Tonight's meeting at Straiton Hall regarding the Sumas Mountain Environmental Management Study/Plan was well attended, with approximately 90 people turning out. The City was well represented too --- the Mayor and 5 council members (Henry Braun, Bill MacGregor, Patricia Ross, Simon Gibson, and Les Barkman) were there, as was the City manager (Frank Pizzuto) and several other staff including Jay Teichroeb, Jim Gordon, Rod Shead, Tanya Bettles, Mark Neill, and several others, to answer questions. There were about 15 people who got up to ask questions.

Some quick points:

• We were under the impression from the previous meeting (see Highlights of the July 31st Straiton Hall meeting) that the wildlife corridors and buffers were supposed to have been gutted from the study, but now we're not so sure --- the buffers have apparently been removed but the corridors are still there, depending on which map you look at. Confusing to many of us.
  
  
• The phrase "species at risk" is vague, and the City had difficulty explaining what it actually means, partly because there is conflicting (or absent) federal and provincial legislation. As a result, the phrase is partly defined by interest groups or quasi-governmental bodies (like BC's CDC), leaving most of us baffled as to the real significance of what "at risk" really means. The City acknowledged that their data regarding "species at risk" on Sumas Mountain "isn't that great".
  
  
• The term "biodiversity hotspot" is frequently used to describe Sumas Mountain, and while it sounds important (and is clearly meant to) no one is able to delineate what it actually means. More confusion. Until someone can define it maybe the City could please stop using the term.
  
  
• Is the biological significance of the flora and fauna of Sumas Mountain really that unique, or is it being overstated? Many of us who have lived here for years are skeptical of the claims being made.
  
  
• Realizing the "species at risk" data is of questionable quality, the City says it will more likely be focusing on trying to preserve what it considers to be high-quality ecosystem areas. But no one is saying how that will play out or whose properties will be most affected.
  
  
• The City envisions corridors (possibly through peoples' private properties) which connect the two flanks of parkland (west flank and south/east flank) on the mountain. Exactly where the corridors would go is still up in the air. The Sumas Mountain Rural Property Owners Association does not support this concept of corridors, except if they were to be focused on the north side of the mountain on existing crown lands/publicly owned lands. Private property owners should not be expected to shoulder this burden.
  
  
• The City says that none of the proposed corridors, primary and secondary core areas, etc, will be taken into account by City staff when they are processing development applications, building permits and the like --- at least for now. But, if the corridors and core areas in the Study/Plan get incorporated into the revised Official Community Plan (OCP) for Sumas Mountain (expected in 2013), then most assuredly they would be taken into account and would therefore affect private property owners. Translation: be vigilant and alert, because this Plan/Study will (within the coming months) become a component of the OCP, at which point it becomes much more difficult to fight.
  
  
• Even so, the Streamside Protection Bylaw (SPB) already allows the City to have sweeping power over what you can and can't do with your land. City staff has used provincial legislation (the Streamside Protection Regulation) to empower themselves to go way beyond what the Province requires. Based on the number of blue lines they've drawn on Sumas Mountain (denoting "streams") you'd think the mountain was covered in water. Referring to seasonal runoffs, ditches, occasional groundwater and mud puddles as "streams" makes no sense, yet under the City's current SPB landowners are not allowed to disturb the soil anywhere near these "streams" --- regardless of how unimportant they might be. In fact, you can't put up a simple fence (their own words). To comply with their laws, you'd need to apply to the City to ask permission to put your fence up, have an expert review the "streams" and have the City's review panel make a decision on a setback variance approval. Time consuming, expensive, irritating, and a poor way to manage the City's limited resources. And yes, fences are included in the City's definition of "development" (again, their words).
  
  
• Our Freedom of Information request to the City of June 6th is still pending (see previous post City delays release of certain SMEMP/Study documents until October 3rd). As a result, we've requested the City delay the community-wide SMEMP/Study meeting they've scheduled for this September 20th, and hold another (third) meeting at Straiton Hall for mountain residents once we've got the FOI documents we've requested and had at least two weeks to digest them and put them on the website for others to review. Nevertheless, in response to our request, the City indicated that it is too late to cancel the community-wide meeting, but that it is willing to call another meeting for mountain residents after we get (and process) the FOI material. The meeting tonight was civil and courteous. But we must understand, private property rights are at stake.

The community-wide meeting on the Plan/Study is being held on September 20th at the Matsqui Rec Centre Seniors Centre at 5pm

The next meeting specifically for Sumas Mountain residents is being hosted by the City at Straiton Hall on October 24th --- this meeting will have as its focus things like gravel pits and any other issues which residents feel need to be discussed. Please make plans to attend.

Stay tuned. We hope to be in receipt of the FOI documentation within a few weeks. We intend to post it on the website so property owners can read it for themselves, and decide what they're going to do with it.