if we had
to pick up water from their shopping center at Shaughnessy
Street and carry it to the Coquitlam River it would cost usa
considerable extra amount of money and the $80,000 contribution
towards the Dominion pumping station would not cover this cost.

In order to not jeopardize the $80,900 contribution from
C.P.R., perhaps the resolution from Council could be reworded
to say "that the conditions in Mr. MacCauley's letter of
December 17th, 1979 be approved with the understanding that
they apply only if all drainage is carried to the eastern end
of the C.P.R. property and discharged into the Dominion Avenue
drainage system". If Council is prepared to recind the previous
resolution and to adopt the above resolution, I don't believe
that there would be any problem in Gealing with the C.P.R. since
the above understanding is the same as was discussed in our
previous meeting with the C.P.R.. I would then be in a position
to reply to Mr. MacCauley's letter.

City Engincer