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